4 ms·

Why wouldn't they just have a blue check for "identity verified" and a green check for "Valued Community Member". Give your racists, weirdos, trolls, etc the bl

Why wouldn't they just have a blue check for "identity verified" and a green check for "Valued Community Member". Give your racists, weirdos, trolls, etc the blue check and no perks if you can identify them, and reporters, politicians, whatever the green check and the perks. I really hate how big companies get paralyzed over problems like this. A small group would have solved this the same day the realized it was an issue.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
wklauss 9y ago
> Why wouldn't they just have a blue check for "identity verified" and a green check for "Valued Community Member". Because then we will be having this same conversation about Twitter mismanagement of green checks. Identity is not the problem. What bigots, racist, nazis and political actors are demanding is status, not recognition. Milo followers know he is who he say he is.
- StavrosK 9y ago
  But that's exactly the problem. Twitter started the blue check as verification and then it slowly transitioned to mean "valuable member", through, I imagine, employees taking small steps at a time ("hey, we only blue check famous people, so we might as well report that on the shareholder meetings"). Thus, the blue check slowly became something different than intended, and realizing this and having a second check for that ("blue is only for verification!") would have solved the problem.
dbbk 9y ago
I agree with you, though I think the "green check" should be an internal status. They even already have a designation for them - "Very Important Tweeters", but they conflated that with verification status. Keep the Verified checkmark, but have a separate internal flag that designates a user as a VIT. Most of the time someone will be both. But in cases like Milo, you can take away the VIT, but keep the Verified checkmark. Problem solved.

4 ms·

Why wouldn't they just have a blue check for "identity verified" and a green check for "Valued Community Member". Give your racists, weirdos, trolls, etc the bl

by ImSkeptical 9y ago

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
wklauss 9y ago
> Why wouldn't they just have a blue check for "identity verified" and a green check for "Valued Community Member". Because then we will be having this same conversation about Twitter mismanagement of green checks. Identity is not the problem. What bigots, racist, nazis and political actors are demanding is status, not recognition. Milo followers know he is who he say he is.
- StavrosK 9y ago
  But that's exactly the problem. Twitter started the blue check as verification and then it slowly transitioned to mean "valuable member", through, I imagine, employees taking small steps at a time ("hey, we only blue check famous people, so we might as well report that on the shareholder meetings"). Thus, the blue check slowly became something different than intended, and realizing this and having a second check for that ("blue is only for verification!") would have solved the problem.
dbbk 9y ago
I agree with you, though I think the "green check" should be an internal status. They even already have a designation for them - "Very Important Tweeters", but they conflated that with verification status. Keep the Verified checkmark, but have a separate internal flag that designates a user as a VIT. Most of the time someone will be both. But in cases like Milo, you can take away the VIT, but keep the Verified checkmark. Problem solved.