4 ms·

The most interesting reveal to me has been the the "verified" flag isn't really a verification at all.

by protomyth 11y ago

golemotron 11y ago
Especially after the removal of verification from noted cultural theorist Milo Yiannopoulos.
- makomk 11y ago
  Yeah. I don't particularly like the guy, but it's not like he stopped being Milo Yiannopoulos (sadly).
- _cpancake 11y ago
  Twitter's rules say they can remove your verified status at any time for violating their ToS. It's pretty obvious that Milo has violated their ToS many, many times, so he's not verified anymore. Don't know what the big deal about that is.
  - sib 11y ago
    I would say that the big deal is, if that is the policy, then verification does not represent "verification" so much as "you play by the rules"... As has been said elsewhere, just because Milo violated some policies, he didn't stop being Milo.
    - talmand 11y ago
      I play by the rules and I haven't been verified.
  - protomyth 11y ago
    "Don't know what the big deal about that is." Verified was originally sold as twitter saying the account belonged to a verified person or business. We could trust it was that person or organization and not some fake account. This isn't true anymore and they should rename it to something else. The other part is that their are apparently some advertising requirements associated with verified for businesses.
  - nailer 11y ago
    If he has - and I think he has based on one particular tweet where he said someone 'deserved to be harassed' - then he should be banned or suspended. Not 'unverified'. Not given a link to the ToS without at least one specific incident. Conversely, the person whose previously doxxed him - also violating the Twitter ToS - should be punished too. Twitter just need to have a concrete set of rules (objective not subjective) and enforce it consistently regardless of politics or celebrity status.
    - hsod 11y ago
      > based on one particular tweet where he said someone 'deserved to be harassed' Apparently that tweet was a joke to a friend (another conservative commentator). Which just illustrates the problem: it's really really hard to regulate speech fairly
  - Nadya 11y ago
    I don't agree with everything Milo spouts - but I don't dislike the guy, if only for his honesty (wears his biases openly on his sleeve) and doesn't-give-a-shit attitude. If he broke their TOS he should be banned. Verification is saying "This person is the person they claim to be." Removing the verification is stupid and petty. Milo didn't stop being Milo.
  - 13thLetter 11y ago
    It's a big deal once you can easily predict who is punished for ToS violations, and who gets to skate, by checking to see who has the right political views and/or friends at Twitter.
Bossman 11y ago
Yeah. Twitter needs to be more transparent on how they give those out. There's allegations that they require spending thousands on advertising unless you're a pop culture icon like a Kardashian or something. And what's the point if they can just take it away on a whim?

The most interesting reveal to me has been the the "verified" flag isn't really a verification at all.

golemotron 11y ago

Especially after the removal of verification from noted cultural theorist Milo Yiannopoulos.

makomk 11y ago
Yeah. I don't particularly like the guy, but it's not like he stopped being Milo Yiannopoulos (sadly).
_cpancake 11y ago
Twitter's rules say they can remove your verified status at any time for violating their ToS. It's pretty obvious that Milo has violated their ToS many, many times, so he's not verified anymore. Don't know what the big deal about that is.
- sib 11y ago
  I would say that the big deal is, if that is the policy, then verification does not represent "verification" so much as "you play by the rules"... As has been said elsewhere, just because Milo violated some policies, he didn't stop being Milo.
  - talmand 11y ago
    I play by the rules and I haven't been verified.
- protomyth 11y ago
  "Don't know what the big deal about that is." Verified was originally sold as twitter saying the account belonged to a verified person or business. We could trust it was that person or organization and not some fake account. This isn't true anymore and they should rename it to something else. The other part is that their are apparently some advertising requirements associated with verified for businesses.
- nailer 11y ago
  If he has - and I think he has based on one particular tweet where he said someone 'deserved to be harassed' - then he should be banned or suspended. Not 'unverified'. Not given a link to the ToS without at least one specific incident. Conversely, the person whose previously doxxed him - also violating the Twitter ToS - should be punished too. Twitter just need to have a concrete set of rules (objective not subjective) and enforce it consistently regardless of politics or celebrity status.
  - hsod 11y ago
    > based on one particular tweet where he said someone 'deserved to be harassed' Apparently that tweet was a joke to a friend (another conservative commentator). Which just illustrates the problem: it's really really hard to regulate speech fairly
- Nadya 11y ago
  I don't agree with everything Milo spouts - but I don't dislike the guy, if only for his honesty (wears his biases openly on his sleeve) and doesn't-give-a-shit attitude. If he broke their TOS he should be banned. Verification is saying "This person is the person they claim to be." Removing the verification is stupid and petty. Milo didn't stop being Milo.
- 13thLetter 11y ago
  It's a big deal once you can easily predict who is punished for ToS violations, and who gets to skate, by checking to see who has the right political views and/or friends at Twitter.

Bossman 11y ago

Yeah. Twitter needs to be more transparent on how they give those out. There's allegations that they require spending thousands on advertising unless you're a pop culture icon like a Kardashian or something. And what's the point if they can just take it away on a whim?