Twitter new owner, Elon Musk has announced introduction of new feature to the bluebird microblogging platform as from next month, May 2023.
Elon Musk, in one of his tweets, revealed that users will now have to pay either monthly or per article in order to read media contents published by the publishers.
Elon Musk said "Rolling out next month, this platform will allow media publishers to charge users on a per article basis with one click.
Although Elon Musk has introduced monthly subscription feature for the publishers, but he said the 'per article subscription' will be available for readers who may only want to pay for an article of their interest. However, he specified that monthly subscription would be cheaper than 'per article subscription'
"This enables users who would not sign up for a monthly subscription to pay a higher per article price for when they want to read an occasional articles. Should be a major win-win for both media orgs & the public," Elon Musk stated further.
There were mixed reactions following the announcement. Some users agreed with the features claiming it is far better than monthly subscription, but many other users disagreed with the new development.
These are some of the reactions:
Sam: This makes far more sense than media charging for monthly subs. It also allows people to absorb a broad range of media opinions, ad hoc, rather than being fed all their content from one or two sources.
Golden Retriever: They will gain revenue.
I won’t subscribe to a single news outlet as I don’t follow just the one but multiples and don’t want to spend $$$$ on all of them but happy to pay for an article I deem interesting.
Freeman: An idea I came up with a long time ago when YouTube was new. Is rather than allowing copyright holders to take all of the revenues from a particular video, give them 50% of the revenues for the period of time that their content appears. I'm really talking about music on youtube. Because think of all the old music which movies from tarantino, Guardians of the Galaxy Etc have brought back to the living for newer generations to enjoy. Rather than an entire video being demonetized because there is some music in the background, or the Creator decided to use music, then simply give the copyright holder 50% of the revenues for the time their music is active. So say I've got a 10 minute video, 1 minute of it contains a copyrighted song. The copyright holder would get 5% of the revenue for that video.
Instead of looking at that as a negative, they can think of this Guerilla Marketing of their music. Keeping their music alive and relevant.
And of course tools could be created so that they can object to their music being in videos they find unacceptable. But ultimately that would be their responsibility.
If You Tube had done that in the early days, I think that would have been better for everyone.
Read full reaction on the tweet on Twitter:
Tag: Elon Musk Twitter tech news
Written by Omooba Alekuwodo (omoobaalekuwodo)
Published 4/30/2023 7:40:23 AM