3 ms·

Why would Twitter want to verify someone who is problematic? Sounds like a recipe for disaster. Their definition of verification includes public interest, and

Why would Twitter want to verify someone who is problematic? Sounds like a recipe for disaster. Their definition of verification includes public interest, and if the public is not interested in someone problematic, why would Twitter verify them in the first place?

keanzu 7y ago
Problematic lies in the eye of the beholder.
- Hokusai 7y ago
  > Problematic lies in the eye of the beholder. You are right. I guess that it would be more accurate to talk about xenophobic and racist content providers instead of 'problematic'. Naming them for what they are makes it way more clear.
  - mc32 7y ago
    I was thinking “problematic” people like Assange. I included scare quotes cuz that’s what it is. I don’t know if Assange is xenophobic or whatever, but he is a well known person yet they failed to checkmark him.
    - FillardMillmore 7y ago
      Just to be clear, I don't think Assange would be considered "problematic" for anything like xenophobia, but rather his history of aiding and facilitating the release of information that governments find to be inconvenient.
Hokusai 7y ago
> ... judges decided that the US constitution's First Amendment did not apply to YouTube, a private company. The legal system sides with you. Platforms are not forced to accept members that go against the platform core values or economic interests. Tweeter brand is tied to the people that uses the service. * https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-51658341 https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-51658341
- taverify7559 7y ago
  YouTube, Twitter, Facebook, Reddit, etc. editorialize their content selectively. Ergo, they are publishers, not neutral platforms.
- keanzu 7y ago
  Ah, so there we have it. The definition of problematic is: Problematic for Twitter's brand.
taverify7559 7y ago
The public is most certainly interested in ‘problematic’ figures, including those who were banned from Twitter and snubbed of verification. It’s merely not the same subset of the public that shares, confirms, and amplifies the political biases of Twitter’s staff.
- FillardMillmore 7y ago
  It does make you wonder though, how interested is the general public in figures like Assange and Snowden? How much interest and knowledge does the general public have in them compared to pop culture figures?

keanzu 7y ago

Problematic lies in the eye of the beholder.

Hokusai 7y ago
> Problematic lies in the eye of the beholder. You are right. I guess that it would be more accurate to talk about xenophobic and racist content providers instead of 'problematic'. Naming them for what they are makes it way more clear.
- mc32 7y ago
  I was thinking “problematic” people like Assange. I included scare quotes cuz that’s what it is. I don’t know if Assange is xenophobic or whatever, but he is a well known person yet they failed to checkmark him.
  - FillardMillmore 7y ago
    Just to be clear, I don't think Assange would be considered "problematic" for anything like xenophobia, but rather his history of aiding and facilitating the release of information that governments find to be inconvenient.

Hokusai 7y ago

> ... judges decided that the US constitution's First Amendment did not apply to YouTube, a private company. The legal system sides with you. Platforms are not forced to accept members that go against the platform core values or economic interests. Tweeter brand is tied to the people that uses the service. * https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-51658341 https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-51658341

taverify7559 7y ago
YouTube, Twitter, Facebook, Reddit, etc. editorialize their content selectively. Ergo, they are publishers, not neutral platforms.
keanzu 7y ago
Ah, so there we have it. The definition of problematic is: Problematic for Twitter's brand.

taverify7559 7y ago

The public is most certainly interested in ‘problematic’ figures, including those who were banned from Twitter and snubbed of verification. It’s merely not the same subset of the public that shares, confirms, and amplifies the political biases of Twitter’s staff.

FillardMillmore 7y ago
It does make you wonder though, how interested is the general public in figures like Assange and Snowden? How much interest and knowledge does the general public have in them compared to pop culture figures?