My credit card company provides a secondary # specifically for online purchases, and I can log into my account at any time and click a button to invalidate it and generate a new random one in the event I think it’s been compromised.
Not that I plan to, but if I were to sign up with X-Twitter then I’d use one of these #s then immediately cancel it and generate a new one.
Scam bot operators will just use stolen credit cards - or even easier, iTunes gift cards that they get from the victims of their scams - to pay to "prove" that they aren't bot accounts. For the fake followers/interaction bot "services" it increases the cost of operating, but I doubt they spin up a bunch of new accounts for every client - that $1 per account can probably be spread out pretty thin. I don't see this solving the bot problem any more than prioritizing paid account replies did (it didn't work at all for that).
"scam bot operators will just use stolen credits cards -"
And that's not true. Yes, there will be a small portion that do it, but this is where this idea is pretty smart.
Taking your credit card information is a functional hurdle, but also a legal risk.
There's a bunch of companies and people who will stop using bots just because they can't implement it, don't want to implement it, or don't have the time. Also, don't forget if there's one person who provides 10.000 active bots, that means providing credit card information 10.000x times, but also 120.000$ per year. If you wanna do it legally, this shit is expensive, and probably not worth it for a lot of ppl.
And there's also a bunch of ppl who are weighting the risk of being exposed for fake credit cards, and they stop using bots because they are not willing to commit fraud.
I get that this will turn off even more users and it's obviously a bad pr move, but you can't understate that it is quite effective for the things he says he wants to achieve.
I mean that's obviously a turn off for a lot of ppl but I don't think the inherent idea is stupid if they wanna get rid of all of the bots
That's a hard working if. A dollar per year from a majority of Twitter users is a few dollars. I think it's probably about the money.
It's about having CC on file. He wants to create a mega app and needs to be able to charge users to do that. It's that simple.
That is also my take on it. Also once people have added the cc, it’s allot easier to ramp up the costs to let’s say one dollar a month
My credit card company provides a secondary # specifically for online purchases, and I can log into my account at any time and click a button to invalidate it and generate a new random one in the event I think it’s been compromised.
Not that I plan to, but if I were to sign up with X-Twitter then I’d use one of these #s then immediately cancel it and generate a new one.
You're the exception, not the majority. I think we can safely ASSume that 90% of people won't do it. Sad reality…
Scam bot operators will just use stolen credit cards - or even easier, iTunes gift cards that they get from the victims of their scams - to pay to "prove" that they aren't bot accounts. For the fake followers/interaction bot "services" it increases the cost of operating, but I doubt they spin up a bunch of new accounts for every client - that $1 per account can probably be spread out pretty thin. I don't see this solving the bot problem any more than prioritizing paid account replies did (it didn't work at all for that).
"scam bot operators will just use stolen credits cards -"
And that's not true. Yes, there will be a small portion that do it, but this is where this idea is pretty smart.
Taking your credit card information is a functional hurdle, but also a legal risk.
There's a bunch of companies and people who will stop using bots just because they can't implement it, don't want to implement it, or don't have the time. Also, don't forget if there's one person who provides 10.000 active bots, that means providing credit card information 10.000x times, but also 120.000$ per year. If you wanna do it legally, this shit is expensive, and probably not worth it for a lot of ppl.
And there's also a bunch of ppl who are weighting the risk of being exposed for fake credit cards, and they stop using bots because they are not willing to commit fraud.
I get that this will turn off even more users and it's obviously a bad pr move, but you can't understate that it is quite effective for the things he says he wants to achieve.
They're gonna need to hurry up with a worldwide rollout then