Let’s Talk About Twitter Verification!

from the exciting-stuff dept

You may recall that, back in April, Elon Musk announced that one of his plans was to “authenticate all real humans” on Twitter. This was his plan to somehow magically get rid of spam. As we noted at the time, doing so would create some pretty serious questions regarding freedom of speech on the platform when it comes to protecting anonymous voices.

Now that Musk officially owns Twitter, and has brought in a bunch of his friends to show the existing team who’s boss now, there were some reports suggesting the first “big” new feature rollout is to charge people for being verified. As with anything like this, these are coming from leaks within the company, so the information is not entirely consistent and is very, very likely subject to changes. But Casey Newton had the story saying that the plan was to only provide the verification badges to people who paid for Twitter’s subscription tier, Twitter Blue, which currently costs $4.99/month. Alex Heath, over at The Verge, had more details, including that Elon is actually toying with charging $20/month for verification.

Also, that the team tasked with rolling out this feature has been given basically a week to roll it out… or be fired.

The directive is to change Twitter Blue, the company’s optional, $4.99 a month subscription that unlocks additional features, into a more expensive subscription that also verifies users, according to people familiar with the matter and internal correspondence seen by The Verge. Twitter is currently planning to charge $19.99 for the new Twitter Blue subscription. Under the current plan, verified users would have 90 days to subscribe or lose their blue checkmark. Employees working on the project were told on Sunday that they need to meet a deadline of November 7th to launch the feature or they will be fired.

For now let’s leave aside the, um, questions raised by demanding such a product (one that involves a lot of people’s private information and payment info…) be designed, built, tested, and rolled out in a week (and what kind of morale deflater it is to have a “do this stupid thing now or we fire you” decree). Instead, let’s talk a little about the Twitter verification process.*

Last year, we had a content moderation case study all about Twitter’s verified blue check system. Why is the verification system about content moderation, you might ask, and the case study more or less reveals the unintended consequences of certain social media design choices.

Originally, the verification badge had nothing to do with content moderation, and nothing to do with “status.” It was a safety tool. Well-known people were running into issues with imposters and scammers pretending to be them, and the solution that Twitter came up with had nothing to do with status or business models. It was about making the platform safer for users so they didn’t get scammed or tricked or misled, and also allowing public figures to feel safer using the platform.

This is what “trust & safety” is about.

The entire point was just to say “this person is who they say they are.” Nothing more. As the case study details, what became trickier about it was that users started to see it not just as a badge of authentication, but also an endorsement by the company, which became a problem when some very horrible people not only had badges (which was reasonable under the purpose of the program), but then started harassing users. Users took that as Twitter “endorsing” the harasser, which started to drive people away from Twitter.

Once again, it became a trust and safety issue, though in a different way.

Partly because of that, Twitter went back to the drawing board to redesign the program, and adjusted its existing policy to say that it might remove the verification badge for “accounts whose behavior does not fall within” acceptable use guidelines.

The company then spent years trying to redesign the verification program, and only opened it last year to a more narrow audience. Even though the company spent years working on it, the relaunch was quickly beset with problems, as a bunch of fake accounts made it through the verification process. Others called out how the new process, which was targeted at journalists, was much more difficult for others (such as activists) who really needed the verification for their own protection.

So, basically, verification is not as simple as people make it out to be, and getting it wrong can have pretty serious consequences (mostly unintended). Yes, taking four years for Twitter to redesign its system seems like way too long. But, doing the whole thing in a week seems much, much riskier.

As for the users, I’m sure that there is some subset for whom it’s worth it to pay, but it seems like a pretty small market, especially at $20/month. Not only that, but making users pay for verification actually decreases its value as a status symbol (for those who believe it’s a status symbol) because now it goes from “Twitter thought I was important” to “I’m dumb enough to waste $240 a year on making myself look important.” And, um, one is better than the other.

That’s not to say there aren’t plenty of interesting ideas that Twitter could come up with for a subscription plan. Some friends I know who already subscribe to Twitter Blue say that it has a lot of useful features. But verification was built for trust & safety purposes, not revenue purposes, and shifting it from one bucket to the other seems like a serious classification error with some potentially big consequences.

It seems like rather than figuring out how best to squeeze money out of people desperate for clout, a better approach would be to create more useful features to make the site better. But, then, what do I know?

* As a disclaimer, I am verified on Twitter. I never asked, nor applied, for it. It just showed up one day. I was fine without it, and see no direct benefit to myself from it, and the only impact it seems to have actually had is that sometimes people who are mad at me make fun of me having a blue check mark as if it makes me think I’m special. It doesn’t. It’s just there. If it goes away, I will not miss it.

Filed Under: , , , , ,
Companies: twitter

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “Let’s Talk About Twitter Verification!”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
93 Comments
That Anonymous Coward (profile) says:

The best part is that many of the ‘faithful’ (read insane Q freaks) will jump at the chance to have a checkmark, remembering that they were denied them before for being to conservative (HA!) and that a checkmark means you get to break the rules screaming at others you dislike.

Eventually its going to hit that critical mass that the MAGA only dating site hit… where its all just angry dudes no one wants to talk to.

Elons people.

PaulT (profile) says:

Re:

“The best part is that many of the ‘faithful’ (read insane Q freaks) will jump at the chance to have a checkmark”

The best part is realising that the checkmark is just ID verification, it’s meant to be “the person on this account is who they claim to be”, to avoid fraud and such. So, it’s more of a benefit to everyone else than it is to the account owner in many ways.

The hard of thinking somehow morphed it into Twitter approving what the accounts said, but it was basic fraud protection in concept. If people leave the platform, the fraud might remain, but it won’t directly affect the person who left, only the people duped by fake accounts that remain. Musk seems to think the best solution here is to get the fraudsters to pay a toll…

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

verification was built for trust & safety purposes, not revenue purposes, and shifting it from one bucket to the other seems like a serious classification error with some potentially big consequences

The first one that comes to mind for me: If being verified via Twitter Blue involves giving up personal information (including a credit card number) to Twitter, that would turn verified accounts into a huge target for anyone trying to hack Twitter and steal information from its servers. Would you trust your credit card info with Elon Musk?

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
That One Guy (profile) says:

Re:

Would you trust your credit card info with Elon Musk?

Oh it’s even better than that. It’s not just trusting Musk with that information, it’s trusting a system put together within a week, run by a company where the boss’ first action was giving the boot to a bunch of experienced people and who as far as I know does not deal with criticism well and so likely wouldn’t respond too kindly should someone try to point out problems with his new and amazing verification system.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Koby (profile) says:

It's Magic

As a disclaimer, I am verified on Twitter. I never asked, nor applied, for it. It just showed up one day. I was fine without it, and see no direct benefit to myself from it, and the only impact it seems to have actually had is that sometimes people who are mad at me make fun of me having a blue check mark as if it makes me think I’m special.

Twitter’s official policy REQUIRES application. If it magically appeared one day, it was because someone behind the scenes operated with bias. The activism inherent in your story demonstrates why the blue checks are an endorsement, and why most folks don’t trust the previous twitter management.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Strawb (profile) says:

Re:

Nice try, Koby, but you are, as always, completely wrong. Here’s Twitter’s FAQ on verified accounts from July 19, 2016:

Twitter verifies accounts on an ongoing basis to make it easier for users to find who they’re looking for. We concentrate on highly sought users in music, acting, fashion, government, politics, religion, journalism, media, sports, business and other key interest areas.

No bias and no activism. Well, unless you count “proactivism” on the side of Twitter to make their platform more useful.

https://web.archive.org/web/20160719090643/https://support.twitter.com/groups/31-twitter-basics/topics/111-features/articles/119135-about-verified-accounts

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2

twitter activists decide the blue checks based on endorsement

@FoxNews has a blue checkmark. Do you think everyone at Twitter agrees with that organization’s speech?

Also, while you’re here…

Yes or no, Koby: Do you believe the government should have the legal right to compel any privately owned interactive web service into hosting legally protected speech that the owners/operators of said service don’t want to host?

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:

You quoted text literally listing their biases: people who are “highly sought”, with even that being biased towards certain fields.

Yes, people highly sought by Twitter’s users. If there are 37 accounts all claiming to be Taylor Swift, and Twitter determines that a bunch of their users want to follow her, wouldn’t it be in Twitter’s interest to take steps independently to determine which of the 37 accounts, if any, is actually Taylor Swift? But then, if there are 37 accounts all claiming to be that “whip-nay-nay” guy, and Twitter determines that nobody is particularly interested in following him, why would they expend their resources to confirm, instead of just waiting for him to apply for the blue check?

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:2

wouldn’t it be in Twitter’s interest to take steps independently to determine which of the 37 accounts, if any, is actually Taylor Swift?

Absolutely, yes. There’s nothing inherently wrong with bias or discrimination, and people should stop pretending there is. Twitter is also biased against spam, trolling, and harassment, and their users find that useful.

Christenson says:

Re: Re: Re:3 On Bias in blue checkmarks...

Whenever there is a selection process that only allows some of something, such as only some tweeps getting blue checkmarks, there’s going to be bias and discrimination. The only question is whether that bias and discrimination is a good thing or not, or what that bias does.

In twitter’s case, had they not been biased towards the popular accounts, and discriminating against hate speech, the userbase would be about 50,000 (see Trump’s truth social) instead of 500 million.

When in Rome, you have to follow Roman law….

PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2

“If there are 37 accounts all claiming to be Taylor Swift, and Twitter determines that a bunch of their users want to follow her, wouldn’t it be in Twitter’s interest to take steps independently to determine which of the 37 accounts, if any, is actually Taylor Swift?”

In the real world, yes. But in the new psycho fantasy projected by Musk and his followers, wouldn’t it be more profitable to charge all 37 people to have the checkmark?

It won’t last long in terms of actual viability, but think of the short-term revenue generated…

Anonymous Coward says:

Re:

Well, fuck me, I’d like that bias to have worked in favor of a bunch of Internet entertainers I watch often enough that it was a FUCKING TWITTER TOPIC when they finally got their verified checkmarks!

Yes, Koby, the damn process is opaque and magic, but as for bias…

Care to tell us what the process is biased towards? Because it sure as fuck isn’t biased towards “ACTUAL INTERNET CELEBRITIES”.

I don’t want to make any fucking assumptions based on your past behavior, see, so out with it.

That One Guy (profile) says:

Re:

The question now is which will happen first: Musk figures out that there are a lot of people who know more about moderation and social media than him and sets aside his ego to let them do the job without him getting in the way, or the company burns to the ground even as Musk continues to insist that he knows better than everyone else how social media platforms should be run.

Christenson says:

Re: Re:

Indications tonight are he’s burning it to the ground first, he’s gonna fire 25-50% of his employees before learning anything about what they did or why, including the sales folks that brought in the $$. Of course, an advertiser might whisper in his ear again, too, so YMMV.

I’m estimating Elon paid exactly 4.20x twitter’s actual value, on the basis that last year’s profits were said to be about$600 million. This is because that $600 million isn’t gonna cover the debt service on the $10,000 million he borrowed to hand twitter’s previous shareholders a huge windfall.

Christenson says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Receipts attached...

Sabroni might be our favorite whipping boy, but he’s not wrong to ask for evidence, so, let me selectively quote from Twitter’s 10-K form for 2021, linked at:
https://investor.twitterinc.com/financial-information/annual-reports/default.aspx

Page 40:
2021 Revenue (money sent to twitter for things twitter did or allowed someone else to do):

Total revenue was $5.08 billion, an increase of 37%, compared to 2020
Advertising revenue totaled $4.51 billion, an increase of 40%, compared to 2020
U.S. revenue totaled $2.84 billion, an increase of 36%, compared to 2020.
Average monetizable daily active usage (mDAU) was 217 million for the three months ended December 31, 2021, an increase of 13% year over year.

Loss from operations was $492.7 million, or 10% of total revenue, in 2021, compared to income from operations of $26.7 million, or 1% of total
revenue, in 2020. Loss from operations in 2021 includes a one-time litigation-related net charge of $765.7 million .

–> ( Looks like they were actually profitable in 2020, and, had trends continued in 2022 without the litigation charge or Elon Musk, they would have earned about $250 million plus whatever their growth came out to be. So, $500 million would not be out of line. )

Here’s the bulk of the litigation charge on page 35:

In addition, in the past, following periods of volatility in the overall market and the market price of a particular company’s securities, securities class
action litigation has often been instituted against these companies. Any securities litigation can result in substantial costs and a diversion of our management’s
attention and resources. We are currently subject to securities litigation and in September 2021, we entered into a binding agreement to settle a shareholder
class action lawsuit. The proposed settlement resolves all claims asserted against us and the other named defendants in the shareholder class action lawsuit
without any liability or wrongdoing attributed to them personally or to us. Under the terms of the proposed settlement, we paid $809.5 million from cash on hand
in the fourth quarter of 2021.

–>( Of general interest (Hi Mike Masnick!), the GPL makes an indirect appearance on page 26. About 2 pages of IP litigation risk discussion.)

urza9814 says:

Industry standard

Eh, while they don’t generally make an actual charge, using credit cards for verification seems to be an industry standard at this point. Just had to do that a couple weeks ago to help verify my mom’s Apple account. Funny thing was it wouldn’t accept her card but gladly took mine! (I have since cancelled that card just to be sure) They seem to just figure that the banks will verify your identity and they can just piggy-back off that. Perhaps the extra $20/mo is for the cost of sorting things out when they get some DIFFERENT Mike Masnick trying to impersonate you!

But yes, trying to implement something like that, especially at Twitter’s scale, in only a week is utterly insane. But what else did you expect from Musk? Probably just looking to create anything vaguely plasible to justify his illegal firings after the lawyers pointed out how many lawsuits he was going to be losing…

This comment has been deemed funny by the community.
Anonymous Coward says:

For now let’s leave aside the, um, questions raised by demanding such a product … be designed, built, tested, and rolled out in a week

Uh… who said anything about “tested”? Certainly the linked story didn’t. I wouldn’t even say “designed”; whatever can be hacked up in a few days is what we’re gonna get.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
vilain (profile) says:

A week to implement a new feature?

I thought that “do this in 1 week or be fired” was Elon’s first tactic to trim his workforce. The mechanism to add a paid tier to Twitter already exists, so code exists to do that. The processes of verifying “Is this who they say they are?” may also be in place but need tweaking. So, technically, there’s less work than I thought to implement this feature.

But the “Do this or I’ll fire you” message has multiple meanings:

– I’ll fire you and you won’t get any severance or unemployment benefits
– prepare for multiple death marches
– having Twitter on your resume will mean what it did
– don’t even think of forming a Union

This is just a first salvo. I’m sure the 5-days/week or your fired rule comes very soon now. All this is to force people to leave without having to pay severance or unemployment or pay 60 days armchair time if he lays them off w/o notifying the state.

TFG says:

Re: Re:

And severance should come down to a contract (or laws), not the whims of management.

Contracts frequently indicate that Severance won’t be provided if the firing is “for cause,” i.e. the employee did something to get themselves fired.

This is all fine and dandy when the employee is fired for things like… you know… stealing money, exfiltrating user data, etc.
Less cool when the boss comes up with an impossible task.

The sticking points then become whether the “cause” was actually valid, and how willing the employee or employees are to fight it in court.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:

The sticking points then become whether the “cause” was actually valid, and how willing the employee or employees are to fight it in court.

Given Musk’s history with courts (the Twitter-purchase shenanigans, and the false tweets that angered the SEC in 2018) and the publicity around this absurd deadline, it’s hard to imagine a court siding with Twitter here. The lawyers will probably be lining up to take such a case on contingency.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re:

And this, in a word, will be where Elon Musk gets to learn about new terms like “constructive discharge”, “wrongful termination”, “WARN notices”, and the like.

(Literally all the stuff he’s pulling is legally constructive discharge which could make fired employees eligible for both unemployment and reinstatement, he’s pulling this in probably the two states that are the most aggressive in defending worker’s rights in the US, and it’s to get out of filing WARN notices for layoffs and giving the mandated 60 days transition period which is ALSO illegal as hell and can result in Musk paying even more than if he’d just done a standard layoff.)

(It’s stuff I’m more used to with sketchy contractor firms who also do things like abusing probationary periods as de facto temp labor, but yeah, that’s probably going to bite him in the ass. And that’s even before the whole national security implications of the other major owner of Twitter being the Saudi government come into play.)

This comment has been deemed funny by the community.
Eric says:

Go Big

Ok, hear me out here people…imagine if, along with the badge, you could…wait for it…choose the color of the verification badge! That’s got to be at least worth $40 a month…and I’m talking any color, not some restricted list, but any hex color you can come up with! And you can change the color up to, like 4 times maybe, per month. Additional changes will of course cost extra.

Anon says:

Elon

I think Elon does not truly understand human nature. (NO kidding!) He thinks he can set up a platform where people can have heated and strong dialog, but avoid all the trolling and name-calling that comes with anonymity, or the complete misinformation and outright lies and slander. (This from a guy who just got completely fished by a fake news site that said Pelosi’s husband was gay and complicit in his attack)

IMHO this is not possible. Even Facebook, which allegedly demands your correct name, does not fully control the crap being spewed by users. Unrestrained content will result in revenge porn, kiddie porn, outright lies and slander. and hyper-trolling. So content moderation is an automatic given.

This is also the guy who thought self-driving cars would be achievable; from my experience, it works, somewhat, but has a long way to go before I’d trust it. Trying to automate content moderation will be even more challenging. English is a very flexible language, and nuance is hard to catch even for actual humans who have spoken it for decades. I doubt that a program can learn effectively. (We all remember the early days of content filters that blocked breast cancer sites and sex education sites…)

The other problem is, of course – what topics will be moderated? Even the most polite COVID vaccine denial and misinformation sites, for example, do a great disservice to society. Free speech, even with the insults banned, can be the equivalent of the classic “yelling ‘FIRE’ in a crowded theatre.”

Twitter can go several ways, depending on how much effort can be put into it.
It could become a free-for-all that nobody wants.
It could go back to human oversight of manual filtering processes, banning “bad” users.
It could actually achieve a level of AI content moderation that surprises us.

I don’t know which way will happen, but I don’t have any faith in the old Twitter – it was just there, whether you liked it or not. And I certainly don’t want my actual name and identity public, because of the trolls and because I don’t want to make it easy for someone to assemble a holographic database of my life from online. Don’t mix my blog and my Facebook and my twitter and my company’s website to build a more targeted picture of me. (Also why I like the ability to post anonymously here…)

Anonymous Coward says:

We have seen elons attitude to unions and an anyone who complains about customer service in his car company .i think it will work out badly if he continues to behave in an arrogant manner while owning twitter
Twitter is a vital online service for media journalists politicans ngo,s. Activists and the public to communicate its used by politicans and government sources in most countrys around the world
Its a Mobile app used by millions of users who may not have acess to pcs to use the web
I dont see how elon can make a profit on his investment in twitter without
changing the whole nature of the service charging for verification risks allowing fake twitter users or trolls to pay to seem genuine possiby putting other users at risk or reduce the status of having a verified mark

PaulT (profile) says:

Re:

“I’m sure ‘Roll out this new feature in a week or you’re fired’ will do wonders for employee retention and morale”

I’m not sure what the end game is here, but I’ve worked for companies where after a takeover or merger or whatever, there’s loyalty tests for new management. They been more subtle since I’ve mainly worked in countries with better employee protections, but when the incoming management is as toxic as Musk seems to be, it’s not uncommon for them to make life very difficult for staff who don’t politically align with the new guard in order to get anyone not aligned to leave.

Weirdly, the majority of companies I’ve seen this happen with have collapsed within a few years (or been further bought out, which I presume came with golden parachutes that were the point of the exercise – though I don’t know who will bail Musk out here).

Anonymous Coward says:

Employees working on the project were told on Sunday that they need to meet a deadline of November 7th to launch the feature or they will be fired.

So I was thinking that there would be a lot of talent looking for jobs in the near future. But this seems like Musk just promising to gift talented employees to anyone not twitter.

PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

I’ve always been a casual Twitter user, in that I don’t actively engage on there, and largely use it for news and public figures I’m interested in (curated enough so that I don’t see some of the wilder crap), and a handful of people who don’t use other social media I’m on.

I suspect that if it gets significantly worse, I’ll just not go there any longer, and follow the people I’m interested in hearing from to wherever they go, but I’m not sure I’ll actually delete my old account. Which raises the question for me – if the inevitable death that Musk seems to be demanding comes to pass, will it be because there’s a clear mass exodus, or just an ever diminishing number of active accounts that Musk tries to generate controversy to reactivate?

Anonymous Coward says:

Content moderation is important on all social media services especially apps that are used in countrys all over the world .ai has limited use in that it can search for specified words or phrases .No one wants to use a service that is full of trolls ,misinformation , or adult nswf content.there will always be a need for human moderation and a system to ban users who are using threatening or defamatory language or post explicit images or content that is unsuitable for a social media service

Tanner Andrews (profile) says:

Re: a possible error in your estimate

No one wants to use a service that is full of trolls ,misinformation , or adult nswf content.

Actually, many people want to use sites with ``adult” (NSFW) content and some will even pay for it.

I think there is a fairly large amount of this sort of business on the internet. I am not sure that accurate figures are available. A quick google search gives the impression that a substantial fraction of internet traffic is porn or people looking for statistics on porn. However, the popular 30% figure is old and was possibly unreliable even when it was fresh.

Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

Tumblr’s metrics dropped by a significantly large amount after it announced, then later implemented, its porn ban. You’d be surprised how many people want to use a social media site with adult-oriented content.

(Funny thing about that: If Tumblr were to undo its porn ban right now, it would probably do some real damage to Twitter.)

Christenson says:

Re: Re: Re:2 NSFW content

And, I sit on a fence about NSFW content….

Basically, if it’s a work computer or I am doing work, I don’t want NSFW content, it’s distracting and my boss or coworkers might get mad.

But at home and not working at the moment?? The right (for me) NSFW content is great.

So I need the separation of the two, so I can avoid the NSFW when I don’t want it.

P.S. The trouble with Tumblr and NSFW is both Visa and Backpage, in addition to their direct advertisers. Anyone heard how the backpage stuff is going lately?

Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3

I need the separation of the two

That’s what filters, tags, and “view [x] content” settings are for. A service shouldn’t have to splinter itself into two distinct services⁠—lewd and not-lewd⁠—to accomplish what a few settings (and some server-side moderation) can do.

The trouble with Tumblr and NSFW is both Visa and Backpage

I wouldn’t say it’s Backpage so much as it is Apple, whose Apple Store policies kept Tumblr off the service until it implemented the porn ban (which is when Tumblr’s metrics took a nosedive).

That said: Yes, payment processors deciding that adult-oriented content is unwelcome on the Internet is bullshit. That goes as much for Visa as it does for PayPal.

Christenson says:

Re: Re: Re:4 Separation of content

Functionally, I’m a kind of dumb consumer and I don’t care exactly how I keep the NSFW stuff away from work, just that I do.

And by the way, twitter is always temporarily hiding “sensitive” content from me, and it’s not stuff I actually mind seeing. So their implementation stinks!

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:2

You’d be surprised how many people want to use a social media site with adult-oriented content.

We shouldn’t pretend that “adult-oriented” means anything like “pornographic” or “lewd”. Techdirt is an adult-oriented site, for example, despite the occasional immature comment. Very little here would be of interest to the average child.

Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3

We shouldn’t pretend that “adult-oriented” means anything like “pornographic” or “lewd”.

I can if I want to. Stop me if you think you can.

Also, I don’t include only pornography or otherwise lewd content in “adult-oriented”. I also include content that is likely to get dinged as “NSFW”: graphic violence, discussions of crimes such as rape, and queer-oriented content of all kinds (which is more likely to be considered “NSFW” because such rules tend to target queer content first and foremost).

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re:

Just for future reference, King said this:

“$20 a month to keep my blue check? Fuck that, they should pay me. If that gets instituted, I’m gone like Enron.”

To which Musk replied:

“We need to pay the bills somehow! Twitter cannot rely entirely on advertisers. How about $8?”

So, he paid $44 billion for a platform that until now has been ad-supported, one of his first ideas was to charge $20/month for a previous free service, and when challenged by one of the most famous people there he immediately tried offering greater than 50% discount?

I don’t see this going well. Especially since it’s apparently losing both advertisers and users (another story I’ve seen recently is that GM have cancelled their ad contract – to which of course the bottom feeders have reacted to by claiming it’s about “wokeness”, and not them not wanting to pay money to the guy who owns a large competitor.

Anonymous Coward says:

Totally stupid Elon bashing from a bunch of typical Techdirt AC cybullies and Karen’s.

Oh noooooes! The Musk will take away our bots! Take away our AC-Holes!

Go Elon-GAS-light those who have gaslighted the rest of humanity–and protect you kids from ” their” trannification too.

They see foreskins with a hungry type of vengeance–whoever “they” are,lol.

Anonymous Coward says:

I like that Mike is doing everything in his power to attempt to backflip over his real problem with twitter. Instead criticizing every minor problem that has currently existed like it magically popped into existence when Musk bought it.

Charging for Twitter verification is dangerous? I guess Mike missed the memo of twitter employees extorting users for checkmarks in the past. The Wallstreetbets guy being one of them, claiming he was quoted 14 grand for a checkmark.

These problems always existed, all of the problems Mike has addressed this last month have always existed. It’s just no one felt justified at taking shots at twitter because they felt it’s existence was in their political best interests. Not that they thought the site was being run well. The fact everyone has felt compelled to speak about issues plaguing the site for years only after Musk bought it should be a warning sign.

No, Mike’s problem, and everyone’s problem really, with twitter is that it’s just too big. It’s always been too big. It’s the only place you can go to talk to some state and federal representatives, see what government agencies are attempting to tell the public in a unified manner, and even chat with influential and important figures who are changing the world. Twitter should have never been the central hub for this important function, and never should have been given control over so many important public services in the first place. The verification system, monetization, arguments over who does or doesn’t get to speak, harassment, and discussions between the balance between speech and safety are really just symptoms of the main disease that has plagued it for years. If it really were such a non-issue, we could go somewhere else, but no other place fulfill’s twitter’s purpose as a megaphone of society’s important figures, and no other place likely ever will.

I do agree that musk’s implementation is short-sighted at best. It would be far better if you could submit for verification to a third party of which could only tell twitter if you were that person or not. This should have been the gold standard for any organization directly working with your identity, instead of hoping someone out there can google your name and find a few social media profiles with your face on it.

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Subscribe to Our Newsletter

Get all our posts in your inbox with the Techdirt Daily Newsletter!

We don’t spam. Read our privacy policy for more info.

Ctrl-Alt-Speech

A weekly news podcast from
Mike Masnick & Ben Whitelaw

Subscribe now to Ctrl-Alt-Speech »
Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...
Loading...