5 ms·
...Because that’s how Twitter used it. They didn’t offer verification to any verifiable person, it was a “big thing” with benefits. By design I would guess.
by QAPereo 9y ago
...Because that’s how Twitter used it. They didn’t offer verification to any verifiable person, it was a “big thing” with benefits. By design I would guess.
- mc32 9y agoYeah. If it was simple user verification, they would have long time ago verified the likes of Assange. Obviously they use it as a political tool, because they do verify other activists they are more in line with.
- ceejayoz 9y agoYeah, I'm no Assange fan, but his situation exposed clear issues with the capricious way verification was (or wasn't) handed out.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- Banthum 9y agoEven more blatant was un-verifying Milo Yiannopolous. How can a person become not-themselves when they've been verified to be themselves already? It made it incredibly obvious that "Verified" actually means "Morally approved by Twitter Inc."
- none_to_remain 9y agoThe fun thing to do here is hold them to this - consider any reprehensible statement by a bluecheck to be Twitter-approved.