It’s not to verify identity. It’s more like imprimatur (anointed by Twitter as whatever). And that is stupid because it’s basically up to the whims of the company and becomes open to abuse internally and externally.
The original purpose was definitely to verify identity. Since parody accounts are allowed, it's valuable to be able to tell the real X from a parody X. This was especially true early on in Twitter's history. It was also useful in encouraging famous people to get on Twitter. "Look, if you start you own account, we'll clearly distinguish it for you. No more fakes!" And having famous people on Twitter was hugely valuable to encouraging growth.
Unfortunately, there's a strong correlation between "useful to verify" and "important", so pretty quickly it became a status symbol, especially for marginally notable people. And some people really like status! It's very similar to the problem Wikipedia has, where they daily have to delete a lot of BS biographies from the would-be famous.
This means that the program has been a headache for Twitter for a long time. I know when I worked there in 2017 they announced that they were suspending the program pending a major revamp of how it works. As far as I know nothing came of that; I think they quietly started giving out blue checkmarks again a while back.
Personally, what I'd like to happen is that they make it much broader and roll it up in a "Premium Twitter" feature. I pay them $50/year, they verify that I'm who I say I am, get rid of ads, and throw in a few other features. But I doubt that will happen, as IMHO Twitter is incredibly bad at getting anything done.
I agree with your take and suggestions. They probably feel it would dilute the value. As you suggest, they could add “Premium” or “Pro” labels to distinguish people who pay for status. Maybe charge them by audience or reach as well.
IIRC it was originally to verify celebs real accounts. Then they said anyone with more than a certain number of followers and now it seems to be just a status symbol.
I guess it was originally intended to get people to reveal their real identities. Especially for celebrities that often had fake accounts with their name.
There are some groups that take it as a warning sign for craziness. Funnily, it often seems they are onto something.
I think that is precisely the purpose. If you’re looking for Donald Trump’s Twitter profile the idea is the blue tick helps you find the right one rather than a parody.
It originally was to verify identity. Then they started withdrawing it from controversial figures, as if those people stopped being who they really were overnight. Nowadays it just means “this persons views are endorsed by Twitter staff”.
That's surely not true. Lots of people have blue checks even though Twitter staff would never endorse their views - Ben Shapiro, Steven Crowder, Candace Owens, and so on.
I think the claim is a little more nuanced. Basically yes those people went over a line and got punished but at least some claim that others also go over that line but don’t get punished (as often).
Nowadays it just means “this persons views are representative of Twitter staff”.
For example both Sanders and Trump have a blue tick. They obviously can’t simultaneously be representative of a majority of Twitter’s staff’s views, can they? And I’d estimate Trump isn’t representative of a substantial number of these west-coast tech workers at all. So that doesn’t seem to hold up.
Trump is a special case in that Twitter said that they would treat heads of state (both foreign and domestic) differently. They might have something internal for accounts with large followings (Kardashians).
Assange is an interesting case in that despite renown and following they refuse to give him a check mark and suspended the WL account as well.
Ok, excluding heads of state, and even other politicians, are for example the views of Jordan Peterson representative of Twitter employees? Seems unlikely.
I expect his is a holdover from before and it will be revoked as soon as they notice.
PS I tweaked my comment after you started to write your reply but before I saw it; the wording is better now but the meaning is basically the same. Sorry!
Comments
I don’t know why they started the blue checkmark.
It’s not to verify identity. It’s more like imprimatur (anointed by Twitter as whatever). And that is stupid because it’s basically up to the whims of the company and becomes open to abuse internally and externally.
The original purpose was definitely to verify identity. Since parody accounts are allowed, it's valuable to be able to tell the real X from a parody X. This was especially true early on in Twitter's history. It was also useful in encouraging famous people to get on Twitter. "Look, if you start you own account, we'll clearly distinguish it for you. No more fakes!" And having famous people on Twitter was hugely valuable to encouraging growth.
Unfortunately, there's a strong correlation between "useful to verify" and "important", so pretty quickly it became a status symbol, especially for marginally notable people. And some people really like status! It's very similar to the problem Wikipedia has, where they daily have to delete a lot of BS biographies from the would-be famous.
This means that the program has been a headache for Twitter for a long time. I know when I worked there in 2017 they announced that they were suspending the program pending a major revamp of how it works. As far as I know nothing came of that; I think they quietly started giving out blue checkmarks again a while back.
Personally, what I'd like to happen is that they make it much broader and roll it up in a "Premium Twitter" feature. I pay them $50/year, they verify that I'm who I say I am, get rid of ads, and throw in a few other features. But I doubt that will happen, as IMHO Twitter is incredibly bad at getting anything done.
I agree with your take and suggestions. They probably feel it would dilute the value. As you suggest, they could add “Premium” or “Pro” labels to distinguish people who pay for status. Maybe charge them by audience or reach as well.
IIRC it was originally to verify celebs real accounts. Then they said anyone with more than a certain number of followers and now it seems to be just a status symbol.
I guess it was originally intended to get people to reveal their real identities. Especially for celebrities that often had fake accounts with their name.
There are some groups that take it as a warning sign for craziness. Funnily, it often seems they are onto something.
I think that is precisely the purpose. If you’re looking for Donald Trump’s Twitter profile the idea is the blue tick helps you find the right one rather than a parody.
Except the blue check can be and has been revoked for reasons that have nothing to do with identity.
It originally was to verify identity. Then they started withdrawing it from controversial figures, as if those people stopped being who they really were overnight. Nowadays it just means “this persons views are endorsed by Twitter staff”.
That's surely not true. Lots of people have blue checks even though Twitter staff would never endorse their views - Ben Shapiro, Steven Crowder, Candace Owens, and so on.
You're correct that it's generally not true. But the grain of truth is that they did punish some notable jerks by removal of verified status: https://money.cnn.com/2017/11/15/technology/twitter-verifica...
IMHO these were pretty clear anti-abuse actions. But of course those people claim that they were being punished for their views.
I think the claim is a little more nuanced. Basically yes those people went over a line and got punished but at least some claim that others also go over that line but don’t get punished (as often).
I don’t know how true that rings.
For example both Sanders and Trump have a blue tick. They obviously can’t simultaneously be representative of a majority of Twitter’s staff’s views, can they? And I’d estimate Trump isn’t representative of a substantial number of these west-coast tech workers at all. So that doesn’t seem to hold up.
Trump is a special case in that Twitter said that they would treat heads of state (both foreign and domestic) differently. They might have something internal for accounts with large followings (Kardashians).
Assange is an interesting case in that despite renown and following they refuse to give him a check mark and suspended the WL account as well.
Ok, excluding heads of state, and even other politicians, are for example the views of Jordan Peterson representative of Twitter employees? Seems unlikely.
I expect his is a holdover from before and it will be revoked as soon as they notice.
PS I tweaked my comment after you started to write your reply but before I saw it; the wording is better now but the meaning is basically the same. Sorry!
I haven't researched it, but I'd assume that Donald Trump had a blue checkmark back when he was widely known as a media personality and landlord.