The Twitter Rules(support.twitter.com)
support.twitter.com
The Twitter Rules
https://support.twitter.com/articles/18311
65 comments
It does not simply mean "this person is who they say they are" and never has. Everybody knowledgeable about Twitter (including Twitter themselves) who makes this claim is gaslighting. Twitter's own documentation explains that the blue checkmark is reserved for accounts of "public interest". The checkmarks are displayed prominently in the avatar photo of accounts, rather than simply as an element of a user's profile.
Verified Twitter accounts are promoted Twitter accounts. Twitter does the blue checkmark thing as a perk to attract noteworthy people to their platform, and to draw the attention of ordinary users to those noteworthy people.
Verified Twitter accounts are promoted Twitter accounts. Twitter does the blue checkmark thing as a perk to attract noteworthy people to their platform, and to draw the attention of ordinary users to those noteworthy people.
> It does not simply mean "this person is who they say they are" and never has.
I was under the same impression that OP was, so I looked up the verified account announcement from the Twitter in 2009[1]:
"To prevent identity confusion, Twitter is experimenting (beta testing) with a 'Verified Account' feature. We're working to establish authenticity with people who deal with impersonation or identity confusion on a regular basis."
[1] https://web.archive.org/web/20090615114316/http://twitter.co...
I was under the same impression that OP was, so I looked up the verified account announcement from the Twitter in 2009[1]:
"To prevent identity confusion, Twitter is experimenting (beta testing) with a 'Verified Account' feature. We're working to establish authenticity with people who deal with impersonation or identity confusion on a regular basis."
[1] https://web.archive.org/web/20090615114316/http://twitter.co...
It's interesting seeing tons of "journalists" who aren't well known, of public interest, or in any way prominent being given this status. Specifically if you're a new journalist straight out of school for certain publications, have penned maybe a few articles which nobody has read, and have a Twitter account with a few hundred followers if that (most likely friends/family and acquaintances), apparently this badge is warranted, because a LOT of people matching that description have it. It clearly doesn't follow from any need to be correctly identified, your "credibility" on anything, whether Twitter necessarily endorses you, whether you're being promoted, or whatever reason anyone claims.
Tim Pool recounted how his account got verified a few days ago: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=67nFNUPQaeI&t=1m25s.
TL;DW: His employer, VICE, instructed Twitter to verify him, and they did.
Ultimately that's what this badge comes down to: for most people it's a mark of being on the inside, knowing the right people. The right agency, the right employer, maybe just having a friend working at Twitter. There are some other certain criteria that aren't publicized, and they have in the past randomly given it out to "high profile" people on Twitter, even though that seems to be totally random as well.
This is a special club, Twitter has on and off said it means many things, but there's no consistency. Just like there's no consistency with how they enforce their rules, there's no consistency with this special privilege either.
Tim Pool recounted how his account got verified a few days ago: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=67nFNUPQaeI&t=1m25s.
TL;DW: His employer, VICE, instructed Twitter to verify him, and they did.
Ultimately that's what this badge comes down to: for most people it's a mark of being on the inside, knowing the right people. The right agency, the right employer, maybe just having a friend working at Twitter. There are some other certain criteria that aren't publicized, and they have in the past randomly given it out to "high profile" people on Twitter, even though that seems to be totally random as well.
This is a special club, Twitter has on and off said it means many things, but there's no consistency. Just like there's no consistency with how they enforce their rules, there's no consistency with this special privilege either.
You say there's no consistency, but you've just stated the consistent rule.
Twitter gives the status to people who have good connections to Twitter.
Given we all agree on this being the actual state of things, getting mad at them for giving this status to white nationalists makes complete sense. Twitter is boosting these people with this verification process that serves to boost their friends.
If we think that the blue checkmark makes you belong to the country club, who you let in is a signifier of Twitter's beliefs.
Twitter gives the status to people who have good connections to Twitter.
Given we all agree on this being the actual state of things, getting mad at them for giving this status to white nationalists makes complete sense. Twitter is boosting these people with this verification process that serves to boost their friends.
If we think that the blue checkmark makes you belong to the country club, who you let in is a signifier of Twitter's beliefs.
Meanwhile when they opened up the application process for anyone to request verification, they made the implication that a verified account was a "high quality" account you might want to follow.
https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/twitter-announces-a...
>We hope opening up this application process results in more people finding great, high-quality accounts to follow
This seems to be where the line started blurring between "this is who they say they are" and "this account is an asset to our platform."
https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/twitter-announces-a...
>We hope opening up this application process results in more people finding great, high-quality accounts to follow
This seems to be where the line started blurring between "this is who they say they are" and "this account is an asset to our platform."
The purpose of and process around Verified status has changed a lot since 2009
Also worth noting that verified accounts have access to exclusive features.
What are these features?
My point is that it's not consistent. Why would they leave serial rapist Harvey Weinstein verified on Twitter, meanwhile "unverifying" idiot Laura Loomer?
They also don't verify popular people on other platforms who have hundreds of thousands of followers on both YouTube and Twitter who might actually be the target of some fake Twitter accounts.
Foreign terrorist association the Muslim Brotherhood is also verified, is that a tacit endorsement?
I've seen notable accounts permanently suspended from Twitter for arguing with actual neo-Nazis.
Absolutely no consistency or transparency is part of what is killing the platform for large swaths of users.
They also don't verify popular people on other platforms who have hundreds of thousands of followers on both YouTube and Twitter who might actually be the target of some fake Twitter accounts.
Foreign terrorist association the Muslim Brotherhood is also verified, is that a tacit endorsement?
I've seen notable accounts permanently suspended from Twitter for arguing with actual neo-Nazis.
Absolutely no consistency or transparency is part of what is killing the platform for large swaths of users.
>the blue checkmark is reserved for accounts of "public interest"
>Everybody knowledgeable about Twitter (including Twitter themselves) who makes this claim is gaslighting.
Absolutely so! Tptacek has spoken truth, albeit in a jumbled manner. The claim that the blue checkmark signifies people of public interest is ridiculous given how major world actors such as Julian Assange have been denied it.
>Everybody knowledgeable about Twitter (including Twitter themselves) who makes this claim is gaslighting.
Absolutely so! Tptacek has spoken truth, albeit in a jumbled manner. The claim that the blue checkmark signifies people of public interest is ridiculous given how major world actors such as Julian Assange have been denied it.
The logic then seems bizarre to rescind the blue checkmark for people who misbehave in real life. Is Harvey Weinstein/Kevin Spacey more or less noteworthy because of their alleged abuses that came to light recently?
They are certainly noteworthy regardless - and seems in part - due to their awful behavior.
That said, both have a long documented history of abuse ranging from verbal to physical to sexual. If Twitter keeps to their new policy, both should lose their endorsement in 5.. 4.. 3..
That said, both have a long documented history of abuse ranging from verbal to physical to sexual. If Twitter keeps to their new policy, both should lose their endorsement in 5.. 4.. 3..
But in all cases it's just allegations, nothing that's been proven in a court of law. And in that case, then Bill Clinton, who has been credibly accused of rape, should also be losing his endorsement.
Hoo boy, twitter really made problems from themselves when they made a blue checkmark mean anything other than "famous person, identity verified".
Hoo boy, twitter really made problems from themselves when they made a blue checkmark mean anything other than "famous person, identity verified".
I’ve noticed the word “gaslighting” being increasingly used. I’ve also noticed that my brain responds to use of this word by decreasing its expectation that the text or utterance is worth listening to.
Looking at the way it’s used in this comment, I would say it is ascribing malice where malice is unlikely, and would be implausible in the first place. So maybe my brain’s heuristic is justified.
Looking at the way it’s used in this comment, I would say it is ascribing malice where malice is unlikely, and would be implausible in the first place. So maybe my brain’s heuristic is justified.
I've noticed the word "gaslighting" has increasingly come to mean "believing that something happened which is inconvenient to my argument but did actually happen".
Report the bad guys like I do, my reports constantly result in punitive action. Twitter notifies you when they take action on a report, including the user you reported. It’s pretty great!
What’s an example of what you report?
These are fish in a barrel, obviously some are much harder to pin down.
https://twitter.com/h0usew1fe/status/932645874747846656
https://twitter.com/moloian_thomas/status/932645063615660033
https://twitter.com/bo_rigga/status/932605065696866304
https://twitter.com/legnon_j/status/932570415913930752
https://twitter.com/h0usew1fe/status/932645874747846656
https://twitter.com/moloian_thomas/status/932645063615660033
https://twitter.com/bo_rigga/status/932605065696866304
https://twitter.com/legnon_j/status/932570415913930752
A rule is one thing, enforcement is another. No rule or law is 100% enforceable, nor is the discretion at which punishment prescribed is equal and constant.
It is quite an endeavor to regulate a platform with the population of the US with much fewer resources. Twitter isn't perfect, however I applaud their efforts.
It is quite an endeavor to regulate a platform with the population of the US with much fewer resources. Twitter isn't perfect, however I applaud their efforts.
Professor who tweeted that he wants white holocaust is still active and spreading its propaganda with very hurtful communist regime symbols https://twitter.com/ciccmaher
Why is Twitter not doing anything?! They even verified him to him a more legitimate voice.
Why is Twitter not doing anything?! They even verified him to him a more legitimate voice.
> We believe that everyone should have the power to create and share ideas and information instantly, without barriers.
I can't wait for this to mean what it used to mean: owning a domain and putting up a website.
I can't wait for this to mean what it used to mean: owning a domain and putting up a website.
You can do this today; install and maintain an OStatus compliant app on your own domain (gnusocial, mastodon, et cetera)
I spent a few minutes Googling "OStatus spec". This Medium post [1] on the first page of results sums the prospects of this working nicely:
> Federated social networks such as Mastodon and GNUSocial communicate using a protocol known as ‘OStatus’. This is partly documented in an unfinished specification (the OStatus 1.0 Draft 2.0 document), and is otherwise defined by some parties as a non-living anti-standard which is ‘whatever it has been historically’, or the exact opposite ‘whatever it needs to be’, usually further qualified as ‘well, whatever my software, the one true use case, thinks it needs to be’.
[1] https://medium.com/@Rushyo/on-supporting-content-types-other...
> Federated social networks such as Mastodon and GNUSocial communicate using a protocol known as ‘OStatus’. This is partly documented in an unfinished specification (the OStatus 1.0 Draft 2.0 document), and is otherwise defined by some parties as a non-living anti-standard which is ‘whatever it has been historically’, or the exact opposite ‘whatever it needs to be’, usually further qualified as ‘well, whatever my software, the one true use case, thinks it needs to be’.
[1] https://medium.com/@Rushyo/on-supporting-content-types-other...
Mastodon has recently enabled Activity Streams 2.0 (I'm fairly certain 2.0) which is a W3C Standard.
I believe the move was founded on arguments of "OStatus is a tad unflexible for our needs" or something along those lines.
I believe the move was founded on arguments of "OStatus is a tad unflexible for our needs" or something along those lines.
I love it! One happy-talk sentence that contradicts the rest of the article, wherein all the barriers are listed in great detail.
With registrars being as censorious as they've been lately?
How censorious have they been lately?
So these 5 or 10 companies don’t want to host this one website.
I guess “Not very censorious” or “Not enough data” is the answer.
I guess “Not very censorious” or “Not enough data” is the answer.
It's not 5 or 10, every single domain provider have banned them so far. Still happening today.
Less censorious than Twitter.
Twitter's lawyers are probably out celebrating this weekend.
> Accounts using unauthorized badges as part of their profile photos, header photos, display names, [...]
Interesting. Of course there's no way to put an actual badge in your display name. But this sounds like it's targeted at Julian Assange, who ends his name with a blue diamond emoji that is reminiscent of a verified badge if you're not looking closely.
Interesting. Of course there's no way to put an actual badge in your display name. But this sounds like it's targeted at Julian Assange, who ends his name with a blue diamond emoji that is reminiscent of a verified badge if you're not looking closely.
I hope they don't act on Assange's blue emoji. It's gloriously petulant (as is Twitter's refusal to verify the account, in fairness) and deserves to be preserved.
They banned it from new display names, I guess he was “grandfathered” in.
[deleted]
Even though superficially they are cracking down on every conceivable way of abusing and harming others, including mere "wishing" for harm, I see nothing about one of their user's favorite pastime: Attempting to cause economic damage to a target, such as loss of customers or loss of job. It's an interesting omission.
What a disaster. Comparing twitter of today to what it once was makes me sad.
It's still a useful platform for now, but they seem to be trying their hardest to be anti-user.