nuff said

  • traveler01@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Honestly my wild guess is that he’s trying to make Twitter profitable from subscription based services and not so much from ad revenue.

    Can’t really have free speech if platform depends on advertisers and investors.

    • AChiTenshi@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      1 year ago

      Perhaps. But a rather large issue arises when your content is generated primarily by users who wouldn’t want to pay for a service.

      There is also the issue where if you are having to pay to get around interaction limits is it really free speech? Or just limited to those that can afford to pay?

      • traveler01@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        I think these limits were increased to a point where they are not really bad or they were removed. The point of them was to prevent scraping to train AIs

          • Uniquitous@lemmy.one
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            I’d argue it’s a poisoned dataset. You can’t validly train an AI based on content that contains a non-trivial percentage of bot-generated content.