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
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.