Understanding Super Follows

Recently, Twitter introduced its controversial premium feature, Super Follows, which divides users into those who can access exclusive tweets and those who cannot. This approach, aimed at revitalizing Twitter’s ecosystem by monetizing individual tweets and related media, is arguably one of the platform's most misguided initiatives.

The concept behind Super Follows is to create a transactional environment where tweets can hold identifiable monetary value, similar to assets on a balance sheet. Users paying for Super Follows may gain access to exclusive content like private media, art, videos, music, and even concert experiences—akin to a platform like OnlyFans, but within the Twitter framework. However, this model primarily benefits a limited number of Twitter influencers who possess unique content and a substantial follower base. For the majority of users, the challenge lies in transforming their existing tweet content into something profitable.

In response to the announcement of Super Follows, I shared a humorous take on who might actually be willing to pay for tweets. I even crafted a fictional rate sheet detailing how much I might charge for specific types of Twitter content. However, I have no intention of alienating any potential paying followers. This stems from my desire to respect the community that has chosen to follow me for my unique style, quality information, and occasional humor.

Furthermore, a pragmatic perspective informs my stance. Out of my 94,000 followers, only a small fraction are likely real individuals, and an even smaller number would consider paying for my brief tweets, which typically range from 140 to 280 characters.

The idea that those who do not pay are somehow less "super" is troubling. Introducing a premium layer to a platform that thrives on social interaction feels fundamentally flawed. After all, do we pay for friendships or to maintain our social connections? One of Twitter’s most valuable aspects is the ability to forge connections with others. Introducing a financial element risks undermining this.

While I acknowledge that tweets can be significant content, it is the open and easily accessible nature of Twitter that has always made it appealing. Should a significant portion of this content become locked behind a paywall, the remaining free content may be less engaging, informative, or entertaining.

Twitter’s strategy encourages creators to produce additional content, but how many will actually do so? Some will, undoubtedly, but many may opt to restrict a large portion of their output behind a paywall.

To provide real value, premium Twitter would need to offer much more than just tweets—it's essential to deliver a comprehensive experience that justifies the cost. Although I support Twitter's efforts to enhance its offerings and am pleased they now own my preferred newsletter platform, I cannot endorse Super Follows. I worry that this initiative could lead to significant, perhaps irreversible, harm to the platform I cherish.

So, let me make this clear: I will not participate in this new Twitter initiative, and I promise I will never charge you for my tweets. Probably.