No, I don't. I haven't seen any other social media site where some posts are prioritized over others depending on how much the poster pays, unless it's labeled as an ad. Or maybe a dating website? I haven't used one of those.Do you really think that model is not coming to Mastadon and BlueSky? They have to make money at some point and they certainly are not doing it now. Same tried and true business plan as the other tech companies who do not make anything. Give it away with as little noise (ads) as possible. When there is traction start pushing more noise and accepting money for better exposure. I would guess they are paying some people to use their service (endorse) so the whole experience is a bunch of nothing.
So you can't say it's a good thing, you are just deflecting to whataboutism? I never defended the Pre-Musk system of blue check marks.Million times better than prioritizing based on who the moderators agreed with, and worst of all, censoring people who they disagreed with. Especially when the moderators all had the same opinions.
Atleast now anyone is free to pay the same equal fee. And importantly, the blue tick does not bump up individual posts. It only bumps up replies. Earlier it was the same, just that the blue tick was reserved for celebrities a small set of moderators deemed important. Now’s it’s open to all who likes to actively participate in the forum.
Outside of blue tick, paying to get prioritized is called advertising and Twitter always did it.
People who are used to censoring the opposing opinions are now mad. And I get it.
There is still censorship of legal speech on Twitter. It's just different.
Surely, prioritizing reply order based on who is paying is also shifting conversations—especially if the people who pay are disproportionately on one side of an issue—isn't an optimal way to have open conversations?