Some fodder:
I also think it was very bad for journalism as a profession that, because we belong to a group of people for whom identity verification is essential, we wound up getting the same marker next to our name as presidents and CEOs — and were mistaken a part of an overclass.
— Ian Millhiser (@imillhiser) November 6, 2022
ALSO: I expect this to come up, so I'll include it here: "Twitter suspends Kathy Griffin’s account for impersonating Elon Musk" (NY Post).
Despite her handle showing her own @kathygriffin name, the moniker by her blue checkmark said “Elon Musk” — which goes against the company policy against impersonation....
I presume she'll be allowed back, because Musk later tweeted:
“Going forward, any Twitter handles engaging in impersonation without clearly specifying ‘parody’ will be permanently suspended.... Previously, we issued a warning before suspension, but now that we are rolling out widespread verification, there will be no warning. This will be clearly identified as a condition for signing up to Twitter Blue.”
I'm seeing some people calling Griffin's suspension "permanent," but Musk wrote "Going forward."
Posts
106 comments:
In retrospect? It's not just that there were haves and have nots, it's that the verification was withheld from some people who should have qualified. He might not have been aware of that since those people tended to be on the Right.
Apparently many people were offered "verification" for a bribe of between $12 and $15K.
Since verification increases the reach of an account, heterodox accounts were simply denied verification. Basically the feature served to increase the echo chamber aspect of Twitter.
Mashable had an article about paying for blue checks back in 2017.
Why is this being treated as new information?
Giving blue checks to journalists was bad because it reinforced their inflated self-regard? Maybe, but their inflated self-regard was already a problem.
If Griffin’s Musk impersonation came after he announced the policy, then I think it’s important that the life-time ban stick. If she did it before, then the ban should be short—just long enough to make the point. But Griffin’s a shit-stirrer who has deliberately chosen to be a drag on the service. I can’t feel too bad for her either way.
She should have been cancelled after holding up Trumps bloody head.
THAT isn't funny, it is sick. Talk about tempting crazies...
"Why is this being treated as new information?"
This is a guy who knows a guy, a middleman in the black market for Instagram verification, where anyone from a seasoned publicist to a 22-year-old digital marketer will offer to verify an account—for a price. The fee is anywhere from a bottle of wine to $15,000, according to a dozen sources who have sold verification, bought verification for someone else, or directly know someone who has done one or the other.
"These guys pay all their bills from one to two blue checks a month," another message from the middleman added later. - Mashable
Well it was unsurprising, but it was news to me. I once sat next to a Canadian on a plane and he said that it was easy to get a quick doctor's appt in Canada, you just had to make a "small donation," this has the same smell to it.
Ann Althouse said...
Mashable had an article about paying for blue checks back in 2017.
Why is this being treated as new information?
Because Musk is being criticized (by the Left) for charging 8 bucks for verification blue check? Widely known? That's not the point. If widely known, why is the Left crying about $8? It seemed okay that Twitter was charging big bucks for certain accounts before.
And let's drop the "It's old news" defense.
Marcus B. THEOLDMAN
For those on twitter who weren't interested in remaining anonymous and would've liked identity verification, it was unavailable. This guy is an utter tool with his "for whom it was essential" nonsense. Regular people can't honor the truth?
Journalists still see themselves as the manual typewriter, ink-stained fingers news jockey. They don't recognize their own elitism.
Just change it to a blue X for misbehavior.
If I, with my 57 spam followers and no blue checkmark said something on Twitter that was absolutely true, and Ian Millhouser with his blue checkmark said something on Twitter that was absolutely false, who's tweet would get more positive attention? Who's Tweet would have the imprimatur of truth?
There's nothing I could have done to be verified (not that I'm going to do it now). There is nothing that made the blue checks be honest. If it's about identity, everyone should be able to get themselves verified.
If its about having a stronger voice, that was being abused.
Elon also posted Any name change at all will cause temporary loss of verified checkmark
This should be rethought as many users regularly change the displayed name.
@popehat is currently NotElonMuskHat.
Do you suppose those blue check fixers paid taxes on that money?
Changing your handle after you were verified was always against Terms of Service, by the way. You had to stay with the name you were verified as. That was the whole point.
Millhiser gets it wrong. The problem with blue check marks was the assumption of certain speech being more honest than others, because of verification. If you wrote about Hunter’s laptop or the Covid vaccines not actually preventing getting or spreading the disease, you were banned. Blue checkmarks could claim Hunter’s laptop was Russian disinformation with no repercussions. That’s not verification or honest debate. It is elitism, but not because CEO’s had blue checkmarks too, but because the press parroted them.
The way I read it, Griffin could be permanently banned under the old policy if she had previously been warned about impersonating others. The new policy is just “no more warnings,”
"Because Musk is being criticized (by the Left) for charging 8 bucks for verification blue check? Widely known? That's not the point. If widely known, why is the Left crying about $8? It seemed okay that Twitter was charging big bucks for certain accounts before."
So it's not the outrage about the bribery/"bribery" but a defense of the new $8 a month charge.
My problem with that is that a lot of ordinary people are going to be paying the new charge and not just the kind of people who could and would pay those big "bribes."
"The problem with blue check marks was the assumption of certain speech being more honest than others, because of verification."
Did anyone really think that?
I just thought the blue check meant this is really the person it purports to be AND this is someone that Twitter thought was important enough to have an identity that was worth verifying.
I think $8 a month is too much to have to pay to get verified.
How about a 1 time payment to get verified? Why the monthly draining? The answer just seems to be Twitter needs a cash flow.
@Althouse wrote: "Why is this being treated as new information?"
Because in 2017 Trump Derangement Syndrome and/or mass psychosis and/or ergot fungus infections took over the brains of millions of people. Per Sam Harris: It didn't matter if Hunter Biden had the corpses of dead children in his basement, all that mattered was getting rid of Trump.
https://twitchy.com/brettt-3136/2022/08/18/sam-harris-clarifies-that-clip-where-he-says-he-wouldnt-have-cared-if-hunter-biden-had-childrens-bodies-in-his-basement/
After two years of the Biden-Harris administration the derangement is fading.
How about a 1 time payment to get verified? Why the monthly draining? The answer just seems to be Twitter needs a cash flow.
You say that as though it’s a bad answer . . .
Some people -- Kim Kardashian, say -- will pay eight dollars a month without blinking and it would be worth it. Her brand is her fortune; she wouldn't want it mimicked.
But Ian Millhiser, who believes he's completely worthy of that all-important, segregating verification, will feel the pinch. Good. And Musk knows it.
Why should being notable have anything to do with Twitter verifying that you're not a bot?
As far as I can tell, the policy was a hash job practically designed to promote the kind of graft that's being reported. If somebody wants to expose their real identity on Twitter, or any social media service, for whatever reason they should be able to do it.
"I think $8 a month is too much to have to pay to get verified."
This is what Twitter says about Twitter Bue:
"Twitter Blue features offer subscribers a way to enhance and customize their Twitter experience. These powerful controls are designed to help personalize Twitter, and include Labs that give early access to our newest features before they’re available to everyone. Share your feedback @TwitterBlue."
I think the offer is also fewer ads and additional features. Here is a partial list from the website: "Ad-free Articles, Bookmark Folders, Custom App Icons, Custom navigation, Reader, Themes, Top Articles, Undo Tweet."
So, it is for users, rather than lookers.
Those weird blue check Chinese doctor propaganda accounts that were discovered during the pandemic make a lot more sense now that we know there was black market bribery going on under the table.
Those weird blue check Chinese doctor propaganda accounts that were discovered during the pandemic make a lot more sense now that we know there was black market bribery going on under the table.
Those weird blue check Chinese doctor propaganda accounts that were discovered during the pandemic make a lot more sense now that we know there was black market bribery going on under the table.
I understand that bribing an employee for a service is illegal under state and federal laws.
As is accepting a bribe.
Musk ought to say that he will press criminal charges and civilly sue anyone who participated.
Perhaps a get out of jail card for anyone who comes forward first and agrees to testify against Twitter employees.
Also: I skimmed the Mashable story and it seems to be about Instagram not Twitter
John stop fascism vote republican Henry
Althouse said My problem with that is that a lot of ordinary people are going to be paying the new charge and not just the kind of people who could and would pay those big "bribes."
I'm not going to pay. I'll just continue to be part of the product. I don't care about verification. Paying the $8 is a choice. And like YouTube and other sites, Musk is going to let the little people monetize content. So what??
Musk is stripping journalists, politicians, and PhDs of their false monopoly of being the sole purveyors and distributors of "the truth". The lies they have all pushed for the last two years have made their "expertise" worthless. Liberal "fact-checkers" bend facts. All of this was made possible they liberal enthusiasm for censorship of those who know they are full of shit.
It's a "bribe" if it didn't go to Twitter, but rather went to the fixer, as your linked article strongly implies.
"Mashable had an article about paying for blue checks back in 2017.
"Why is this being treated as new information?"
I am not clear how blue checks were handed out before Musk took over, but there was some element of favoritism. It seems strange that someone would want to be verified as a snarky idiot, but there is no accounting for taste.
Also I am not clear on the "pay to play/backhander" blue check question. It seems unlikely to me.
Note that the Mashable article is about Instagram, not Twitter.
"were mistaken a part of an overclass"
More precisely: correctly identified as lackeys of the overclass.
Althouse said How about a 1 time payment to get verified? Why the monthly draining? The answer just seems to be Twitter needs a cash flow.
If advertisers are the only source of revenue, then they decide what is true and what is false. Pfizer was one of the first to pull ads after Musk took over. And we all know Pfizer told everyone the "truth" about the mRNA shots...and now people are dying because of their poison truth.
$8 Per month is Twitter power redistribution.
Perhaps colleges could cut back a little and their debt ridden students could afford the $8. Oh wait. Colleges need cash flow.
I guess we decide what things should cost relative to its personal benefit in our lives.
I had a neighbor, who in the sixties was unable to obtain his plumbers license in New York State until he sent $10,000 cash to a "fixer" in Syracuse. Sounds like a "bribe" more than a fee. My brother, around the same time, got a job with the railroad and was told to carry $150 cash with him at all times until a guy taps him on the shoulder and asks for it. These sound like the same deal.
On the other hand, the people making the payoffs certainly feel like they are worthwhile and prefer the status quo, where only the connected and those trusted by the old boys network can get verification.
"How about a 1 time payment to get verified? Why the monthly draining?"
Because he can and some will choose to pay it. I think it's called "free market capitalism" as compared to extortion by corrupt employees that it's replacing.
Griffin should have been permanently banned from Twitter because the bloody head was an imposter. It's an unforgivable crime to get people's hopes up.
I hope this $8/month thing isn't giving Ann ideas.
Griffin can get back on when she pays $8. Her supporters are furious as they say impersonating Musk was free speech and humor. But the rules against that were in place for a while. It seems those most angry about the payment for a checkmark were supposedly worried that they could no longer be verified but now they are complaining than anyone can pretend to be someone famous! So much hate for Musk there.
My problem with that is that a lot of ordinary people are going to be paying the new charge and not just the kind of people who could and would pay those big "bribes."
Why is that a problem?
I'm not a big Twitter user, and never have been. It just so happens that Musk closed on his deal to buy Twitter at the same time Facebook put me in time-out for a joke that their stupid algorithm couldn't understand, so I created an account there. It is fun reading the comments on the accounts that I follow, but I have zero engagement. I don't see any real point in paying for verification, but I am considering it just as a way to support Musk's Twitter endeavor.
I think her suspension should be permanent. You know, just to prove we too can be arbitrary and vindictive.
In fact, anyone who cheered on Donald Trump's suspension or argued against letting him back should be suspended for as long as he was. Just because. That seems fair.
BTW...musk tweeted that Kathy Griffin can have her account back if she really wants it. But it'll cost her $8 per month. Big deal.
Musk is taking on a HUGE task here to right a HUGE wrong committed by liberals, the press, the education establishment, the Deep State...Democrats...establishment GOP...BIG PHARMA. They used censorship, lies, and words like "misinformation" to push their bullshit on the population and the world. They used "fact-checkers" to push propaganda. They silenced and vilified legitimate dissenting voices.
Now...the propagandists are freaking out because they are no longer in charge of the current largest political communication bandwidth...which is Twitter.
I'm rooting for Musk. Best part is, he is smarter and more savvy than his critics. Plus he's funny about it. And...Musk believes the "average Joe" is just as smart as a politician, journalist, or PhD...which is the truth.
Maybe I should get verified. The $8 per month to redistribute communication power to the masses is probably worth more than my VOTE.
And it just might make my vote worth somethin again...
Ann Althouse said...
Mashable had an article about paying for blue checks back in 2017.
Why is this being treated as new information?
Because the Regime Toadies that paid for a blue check want to pretend they weren't corrupt shitheads.
The leftists are always about the grift and corruption. They produce nothing useful so they obtain power and sell access to it.
MayBee said...There is nothing that made the blue checks be honest
As I've pointed out many times in different forums, the most partisan, irresponsible, needlessly divisive tweets in my feed are almost always from people with a blue check. As often as not, a journalist.
Howard said...Griffin should have been permanently banned from Twitter because the bloody head was an imposter. It's an unforgivable crime to get people's hopes up.
We may arrive at the same place for different reasons, but that's the beauty of a free society. We're allowed to have our own reasons.
Ann Althouse said...
How about a 1 time payment to get verified? Why the monthly draining? The answer just seems to be Twitter needs a cash flow.
An honest business then.
One that isn't funded by the federal government and corporate cronies of the Regime.
Since Musk was unaware of these "service fees" to get verification, one has to wonder if the money ever got to Twitter. The value of Twitter has always been, like that of the Washington Post, its power to shape narratives for DNC cronies and the security state.
And then Kathy Griffin stole her dead mothers account to attack instead...still impersonating after she got kicked off?? Typical of Progressives who will continue to lie and hide themselves behind their Mommies.
I wonder if Musk will allow Griffin to continue using her dead mother's Twitter account and identity. She started in with this tactic shortly after being suspended for impersonating Musk - now the way I see it, she's taunting Musk by using yet another impersonation in defiance. Off with her head, but quietly and efficiently, so as to encourage the others.
I think part of the reasoning is to free Twitter from the pressure of advertisers' boycotts.
Howard said...
Griffin should have been permanently banned from Twitter because the bloody head was an imposter. It's an unforgivable crime to get people's hopes up.
11/7/22, 7:20 AM
Here's Howard once again condoning VIOLENCE from his side. Imagine if Tim Allen held up a bloody Obama head?? His head would roll.
Pretty sure Musk meant, “Starting here and now with this violator…” because her profile changed from “temporary suspension” to simply “suspended” or maybe he’s being intentionally coy about Griffin.
“Why is this being treated as new information?”
It IS to many. Before it was derided as “some say” but Musk gave it gravity when he weighed in over the weekend.
Here's Wendy easily triggered by sarcastic nonsense. Face it girlfriend, you just like to be angry and nasty toward phantom enemies and the bots keep feeding your habit. That's the point, Wendy Darling. Not the spiced up pablum theatre of social media click bait that you keep swallowing wholesale by the bushel.
The Spacex / Tesla marketing genius has overnight made blue checks you can only get on Twitter a hard to get status symbol in people’s minds. Why didn’t we think of that? CocaCola needs to hire him before Pepsi does.
It seems to me that the prior policy was a way to extort famous people to join Twitter. Twitter wasn't going to charge anybody for the privilege but they would let anybody set up an account with no verification of their identity unless they requested it. If somebody set up a account impersonating a famous person they could just call it a 'parody' until that person joined Twitter.
Like Netflix or Prime, the monthly fee is a price to pay for entertainment. Or maybe it’s more like a prescription drug that one needs to reduce discomfort. The tweet drug fulfills some need in a lot of people. Makes sense to have a basic (free) and premium ($8/mo) version.
"...we wound up getting the same marker next to our name as presidents and CEOs — and were mistaken a part of an overclass."
That gave me a chuckle. First of all, some of them consider themselves above any mere president or CEO. And they all seem to relish their place in the 'overclass'. They can barely hide either their contempt for random American citizens not living in the 'right' Coastal cities, or their glee at being asked about their opinions on national talking head shows. They relish their roles as Keepers of the Narrative. And let's be honest, I'm sure Millhiser was all in on banning a certain President he didn't want re-elected. So yes, he considered himself above a President.
His sudden case of self-examination will quickly pass, I'm sure. Give him a week or two into Elon's Twitter progress.
By the way- the point of the Blue Check being subscription is to level out the playing field. CEOs and Quickie Lube attendants can both be blue checks in this way. Even journalists will be allowed in, from what I've been reading.
Blogger Achilles said...
Ann Althouse said...Mashable had an article about paying for blue checks back in 2017...Why is this being treated as new information?
Because the Regime Toadies that paid for a blue check want to pretend they weren't corrupt shitheads.
I was under the impression for a time that you had to get to 100K followers to get verified. But then conservatives with over 100K followers couldn't get verified. Remember the fake Facebook "whistle blower" who advocated for more censorship?
She got her blue check the day after she spewed her lies in front of a House Committee.
The $15K was extortion and bribery. Same type of bullshit as a poll tax or admission to and American University.
From a Rueters article: "Twitter needs to become by far the most accurate source of information about the world. That’s our mission," Musk said on Sunday.
The first part of meeting that objective is to make sure readers know who is saying what. Users paying for their own blue check moves that process forward.
Where else has a one time payment for continued use of an ongoing service ever worked?
I think that, for a lot of people, especially those who are not terribly politically engaged, the blue checkmark was seen as a sign of quality of content, not just verification of the account. These are the kind of people who got on Twitter to follow Kim Kardashian, but end up picking up some politics along the way. You can make fun of those people if you want, but they are a significant portion of the electorate, and in many cases, I think they were being misled by the blue check mark.
@Althouse wrote: "How about a 1 time payment to get verified? Why the monthly draining? The answer just seems to be Twitter needs a cash flow."
Beyond cashflow--which is surely a factor--relying on one-time payments would lead to all sorts of strawman accounts. People would use friends, family, fictional people with burner phones and debit cards, etc. to sign up. Then they'd swap or sell them to activist groups and trolls.
Well said, Gusty Winds, @7:08am!
It amazes me how many claims about how Musk has ruined Twitter reference things that (a) never actually happened or (b) happened opposite of what the prevailing "wisdom" is. Do they actually believe their own bull****?
If the purpose of the blue check is merely verification of identity, then we wouldn't have had the fun of blue checks being revoked for bad behavior, blue checks being denied despite fulfilling all the requirements of getting a blue check, and blue checks being obtained through bribery.
If something on the internet is "free" you are the product. If you pay you are the consumer.
How horible for someone to buy a company that is bleeding cash and he takes steps to make it solvent.
Oh, he's a Billionaire? well then it MUST be made free. Now, Mr. Bezzozzzz, why do you charge for that rag you publish?
"I also think it was very bad for journalism as a profession that, because we belong to a group of people for whom identity verification is essential, we wound up getting the same marker next to our name as presidents and CEOs — and were mistaken a part of an overclass."
Yeah, he is correct- the journalists are just the fluffers for the overclass, not the overclass itself.
Howard’s a cunt. Pretty simple. The kind of cunt that talks shit but would never soil his soft moist fingers by doing anything but snark shot tilt on the internet.
Why is this being treated as new information?
Because the information was suppressed and we are only just now learning about it.
These friggin' impersonators.
There is no room for satire in social media.
"...we wound up getting the same marker next to our name as presidents and CEOs — and were mistaken a part of an overclass."
I thought the goal of this great American experiment was a farewell to kings, and the theoretical elimination of an "overclass". This just shows the shallow desperation of journalists and the "over-credentialed" to somehow pretend they're fucking aristocrats. That's insecurity and self-loathing. Common among the godless.
Historically aristocrats are known for enslaving the common folk, censoring them, torturing them, starving them, and letting them fight and die in their dirty wars. It still exists in American today. But know it is owned by liberals and the Democrat Party.
The great thing about Elon Musk and Donald Trump, is even though they're wealthy, they don't see themselves as aristocrats. They have too much self-awareness and confidence in their own being to need that bullshit. Journalists and anybody who says "I studied that in college" as some sort of shallow ethos are delusional.
For me, a professional sinner and hard drinking, cigarette smoking Christian, I'd rather hang out with the smelly shepherds and fisherman than the Pharisees and Sadducees.
Interesting how Jesus picked common people to be his Apostles and Disciples to spread his truth.
Maybe he made them pay $8 for verification.
tim maguire said...
"Howard said...Griffin should have been permanently banned from Twitter because the bloody head was an imposter. It's an unforgivable crime to get people's hopes up.
We may arrive at the same place for different reasons, but that's the beauty of a free society. We're allowed to have our own reasons."
The only difference being that the Howards of this country want to make sure you're punished for your reasons.
Did she tweet the severed bloody head of the Trump mannequin, or was that on her Instagram or - ugh - OnlyFans account?
Why is this being treated as new information?
Worth noting that the article Ann linked to was primarily about Instagram, not Twitter- although it does mention the checkmark Black Market as involving Twitter accounts, too.
If widely known, why is the Left crying about $8? It seemed okay that Twitter was charging big bucks for certain accounts before.
They're crying because now any deplorable can get a blue check, so they've lost their elite status and leftist echo chamber.
Ann: "My problem with that is that a lot of ordinary people are going to be paying the new charge and not just the kind of people who could and would pay those big "bribes."
I don't understand what you mean. It's a voluntary thing; no one has to pay it.
Or do you mean the great unwashed are going to be paying it rather than just the current holders?
Marcus B. THEOLDMAN
Let's make it a red bird or blue bird choice. Of course, we could wind up with rainbow birds. And birds wearing face masks.
Howard said...
Here's Wendy easily triggered by sarcastic nonsense. Face it girlfriend, you just like to be angry and nasty toward phantom enemies and the bots keep feeding your habit. That's the point, Wendy Darling. Not the spiced up pablum theatre of social media click bait that you keep swallowing wholesale by the bushel.
11/7/22, 7:58 AM
Don't darling me, you violence loving Democrat. Not triggered, just sick of the hate and violence coming from your side, HONEY.
The evidence that Twitter fixers took bribes is that some large accounts now claim that they were approached with offers to be verified for amounts between $12 and $15 thousand dollars. The fact that Instagram took them just shows that it’s common practice, and the article makes the claim that Twitter has a transparent verification process is laughable on its face.
I might pay "two fiddy" for this blog and its comments each month. Lots of good conversations; sorta like a every night crowd at a tavern where there are the regulars, some newbies, and an assortment of nice people and a-holes.
The amount I would be willing to pay is based on my budget and not on the value I assign to the blog and its comment section.
Marcus B. THEOLDMAN
Good god, it's almost worth it to have the Democrats in charge so I don't have to see or listen to that shrew Griffin. (almost)
She only pops her head out of the pit of obscurity she belongs in when she throws bombs at the enemies of Democrats.
If we allow the peasants to use blue checks how will we know who the nobles are?
Leland: "Millhiser gets it wrong. The problem with blue check marks was the assumption of certain speech being more honest than others, because of verification. If you wrote about Hunter’s laptop or the Covid vaccines not actually preventing getting or spreading the disease, you were banned. Blue checkmarks could claim Hunter’s laptop was Russian disinformation with no repercussions. That’s not verification or honest debate. It is elitism, but not because CEO’s had blue checkmarks too, but because the press parroted them."
Imagine an army of purple-haired Howards determining who gets what level of "verification" and validation for their "Truth's" with the power to shut out any outside opinions.
Howard's performances at Althouse is a clear representation of what Weak, Wussified, Soft, Nervous, Insecure Old Twitter was all about. Perfectly representative in fact.
gahrie: "If we allow the peasants to use blue checks how will we know who the nobles are?"
Perfectly captured.
Old Twitter had the two things Progressives like most:
1. Benefits completely paid for by someone else.
2. Elite pseudo-status for the right kind of people.
aka. Put your money where your mouth is.
"Journalists" do not deserve respect or special treatment just because they are part of a news media industry. Where does that idea even come from? It's ludicrous. It's contrary to the spirit of the democratic ideal of 1 person, 1 vote, and equal protection. It's a danger to democracy.
There is nothing special about them, at all. They are just people with cameras, keyboards and access to websites who are trying to influence others. They are little different from TikTokers.
When you think of today's journalists, you should think about a 1700s-era ink-stained rabble-rouser running a printing press and distributing pamphlets with biased information intended to dupe low-information people and push their personal interests. There is no difference.
I'd like to know what is the strongest argument that "journalists" deserve special protections or access or respect. Because I don't see it.
"Howard’s a cunt. Pretty simple."
Wrong. Howard is a daft cunt.
No one is forced to pay $8/month for a checkmark, so I don't understand the problem here. The deal is really simple- you want a blue checkmark, it will be $8/month. Complaining about this the equivalent of complaining that after that free year of Amazon Prime, you had to come up with the money each month to continue the service.
quod erat demonstratum eg center mass. Love the secondaries going off like the 4th of July.
Kathy Griffin, the attention whore, gets more attention. Elon Musk really should make her suspension permanent. Make her work to get her daily dose of attention.
Did anyone really think that?
I just thought the blue check meant this is really the person it purports to be AND this is someone that Twitter thought was important enough to have an identity that was worth verifying.
I wouldn’t expect people to really believe it, but I never thought I would read journalist claiming a MD was wrong because they didn’t just accept CDC guidelines. More to the point, we had plenty of blue checkmarks claiming the Hunter laptop was Russian disinformation from non-blue checkmark bots and those that fell for them, hence the comfort with banning them. Twitter would even strip users of blue checkmarks for disinformation, which is odd if it is simply a verification badge. At that point, the blue checkmark is less verification and more a mark of authority. When anyone can pay for one, then that authority vanishes.
Howard: "Love the secondaries going off like the 4th of July."
Your delusions are hilarious! But not in a good way, for you.
I guess I should ask Howard: Howard, are you upset that the insider/"elite" set of democratical "important people" (the ones that tell you what to do and say) are throwing your entire set of talking points over the side after years of you dutifully pushing those gaslighting lies at Althouse blog?
Are your reevaluating your peon/cannon fodder status within the hierarchy of Team Woke?
Or has that boot really just begun to taste "not that bad"?
Oh, journalists were "mistaken [to be] a part of an overclass"?
Thanks for the much needed laugh.
Ann Althouse said...
Mashable had an article about paying for blue checks back in 2017.
Why is this being treated as new information?
Because it was memory holed by the "journalist" twits who desperately enjoyed having theirBlue Checks
It seems to me that impersonating someone else—I.e. representing that another person said something that they did not say—is substantively different than saying something unkind about a person. In a forum such as Twitter it violates the basic rules necessary for Twitter to operate.
If it’s “satire” then publish it under your own brand. Like the Babylon Bee does.
Putting out fake tweets under someone else’s name is simply dishonest.
we wound up getting the same marker next to our name as presidents and CEOs — and were mistaken a part of an overclass
No, the problem was that they, the "journalists" with the Blue Checks, took themselves as being part of the overclass because of their Blue Checks.
Which is why they're so outraged at members of the great unwashed getting them
I agree about a one time payment for verification. However, subscription is the new marketing thing. BMW wants owners to subscribe for already installed seat warmers. Intel wants server admins to subscribe to unlock efficiency tools already designed into their chips. YouTube has subscriptions for various features. Meta wants a subscription. Twitter is essentially following a trend.
Another trend is digital identity verification. This is meant to provide three services. One is knowing you are a person rather than a bot. This can then provide you certain access to things you have been credentialed or authorized to access. And for marketing, your interests can get tagged to your ID. The latter item would likely get a lot of pushback from those that value privacy. In the meantime, for Twitter, $8 a month is not just a one time verification, but a routine acceptance of an ever changing user agreement to be tracked.
One flaw is that bots, specifically their owners, can easily pay $8/mo. How do you distinguish from a bot and someone that simply parrots some narrative?
Concerning Kathy Griffin's ban that liberals are bitching about. Good point made by Jack Posobiec:
"Elon is getting the entire left to normalize the idea of returning people who have been banned from Twitter. Pay attention to his strategy here"
No, Drago, Howard enjoys being a fluffer- it is the only action a fat fuck like him ever gets.
It’s not clear, and maybe I’m just being dim witted (because tweets don’t seem to tell the whole story. Surprisingly), but is it $8 period, or $8 per month in addition to the verification process? Or is the verification process completely abandoned? As it stands right now, you still need to verify (and be notable and active).
I still think that Elon is playing the Sylvester McMonkey McBean gambit.
All I know is Jonathan Tuley tried to get verified and was denied!
He believes in free speech.
Not hard to determine why they wouldn’t verify him.
I don't care at all about the checks. Am currently paying Twitter $5 a month for (the one tangible benefit I wanted) the ability to edit tweets, because I'm an idiot and the sight of e.g. that missed apostrophe embarrasses me for fifteen minutes before I forget about it. And it is even worse really because I don't imagine that anyone has ever not been able to tell what I'm going on about, mistake or not. The edit feature works great, although if e.g. someone retweets the original tweet the edit doesn't fix the mistake in the retweet.
In the "why not just a yearly charge instead of a monthly $8?": because that is the current subscription model for pretty much all streaming services. You sign up for $6.50 a month and can cancel at any time. Most services assume (or I do) that you'll just keep them around for convenience when you see or read about something you want to watch. If it was a $78 payment up front, they might tend to decide the cost not worth the value.
Marcus B. THEOLDMAN
Expect to be dead center of landfall of Hurricane Nicole at Cat 1 (my prediction which isn't worth much) Thursday AM. I stopped by Walmart earlier this evening and ZERO water available. I always have 4 cases parred up.
Post a Comment