> So wouldn't this change to lead to less corporate influence?
It's the adverse selection issue. The people willing to pay for Twitter Blue are the people that were already using Twitter as a "lead-gen" source; so their content was mostly spam disguised as engagement-bait ("Here are the top 10 writing tips from Harvard professors [thread emoji]").
As for bots, I don't frequent the topics that attract them, so the visible bot activity I've seen is limited to the replies section of high-traffic topics (crypto, covid, musk, politics).
Corporate bots tweet messages, while spambots mostly retweet someone else's post.
It's the adverse selection issue. The people willing to pay for Twitter Blue are the people that were already using Twitter as a "lead-gen" source; so their content was mostly spam disguised as engagement-bait ("Here are the top 10 writing tips from Harvard professors [thread emoji]").
As for bots, I don't frequent the topics that attract them, so the visible bot activity I've seen is limited to the replies section of high-traffic topics (crypto, covid, musk, politics).
Corporate bots tweet messages, while spambots mostly retweet someone else's post.