Eight euros a month for Twitter – there is no catch

The deal was sealed just under a week ago. Elon Musk has bought the short message service Twitter for a completely overpriced price of 44 billion US dollars. The platform is comparatively small with almost 400 million users, Instagram has more than 1.2 billion users. However, since politicians, activists and journalists in particular – i.e. people with a great sense of mission and little private life – romp about on the platform, what takes place on the platform has a disproportionately large influence on media and, inevitably, also on social debates.

It is with great dismay that these high-reach people are now following what Musk is up to. Because little is more painful than seeing one's own relevance dwindle, including Musk's plan to charge eight US dollars a month for a certain function - the so-called blue tick - in the future. The blue tick, which is now white, has been given by Twitter to 0.1 percent of users to show that the accounts are verified public figures. These can be CEOs, actors, local politicians, journalists, the Pope or Stormy Daniels, porn actress and alleged former affair of ex-US President Donald Trump. In short: a status symbol.

The outcry is huge. Most notably horror author Stephen King, who tweeted: "$20 a month to keep my blue tick? Screw it, they should pay me." Musk responded, "We've got to pay our bills somehow. (...) How about eight dollars?” And Musk is right – and not only from a business point of view. Twitter cannot finance itself through advertising alone.

The reasons for this are complex: The advertising market is volatile. If the economy goes downhill, this has a direct impact on advertising budgets and thus the revenues of the networks. In addition, Twitter is technically behind other platforms such as Facebook or YouTube. The display options for companies to reach potential consumers on the basis of key demographic data or locations are comparatively so coarse-grained that – to put it bluntly – even an advertising pillar would be more suitable.

In addition, Musk wants to make Twitter exactly what many advertisers don't like: a platform for free, unmoderated exchange of opinions. However, companies prefer to advertise in a “safe advertising environment”. What is meant by this are uncontroversial opinions, triviality, positive vibes only. No wonder, then, that sales on the Chinese platform TikTok are increasing year after year. There, an armada of Internet controllers from the Chinese regime not only moderates, but also censors everything to do with topics such as politics, Corona and religion.

Most likely, most of those with a blue tick don't care whether a subscription model for Musk makes economic sense or not. Rather, they often argue that this hook clarifies for everyone to see that it is a real person and thus genuine statements by this person. Just transparency. A credit card that is debited $8 per month will prove that.

But above all, it is suppressed how this dubious award has been obtained so far: Up until about a year ago, you had to track down someone who in turn knew someone on Twitter who could get you this hook. Some agencies offered these services for a high fee. No trace of transparency. It is now possible to use a form on the platform to upload a handful of media reports from or about yourself in addition to your ID card in order to confirm not only your existence but also your own importance. Person alone is not enough. So it's less about a clarified identity. It's about status and thus - that's in the nature of things - distinction and not about transparency.

Of course there are still those for whom a monthly fee may be too expensive and whose clarified identity is actually important: NGOs, activists or some journalists. But that probably doesn't apply as much to Stephen King or German capital journalists.