Closest thing to it would be WhatsApp, which during its early days charged a token sum to access and still managed to gain significant marketshare.

Other than this I don't know - the problem with social media is that you need network effects to make the platform valuable - nobody is going to pay for an empty place, and similarly nobody will join because they'd have to pay (so the platform would need to provide value from day 1).

Twitter is in a unique position when it comes to this - it already has the network effects and a significant userbase including influential people. This is why I'm also very excited about Musk's takeover of it. Do I agree with him about everything? Absolutely not - I think the man is unhinged. Yet, a stupid, ego-driven decision is our only escape from the cancer that is advertising.

> Closest thing to it would be WhatsApp, which during its early days charged a token sum to access and still managed to gain significant marketshare.

This was never really enforced.

Not really? Maybe Patreon or OnlyFans represent the best examples.

But there weren't any real EV companies or private space companies before Elon Musk threw his hat in the ring. Whatever you think of him, he's clearly capable of doing things people previously believed to be impractical.

Taking a first principles approach, there's no reason to believe that a social network used by the most influential companies, people, and governments in the world cannot charge its users directly for the value it provides.

It does seem likely to be less profitable in the short-term but possibly more profitable (and stable) in the long-term.

Some back-of-the-envelope math:

1 million business paying an average of $100/mo is $1.2 billion/yr. That should more than pay the bills.

In addition, 10 million consumers paying an average of $10/mo = $1.2 billion/yr. That's a decent profit.

That is probably achievable in the next couple years, with potential for much more over time if they can expand the product and tools.

The notion that the social network provides value on its own is … weird.

Social networks are valuable because of users. They gain value by attracting large numbers of users.

They have limited inherent value, and the majority have features which are easy enough for rivals to replicate.

The network is the value: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_effect

But what matters beyond the network is how well it can be utilized by users. That layer of tools and functionality on top of the network is where Twitter could charge users. Particularly power users and businesses that can justify spending some money on it because they get so much value or even generate revenue from it.

Twitter was already trying this with Twitter Blue.

It was not wildly successful.

Certainly not successful enough to replace advertising.

As for the network effect … that's the point of "the value comes from the users."

Yeah, Twitter Blue was a very lazy attempt, which proves absolutely nothing about the potential of tools and applications built on the Twitter network. It just proves a lazy attempt won't get great results, which shouldn't be surprising.