It's like the cry "I thought you loved me!" when a marriage comes to an end.Here is why, in the words of our executive editor @SallyBuzbee, the @washingtonpost will not pay @twitter for Blue Checkmarks: pic.twitter.com/FKN4ePs1oH
— Karen Tumulty (@ktumulty) April 3, 2023
No, this was not love. It was not honor. It was just the 2 of us, responding to incentives, in an awkward dance that was only ever commercial, and now, an exchange of money is needed, and you owe me.
पोस्ट्स
५७ टिप्पण्या:
That moment when you see the sans culotte...
"Authority and expertise"
Inside their bubble they cannot see how much the world has changed over the past decade.
One day reality will hit them in the face. And hit hard.
The old Twitter practice was a routine Silicon Valley snob-appeal play -- Twitter was then just a small-fish technology startup and used blue checks to elevate its de facto unpaid marketing team. Recall that upon its release in 2004, "The Facebook" was restricted to Ivy League / elite universities and then to other universities. For a while one had to be 'invited' by a current member to gain access, and The Facebook's terms and conditions of membership were not made public. Joining required a blind leap of faith. Recall that Google's Gmail initially limited enrollment to beta testers and then by-referral-only.
The naïve and the snobbish bought all of this propaganda hook, line, and sinker. Feed ego, feed pride, get rich and collect detailed user data to sell ads and further manipulate the gullible through targeted propaganda. It's the oldest trick in the book, and even ancient bible teachings warned against pride:
"Pride goeth before destruction, and an haughty spirit before a fall."
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Proverbs%2016:18&version=KJV
Don't blame Musk for being honest and realistic about the role of business over time, nor for the character failings of oldline establishment media as new competitors arose. Recall how the clumsy, outdated, and technically weak America On-Line bought old-school media king Time Warner 20 years ago, and then AOL immediately crashed and burned.
They're complaining that they have to pay a nominal fee for an advertising channel that used to be free. It's normal to not want to pay for things you used to get for free, but smart people knuckle under and pay if it's in their interests.
IMO, the NYT and WaPo will cave before Musk does.
They really do believe their own bullshit.
I guess when 'expertise' has been exposed as weak group-think, and not much more, it's time to review how you set your standards. Twitter is resetting it's standards. Google is also resetting it's standards. As is Meta. As many serious companies, with a desire to remain relevant are doing.
WaPo is not among that group.
Same 'ol gov't sponsored media misinformation, without the distracting blue check.
Perhaps the legacy media will be satisfied with the gold checkmark, whatever the hell that represents. Long-term, I think most of these organizations will pony-up the $8/mo and get back in the game. And assuming Twitter has passed and survived its nadir, Musk will also do OK, long-term.
Reputation is earned and lost not by the platform, but by the user.
Either they maintain their unique name or not. Either their followers continue to follow them or not. Either their individual constituent journalists and editors encourage their reputation - or not.
They are basically worried about people playing name games. I get it. But at the same time, this is not a brand new platform. Either you have a reputation you can stand on....or you don't, and a single errant text by some anonymous person is actually a fear of yours.
At least they increased their vocabulary over the past week and dropped "authority" for "authenticity". Authenticity is now available to everyone for $8/mo. I would like someone to show me in the previous Twitter ULA where it said a blue check mark denoted "expertise".
Do they ever address the first reason that Musk gave for eliminating legacy blue checks? Because it was the complete corruption of the process, money changed hands that didn't go to Twitter, but to employees who had the power to grant the boon, the process wasn't open, and the favoritism by insiders at Twitter to certain points of view. He said it was impossible to disentangle.
"Carefully curated?" I read an article elsewhere quoting a variety of historical "blue checks" who are furious with Elon Musk for his combining the historical group of "blue checks" with those who pay the $8/month. The only name I recognized was not for any expertise but because the individual got caught behaving very badly in public.
It's hilarious to watch.
In many ways, Twitter was the epitome of over-credentialism. The blue-checkmark wasn't given for actual accomplishments, but for being the right sort of person, having the right connections. It was the ultimate credential for the credential class.
I don't do social media, but I always thought the blue check mark meant only that the account was real - that is, someone wasn't spoofing the Post, Times, or whoever. It said nothing about the expertise or authority of the account owner. If that was really the case, then given Twitter's leftist tendencies, no conservative person or organization would have been given the blue check mark.
I don't do social media, but I always thought the blue check mark meant only that the account was real - that is, someone wasn't spoofing the Post, Times, or whoever. It said nothing about the expertise or authority of the account owner. If that was really the case, then given Twitter's leftist tendencies, no conservative person or organization would have been given the blue check mark.
I don't do social media, but I always thought the blue check mark meant only that the account was real - that is, someone wasn't spoofing the Post, Times, or whoever. It said nothing about the expertise or authority of the account owner. If that was really the case, then given Twitter's leftist tendencies, no conservative person or organization would have been given the blue check mark.
I'm pretty certain that the Washington Post charges people a subscription for their service.
Why is it suddenly wrong for Twitter to charge for its service?
"It's evident that verified blue checkmarks no longer represent authority and expertise" is one of the funniest things I've read this year.
Hint: They NEVER represented authority and expertise. They represented the ILLUSION of authority and expertise.
"It's evident that blue check marks no longer represent authority and expertise".
Get over yourself. You're nothing but bullshit propaganda. Nobody trusts your authority nor considers your institution an expert on anything but lying.
Oops, my bad; I didn't read the statement long enough. WaPo, in its bid at consistency, first refers "these verified checkmarks will no longer be used to represent expertise/authenticity", then later states "It's evident that verified blue checkmarks no longer represent authority and expertise." Does Washington Post have editors that actually edit their work? Or do they just bitch about others work?
On the other hand, if I believe the full statement from WaPo, which I dd not; it seems Twitter is offering Gold Checkmarks for "verified organizations". Thus WaPo can post links to whatever it wants and people will know it is them because of a Gold Checkmark. It seems WaPo is unwilling to pay so their reporters and editors can post content on Twitter. I have to say, why would WaPo pay for its employees to post articles on another platform? Aren't those reporters and editors paid to post content at the Washington Post?
It seems to me that WaPo is acting like a legitimate business telling its employees it won't pay so they can give away content to another provider. Further, it seems the reporters and editors are too blinded by bias to recognize the rational decision made by their employer.
Best new part of Musk's twitter are the community notes that get posted on MSM fake new reports and propaganda.
Here's news flash from Tumulty. Many conservative consumers (I can only speak for myself) viewed the "blue check" as a proxy for liberal hacks who the Twitter employees wanted to promote. Curated indeed!
A dollar says WaPo and nyt as well as most other media is paying by June.
John Henry
I don't remember blue checkmarks being a sign of authority or expertise at all. Blue checks were a sign that the account was verified to belong to the person or organization who claimed to own the account. (Also, the person requesting it had not offended the tender sensibilities of the Twitter staff and were being denied for ideological reasons.) Nobodies had blue checks.
Interesting use of the term authority in that snippet. So they felt that the blue checkmark gave them power.
“Respect my authoritay” - Cartman, SouthPark
So again with the authority and expertise! Except that we're now a step closer to understanding what the former blue checks meant by that phrase: now we know they believe the checks denoted authority and expertise because they were "curated" to do so.
By a team at Twitter. Who were not authorities or experts in the field in which they were evaluating relative authority and expertise.
Hell, I could've done that. In fact, when I do do that in my own life, I find - mirabile dictu, but really, is it a surprise? - that I tend to favor the things I like, or that confirm my preferences and opinions. Am I supposed to believe that the blue check team at Twitter was so much more conscientious? I'm going to need to see some evidence first.
It's certainly true that by setting the bar so low, $8-$11 a month or whatever it is, Twitter has opened the possibility that the unanointed (to borrow from Sowell) may also occupy the (ivory?) towers once restricted to the Twitter-curated Authoritative Experts. That's gotta sting, I suppose. What's the good of unquestionable power and influence if mere money can buy the same access?
As I noted in a previous comment, I think it's likely that Twitter set up the policy this way initially because they could have been harassed into oblivion by the rich and famous who didn't like fake or parody accounts and there was no way for Twitter to push back with 'make your own account.' It was only after having a Blue Check became a mark of being one of the Kool Kidz that the 'expert and authoritative' rationale was applied to the policy.
I dunno how it's going to work. Will people really care that the official WaPo account isn't blue check? How about any one of the reports or columnists? The lack of 'boost' is probably going to hurt them some but how much was Twitter driving regular traffic to their websites?
This is just silly special pleading. We've all seen recent accounts from reporters about how proud they were to receive their blue check *upon being hired*, long before they'd developed any kind of expertise or reputation. The checkmark connoted guild membership and elite approval, nothing more.
It was never about denoting experts. Reality is truly subjective.
I used to think politicians were the worst, but it's journalists and that industry as a whole. A bunch of people that think they are always the heroes, when in fact they are mostly the problem.
Capitalism works. We provide a service, you pay us.
Well, it appears the Coordinated Cancel Conspiracy is on against Elon, who is On Deck to be the World's Most Horrible Person after we finish with that bastard, Trump.
We ain't payin' for your stinkin' Blue Check mark. Now, buy our paper.
Blue checks no longer represent "authority and expertise".
In that case you should have had your blue check removed years ago.
Feel lucky you can buy it back...and you will.
The NYT, like so many others, know print is a dying breed. Twitter gained you a TON of clicks. You need them more than they need you.
I wonder when Musk will be indicted.
"authority and expertise"
That's funny. It'a also funny that WaPo says this without any apparent self-awareness. Or scary: in the prog bubble, they can afford to be un-self-aware, taking absurd self-overestimation as affirming the superiority of the anointed.
#Labels #Prejudgments #NYT #FOX #WaPo #Government #PhD et al
Here's news flash from Tumulty. Many conservative consumers (I can only speak for myself) viewed the "blue check" as a proxy for liberal hacks who the Twitter employees wanted to promote. Curated indeed!
"Expertise/authenticity"?
Krikey! The arrogance never ends with these losers. Did any of us outsiders ever think that was what the blue check symbolized? I thought it was a mark of addiction.
In other words, the old Blue Checkmarks were more about "exclusion" than "inclusion."
So, we're now moving to a more "inclusive" Twitter. Remember when in WaPo world "inclusion" used to be a good thing?
Goodness, attach a resume to your profile if you want to demonstrate authority and expertise.
Or write something meaningful.
I look forward to the Karen Tumulty parody accounts. They might even represent knowledge and expertise for once.
When did the checkmark ever signify expertise and authority?
The whole purpose was to verify that the account was who it said it was. Scott Adama had a checkmark to show that things posted under his name were from him, not some rando claiming to be him.
John Henry
Mr Wibble: "In many ways, Twitter was the epitome of over-credentialism."
It was in fact the epitome of bribed over-credentialism with a side order of scuttling any contributor who wasn't a member of the over-credentialed club.
It was in fact the epitome of bribed over-credentialism with a side order of scuttling any contributor who wasn't a member of the over-credentialed club.
All credentialism ends up that way. The point of credentials is to serve as an indicator of competence, especially in situations where demonstration of competence through actual achievement is difficult. However, over time the credential becomes more important than actual competence, and the credential-holders seek to keep out any potential rivals who might threaten their position.
I suggest that Wapo post a short text statement where the Blue Check used to be:
"Former Carefully Curated Blue Check, Division of Authority and Expertise." That way we'd know who the Blue Checks were and could form a list so we'd know who had AE, a type of pathological narcissism associated with repetitive, public babbling.
Hey, I've got expertise and authenticity but never got a fancy blue checkmark and amplifiers strapped to my account. To put it into words you might understand it's like when Obama said "Greeks believe in Greek exceptionalism". Oh, your expertise and authenticity is more interesting and better than mine?
Prove it.
This time without the jet packs and laser beams boosting your visibility courtesy of Twitter.
The new blue check mark allows you to post longer tweets. I believe that limit is 4,000 characters. I occasionally use that to post short fiction as a marketing effort for my longer works. $8 per month is a low cost for marketing.
(I should post more consistently. Consistency is crucial in marketing.)
I believe the new check also allows longer videos, but I haven’t investigated that.
The old check was a sign that somebody at Twitter liked you. Nothing more. The new check is a tool you may choose to use. People who mock the new check (and there are many) are irrelevant.
Considering how quickly the WaPo is losing money, they probably can't afford the eight bucks.
"Tell Elon, it was only business. I always liked him".
The WaPofather.
Blue checks indicated algorithmic favoritism, not expertise, not reputation. They pulled retreats and comments, i.e., eyeballs, with blue checks. For data mining & ads. As did Walter Cronkite before them.
Trifecta, mongo? Bad mongo!
“I wonder when Musk will be indicted”
Don’t see it happening any time soon. The USG probably needs Musk, more than he needs them. He launches many of their satellites, and does so much faster than they can do so themselves. And is now servicing the ISS. He has some of the best battery technology. And they really, really, want access to Twitter feeds, when they think that they need them. He’s at the point now, financially, that he could buy his own country, if he wanted too - probably for less than he spent to buy Twitter.
Jeff has spoken.
There is honor among thieves. Is there virtue among whores?
I'd love to see Elon Tweet something like:
Thinking of buying the NY Times (or WaPO)
What do you think? Good idea or bad?
Then, after all the harrumphing about how NYT is privately owned by the Sulzberger family (and Carlos Slim) and not for sale:
Everything is for sale at the right price. Remember how the Bancroft family would NEVER sell to Rupert Murdoch? At least till he offered more money
The entertainment value of dropping this turd into the (Now non) Bluecheck punchbowl would be priceless.
John Henry
Nothing more than a bunch of sniveling drama queens thinking they're more important than they really are.
compare and contrast >>> blue check v rred flagggs
what is the ddifference
Bruce Hayden: "Don’t see it happening any time soon. The USG probably needs Musk, more than he needs them. He launches many of their satellites, and does so much faster than they can do so themselves."
Barring any unforseen significant engineering set backs, SpaceX will account for 80% of Earth's payload to orbit in 2023.
And that is BEFORE Starship comes fully on line.
So far this year, SpaceX's 3 main competitors in Russia, Europe and the US have launched 3 rockets in 2023.
SpaceX launched 3 in one day in March and their overall launch cadence is 1 every week or so.
And SpaceX delivers this capability at full scale for by far the best competitive price.
I believe I saw something that said the Space Shuttle system had 111 successful launch recoveries. Falcon already has about 110 successful launches with fully reusable boosters in a fraction of the time and at a frsction of the cost.
Thats why there are rumblings re: ULA Non-Space-Actually-Just-A-Jobs Program being sold off.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा