this post was submitted on 26 Jul 2023
772 points (91.6% liked)

Technology

59590 readers
4795 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Starting August 7th, advertisers that haven’t reached certain spending thresholds will lose their official brand account verification. According to emails obtained by the WSJ, brands need to have spent at least $1,000 on ads within the prior 30 days or $6,000 in the previous 180 days to retain the gold checkmark identifying that the account belongs to a verified brand.

...

Threatening to remove verified checkmarks is a risky move given how many ‘Twitter alternative’ services like Threads and Bluesky are cropping up and how willing consumers appear to be to jump ship, with Threads rocketing to 100 million registrations in just five days. That said, it’s not like other efforts to drum up some additional cash, like increasing API pricing, have gone down especially well, either. It’s a bold strategy, Cotton — let’s see if it pays off for him.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Bdtrngl@lemmy.world 35 points 1 year ago (3 children)

What a shame he was born in South Africa and isn't eligible.

[–] whiskeypickle@lemmy.ml 24 points 1 year ago (1 children)

for some reason, i don't think that would stop him from trying anyway and then throwing a tantrum for being ineligible.

[–] orclev@lemmy.world 20 points 1 year ago (3 children)

I'm not convinced the GOP wouldn't nominate him, and that the current SCOTUS wouldn't rule he was eligible to run.

[–] Mirshe@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago

Yeah, I get the feeling that he'd get nominated anyway and the stance would be "well we can't do the whole election over again, so let them run".

[–] mightyfoolish@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

They would probably just yell out something about Obama and then simply declare him the president.

Edit: Someone already said this 6 hours ago. Even other people see this ridiculous situation as totally possible.

[–] Saneless@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago

"He's an African American and apparently that was ok once, why not now?"

[–] DrQuint@lemmy.world 9 points 1 year ago

I'm sure the Republicans would just come out of the woodwork and ask "Oh, but what about Obama, how come he can run for POTUS then?". Which is, of course, something I already seen someone ask. Wasn't even some old person from "different times" or whatever, this person genuinely just had no justifiable reason to be this racist.

[–] sci@feddit.nl 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

What if the US annexes SA, would he be eligible?

[–] angstylittlecatboy@reddthat.com 1 points 1 year ago (2 children)

why would the US annex SA

why would the US have the opportunity to annex SA even

[–] sci@feddit.nl 1 points 1 year ago

doesnt SA have oil?

[–] Gork@lemm.ee -1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

To get access to Lesotho. That fully enclaved country has been protected long enough by South Africa and it's time to let 🦅 Freedom™ 🇺🇲 ring.

Next is Luxembourg and Vatican City. Pope better watch out for Uncle Sam.

[–] SkaveRat@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 1 year ago

Look, the US has far higher priorities than those small countries

They really should take on Liechtenstein once and for all