I don’t get all complaining about Twitter moving to a subscription model. Assume it’s mostly Elon bad, so new thing Elon does is bad.

The product will improve if the default experience is you only see subscribers.

There’s a lot of academic research analyzing the fall of social networks that suggests this isn’t the case. 

Forcing a subscription means that the most valuable members of the network will likely leave and create a network effect that leads to more people leaving.

Brand Strategy @ Northern Army | Founding Member @ Bankless Consulting. web3 | strategy | org design

What person with a lot of existing distribution won’t pay $8 a month to keep that?

Anyone who uses twitter for anything other than promotion. There are a lot of celebrities and comedians who use twitter but don’t need to. Take that content away and the signal deteriorates. 

It won’t take much to set this off, and all we’ll be left with is the desperate people who need to pay for reach.

Depends on how big they are, I suppose. I suspect that many of the most active users in that segment view their content as providing value to twitter, and will look at forcing them to pay as an insult. 

When that happens, Twitter might get $8, but now it’s their publicist tweeting. Signal goes down.

> There are a lot of celebrities and comedians who use twitter but don’t need to.

I suspect all of those people try to pretend they don't care about Twitter but the distribution is really valuable for their brand.