Is Elon Musk's Proposed "Small Fee" for Twitter a Game-Changer or a Gamble?

In a digital landscape where most social media platforms are free to access, Elon Musk's recent announcement about charging users for Twitter has stirred the pot quite substantially. The Tesla and SpaceX founder revealed his plans during a live-streamed conversation with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. While some argue that this bold move could combat the "vast armies of bots," others express concerns that it could be Twitter's undoing. Let's delve into the details and weigh the pros and cons.

The Genesis of the Idea

During his chat with Netanyahu, Musk disclosed that he's mulling over introducing a "small monthly payment" for Twitter users. His rationale? It would escalate the operational costs for bots and make it impractical for them to spam the platform. On the surface, it appears like a sound strategy to enhance the platform's integrity, but is it?

A Closer Look at the Figures

According to expert analyses, a mere 827,000 of Twitter's 540 million monthly users have subscribed to the platform's current paid service. These numbers pose an unavoidable question: Will users be willing to pay for something they have long enjoyed for free? The stats don't seem promising, but then again, Musk has defied odds before.

Public Sentiment: Mixed Reviews

Social media is buzzing with differing viewpoints on this controversial decision. "I'd sooner pay for oxygen than for this app," stated one user, echoing a sentiment that many seem to share. Yet others argue that a nominal fee could enhance the quality of interactions on the platform. Some even jest that they would willingly pay if Musk hands over control to Dolly Parton and terminates his own account.

The Bot Question: Solved or Not?

While Musk believes a small fee would deter bots, critics argue that many spam accounts already incur expenses to stay operational. Charging a fee may not necessarily eliminate the bot problem but could discourage genuine users from engaging with the platform.

Financial Implications

Twitter, under Musk's ownership, hasn't exactly been a money-making machine. Could this "small fee" be the financial adrenaline shot the platform needs? Or could it drive users away, exacerbating the platform's financial woes?

Conclusion: A Paradigm Shift or a Folly?

Elon Musk has never been one to shy away from shaking up established norms. But is a "small fee" the innovative solution Twitter needs, or could it be

Another Facebook Data Breach confirmed today (4th April 2019) - 540 million Facebook user data points leaked by third parties

Over 540 million Facebook user data records were compromised after third-party apps and sites stored the data on unsecured servers. The huge breach comes after numerous promises by Facebook to boost security, and it may prove to be one of the most dangerous yet. Find out why.

• Two third-party Facebook app developers – Mexico-based Cultura Colectiva and an app called At The Pool – stored a total of about 540 million Facebook user data entries on unsecured Amazon Web Services (AWS) servers.
• The data stored by Cultura Colectiva included more than 540 million “comments, likes, reactions, account names, FB IDs and more” from Facebook users. This data may seem innocuous, but a hacker or scammer could use it to defraud thousands of users.
• Far less data was stored by At The Pool, but their data may have been more dangerous. In addition to their names, email addresses, and other Facebook data, the data included 22,000 plaintext passwords. The researchers assume that these passwords were used for the app, not Facebook. However, anyone using the same password for their other accounts would be at high risk.
• At The Pool’s website has apparently been defunct since 2014. It is therefore likely that the data has been left unsecured at least since then.

The cherry on top: UpGuard, the cybersecurity firm that found and reported the breach, said that even closing the breach was an ordeal. One would hope that companies would respond quickly to protect their users’ data, but this was not the case. Here’s a timeline:

• “Our first notification email went out to Cultura Colectiva on January 10th, 2019. The second email to them went out on January 14th. To this day there has been no response.”
• “We then notified Amazon Web Services of the situation on January 28th. AWS sent a response on February 1st informing us that the bucket’s owner was made aware of the exposure.”
• “When February 21st rolled around and the data was still not secured, we again sent an email to Amazon Web Services.”
• “It was not until the morning of April 3rd, 2019, after Facebook was contacted by Bloomberg for comment, that the database backup […] was finally secured.”

It took almost 3 months for Cultura Colectiva to secure its users’ data. At The Pool’s data was secured much more quickly, but this may have simply been a stroke of good fortune. Their data set was taken offline during UpGuard’s investigation and before they sent any notification emails. However, the data had already been left unsecured for about 5 years.