Why Elon Musk's move to charge for using X may be a good, disruptive thing
Elon Musk formally purchased Twitter for an eye-watering $44 billion. Since then, he has removed the old guard, changed the name of the corporation to X Corp, relaxed certain content moderation rules to ostensibly make it a more equitably vocal public square, and introduced a premium membership called X Blue for about $8 a month that enables subscribers to write longer posts and garner greater visibility.
It is uncertain if Musk made those decisions in haste.
What is certain is that none of these initiatives has had a significant impact on X Corp's fortunes. Something more disruptive is required.
Musk, obviously, agrees.
He recently exclaimed that he intends to charge X Corp's global base — of more than 400 million users — a monthly fee. His stated reason is not entirely without merit: that it will help him to identify and mitigate fake accounts and bots, thus restricting malicious and misleading content on X.
An internet bot is little more than a software application that can run automated tasks online in order to mimic human activity.
Musk's contention is that while bots cost pennies to produce, they are inordinately expensive and difficult to control. Therefore, by charging even a small sum in lieu of a verification charge, it may be possible to mount what he calls 'the only defence against vast armies of bots'.
But is this plausible? Not really.
The classic Asch experiment on group conformity reveals that individuals are vulnerable to ideas that are endorsed by large numbers of people, even strangers.
