Some transparency here would be good.<p>The report here feels alarming & unsurprising to many. Giving Andrew Tate or something antagonistic & divisive like End Wokeness a many thousands of dollars payout seems absurd. We don't have much sense of whether there is some reciprocal balanced payout elsewhere, but I have some doubts.<p>It's clear there's lots of very good amazing active informative smart people with huge audiences who seem to get nothing. So it feels like there's very specific kinds of attention Twitter is rewarding people for here, and it feels concerning that it might only be aggressive personalities that get benefit.
1. to get paid on twitter you need to subscribe to the $8/mo checkmark<p>2. most people currently subscribed are musk fans (likely right wing)<p>Consequence: most people who get paid today are right-wing. But if big accounts from the left came back and subscribed to the $8/mo checkmark, they would get paid too.
Meanwhile on twitter today there are plenty of right-wing people (even in like top 50 twitter accounts like Catturd) complaining of no pay-out and that this is evidence the system is still strongly tilted to favoring the left.<p>Two movies, one screen.<p>I was reading an article this morning talking about twitter being an indignation machine, but I think that summarizes the mainstream press as well - it's largest impact, acknowledging some good, is to inspire indignation in its consumers. Not a very healthy system in any case or from any side of the aisle.