Interesting moves. Waiting to see if other media platforms like Twitch, YouTube, etc. are eventually added and much/most non-natively created content is banned.

It's currently speculated that Musk's ultimate goal is to set up Twitter as an all encompassing platform that exists to the exclusion of all other external media.

Reeks of small *****

So when a lawtuber tweets out his/her live stream of a trial on Youtube or rumble, is that a violation?

Isn't that already Facebook. Facebook has pictures, status updates, and Reels. That's Twitter, Instagram, and TikTok all in one. Facebook is only missing Twitter Spaces which it could easily do.

Seems like that would be standard practice. Does TexAgs allow you to promote 24x7 links?

Rydyn said:

---

Seems like that would be standard practice. Does TexAgs allow you to promote 24x7 links?

---

Twitter is different though. It doesn't pay content creators and doesn't have tools for content creators. If Twitter had video like YouTube then that would make sense.

Elon is going about this the wrong way. For people that have large followings on Twitter, that is very valuable to them. They are getting to promote their brands for free. Twitter should continue to allow them to do that, but charge them for it. People pay so much for subscribers they'll pay Twitter to keep access to their followers.

C@LAg said:

---

"it is a private platform. it can do whatever it wants.

You want links, build your own platform."

- libs

---

Why is this a liberal position? It should be the default position of people that like freedom.

C@LAg said:

---

this is dumb.

if other sites retaliate, Twitter is dead in the water. For good.

Worst $45BB spent ever, outside of govt waste.

---

Is your horse dead yet? You seem to be really focused on this one thing?

And to the OP, and a few posters… Twitter is the defacto "I want to get my message out" platform. Facebook is for friends, Twitter is for the World. The two don't compare.

aggiehawg said:

---

So when a lawtuber tweets out his/her live stream of a trial on Youtube or rumble, is that a violation?

---

Could be in the future once Twitter establishes a framework for native content creation. If you want a Twitter audience to see it then you have to stream from Twitter.

People currently tweeting that posted links to other external content not mentioned in the new rule are failing. Haven't been able to verify.

It's also possible that this is Musk doing his usual thing and testing for reaction and feedback, and will modify his approach based on response. We'll see.

Dan Scott said:

---

Elon is going about this the wrong way. For people that have large followings on Twitter, that is very valuable to them. They are getting to promote their brands for free. Twitter should continue to allow them to do that, but charge them for it. People pay so much for subscribers they'll pay Twitter to keep access to their followers.

---

All other platforms charge big money when the "creators" get paid.

Twitter needs to get a similar payday and Elon seems to know his best way to get there.

Dan Scott said:

---

Elon is going about this the wrong way. For people that have large followings on Twitter, that is very valuable to them. They are getting to promote their brands for free. Twitter should continue to allow them to do that, but charge them for it. People pay so much for subscribers they'll pay Twitter to keep access to their followers.

---

I agree. This is a case of where Elon appears to be making a mistake. One impression got is to date, alot of social media kind of supports one another because of the linking phenomena. Though technically `diluting' I believe the exposure gained outweighs any lost from whatever an exclusivity would bring. Exclusivity can suppress interest.

If anyone can figure it out it is him, but I do not think there is a way to make twitter very profitable.

He paid $40b for a single digit billion dollar asset that costs a couple million a day to run.

And you act as if YouTube and Facebook are his friends and can't be replicated. See MySpace. Elon can put both out of business with one all encompassing platform - faster than the opposite coming true.

C@LAg said:

---

"it is a private platform. it can do whatever it wants.

You want links, build your own platform."

- libs

---

Yep.

People, naively or stupidly, seem to think private companies need to follow their customer's personal "rules".

They don't. They never have and never will.

The right hated it for nearly two years when Twitter did things they didn't think they should and now the left is feeling the same way. The only constant is that Twitter is a private company doing what it wants because that's how the ones at the top want to run it.

Eventually, Elon will run out of "gotcha's" that get the right excited and get him the traffic he wants to show his investors that he's got the place going in the right direction, and Twitter will go back to pre-Trump levels of excitement/rage/blandness. Then again, next time he wants to get the place jumping, he might do something that gets the right pissed off at the platform again so that the left will drive up the traffic. And so it goes because at the end of the day Twitter is about making money, and any reason for an uptick in action (positive or negative), like news, is good for business.

Regardless, at the end of the day, Twitter is going to be doing whatever it wants because it doesn't belong to the people on it and it doesn't owe them anything.

Dan Scott said:

---

Rydyn said:

---

Seems like that would be standard practice. Does TexAgs allow you to promote 24x7 links?

---

Twitter is different though. It doesn't pay content creators and doesn't have tools for content creators. If Twitter had video like YouTube then that would make sense.

---

No, Dan. This isn't about the video hosting. This is about the direct competition of a user on twitter pushing people to visit him instead on a different social media site.

titan said:

---

Dan Scott said:

---

Elon is going about this the wrong way. For people that have large followings on Twitter, that is very valuable to them. They are getting to promote their brands for free. Twitter should continue to allow them to do that, but charge them for it. People pay so much for subscribers they'll pay Twitter to keep access to their followers.

---

I agree. This is a case of where Elon appears to be making a mistake. One impression got is to date, alot of social media kind of supports one another because of the linking phenomena. Though technically `diluting' I believe the exposure gained outweighs any lost from whatever an exclusivity would bring. Exclusivity can suppress interest.

---

Everyone has called Elons moves a mistake his entire life. Tesla was going to bust, no startup car company could compete. SpaceX same thing; also, impossible to recycle and self land rockets. He's a genius, this isn't any different. Sit back and watch

Rydyn said:

---

Seems like that would be standard practice. Does TexAgs allow you to promote 24x7 links?

---

TexAgs does indeed allow you to post links to, for example, recruiting profiles on other sites, articles from other sports publications, etc. What they don't allow is, for example, for you post paid premium content from other recruiting sites.

Admiral Adama said:

---

C@LAg said:

---

"it is a private platform. it can do whatever it wants.

You want links, build your own platform."

- libs

---

Why is this a liberal position? It should be the default position of people that like freedom.

---

...because that is EXACTLY what they [libs] said when conservatives were getting banned for their opinions on Twitter.

Rossticus said:

---

Rydyn said:

---

Seems like that would be standard practice. Does TexAgs allow you to promote 24x7 links?

---

TexAgs does indeed allow you to post links to, for example, recruiting profiles on other sites, articles from other sports publications, etc. What they don't allow is, for example, for you post paid premium content from other recruiting sites.

---

Maybe, but there is a reason for "TOS"....

Rydyn said:

---

Dan Scott said:

---

Rydyn said:

---

Seems like that would be standard practice. Does TexAgs allow you to promote 24x7 links?

---

Twitter is different though. It doesn't pay content creators and doesn't have tools for content creators. If Twitter had video like YouTube then that would make sense.

---

No, Dan. This isn't about the video hosting. This is about the direct competition of a user on twitter pushing people to visit him instead on a different social media site.

---

Right but currently each social media platform is used for different purposes. Each of them in theory can accomplish the same thing but each are better at specific things. Facebook is closest to all in one right now. If Twitter wants to be all in one that makes sense but right now it doesn't.

I get a real kick out of so many thinking Twitter is gonna fail
Just because Elon bought it and is changing things up. I think the change is what's bothering you. Give it some time. And sorry the dem megaphone is gone.

titan said:

---

Dan Scott said:

---

Elon is going about this the wrong way. For people that have large followings on Twitter, that is very valuable to them. They are getting to promote their brands for free. Twitter should continue to allow them to do that, but charge them for it. People pay so much for subscribers they'll pay Twitter to keep access to their followers.

---

I agree. This is a case of where Elon appears to be making a mistake. One impression got is to date, alot of social media kind of supports one another because of the linking phenomena. Though technically `diluting' I believe the exposure gained outweighs any lost from whatever an exclusivity would bring. Exclusivity can suppress interest.

---

Since I watch so many lawtubers, like Rekieta, Branca, Emily D. Baker, Legal Vices, etc. They use twitter to announce their live streams and link to them, whether on Youtbe, rumble or Odyssey. But these people are content creators and not only have sponsors they also get monetized with subscriptions to their channel.

Rekieta, for example, just signed a deal with rumble last week. He still will do trial streams on all platforms but his nightly late show starts off on Youtube and then he has his followers finish the stream on rumble exclusively.

During the Amber Heard/Johnny Depp trial, Emily D. Baker made over $700,000 just on her subscriptions and superchats.

Rockdoc said:

---

I get a real kick out of so many thinking Twitter is gonna fail
Just because Elon bought it and is changing things up. I think the change is what's bothering you. Give it some time. And sorry the dem megaphone is gone.

---

I'm just posting because I find Elon's moves interesting as he moves to reshape Twitter into something altogether different and I know some here like to follow it as well.

I'm certainly not sad about it no longer being a lib tool and won't be bothered one way or the other regardless of what he does or what happens.

It's just entertaining to watch unfold.

It is very entertaining for sure.

Rydyn said:

---

Rossticus said:

---

Rydyn said:

---

Seems like that would be standard practice. Does TexAgs allow you to promote 24x7 links?

---

TexAgs does indeed allow you to post links to, for example, recruiting profiles on other sites, articles from other sports publications, etc. What they don't allow is, for example, for you post paid premium content from other recruiting sites.

---

Maybe, but there is a reason for "TOS"....

---

Yep. Usually when "TOS" is invoked it's because someone is referring to information gleaned from competing paid premium content.

aggiehawg said:

---

titan said:

---

Dan Scott said:

---

Elon is going about this the wrong way. For people that have large followings on Twitter, that is very valuable to them. They are getting to promote their brands for free. Twitter should continue to allow them to do that, but charge them for it. People pay so much for subscribers they'll pay Twitter to keep access to their followers.

---

I agree. This is a case of where Elon appears to be making a mistake. One impression got is to date, alot of social media kind of supports one another because of the linking phenomena. Though technically `diluting' I believe the exposure gained outweighs any lost from whatever an exclusivity would bring. Exclusivity can suppress interest.

---

Since I watch so many lawtubers, like Rekieta, Branca, Emily D. Baker, Legal Vices, etc. They use twitter to announce their live streams and link to them, whether on Youtbe, rumble or Odyssey. But these people are content creators and not only have sponsors they also get monetized with subscriptions to their channel.

Rekieta, for example, just signed a deal with rumble last week. He still will do trial streams on all platforms but his nightly late show starts off on Youtube and then he has his followers finish the stream on rumble exclusively.

During the Amber Heard/Johnny Depp trial, Emily D. Baker made over $700,000 just on her subscriptions and superchats.

---

It will force these content creators to pay to link outside. If YouTube makes money off of traffic, so should Twitter driving traffic to their site. I think there are two options. Either YouTube gives twitter a cut or the money is made directly with the content creator. My guess is this brings YouTube to the table to give up a cut.

They probably come up with an opt in agreement where the creator gives up a portion but YouTube settles it directly with Twitter.

Elon is also forgetting what makes Twitter good. He's too focused on the free speech side hes forgetting what actually drives traffic. It's real time updates on an event and a pseudo celebrity posting. People don't really care about what Clark down street has to say about the game but would like to see Jerry Jones or anybody random celebrity tweet about it and tweet back. He should make that side of it better.

Really Elon show call Texags and talk to Brandon. It's a nice setup here. You got tiered pricing for extra features and Texags promotes Aggie celebrities. They drive traffic which drives advertising dollars.

Dan Scott said:

---

Elon is also forgetting what makes Twitter good. He's too focused on the free speech side hes forgetting what actually drives traffic. It's real time updates on an event and a pseudo celebrity posting. People don't really care about what Clark down street has to say about the game but would like to see Jerry Jones or anybody random celebrity tweet about it and tweet back. He should make that side of it better.

Really Elon show call Texags and talk to Brandon. It's a nice setup here. You got tiered pricing for extra features and Texags promotes Aggie celebrities. They drive traffic which drives advertising dollars.

---

If someone non stop promoted another brand that person would be banned on TexAgs

Quote:

---

It will force these content creators to pay to link outside. If YouTube makes money off of traffic, so should Twitter driving traffic to their site. I think there are two options. Either YouTube gives twitter a cut or the money is made directly with the content creator. My guess is this brings YouTube to the table to give up a cut.

---

That makes sense, I guess.

Premium said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

titan said:

---

Dan Scott said:

---

Elon is going about this the wrong way. For people that have large followings on Twitter, that is very valuable to them. They are getting to promote their brands for free. Twitter should continue to allow them to do that, but charge them for it. People pay so much for subscribers they'll pay Twitter to keep access to their followers.

---

I agree. This is a case of where Elon appears to be making a mistake. One impression got is to date, alot of social media kind of supports one another because of the linking phenomena. Though technically `diluting' I believe the exposure gained outweighs any lost from whatever an exclusivity would bring. Exclusivity can suppress interest.

---

Since I watch so many lawtubers, like Rekieta, Branca, Emily D. Baker, Legal Vices, etc. They use twitter to announce their live streams and link to them, whether on Youtbe, rumble or Odyssey. But these people are content creators and not only have sponsors they also get monetized with subscriptions to their channel.

Rekieta, for example, just signed a deal with rumble last week. He still will do trial streams on all platforms but his nightly late show starts off on Youtube and then he has his followers finish the stream on rumble exclusively.

During the Amber Heard/Johnny Depp trial, Emily D. Baker made over $700,000 just on her subscriptions and superchats.

---

It will force these content creators to pay to link outside. If YouTube makes money off of traffic, so should Twitter driving traffic to their site. I think there are two options. Either YouTube gives twitter a cut or the money is made directly with the content creator. My guess is this brings YouTube to the table to give up a cut.

They probably come up with an opt in agreement where the creator gives up a portion but YouTube settles it directly with Twitter.

---

I could see that. YouTube relies on traffic for money and currently getting a free ride from sites that link a YouTube video. YouTube can pay a fee to Twitter to allow links to remain. I'm sure Twitter has a way to track youtube links posted and number of clicks.