5 ms·

Not that I disagree with your point, but Twitter has been known to "strip" the checkmark from controversial accounts. It's no longer for simply verifying authe

Not that I disagree with your point, but Twitter has been known to "strip" the checkmark from controversial accounts. It's no longer for simply verifying authenticity.

tptacek 7y ago
My impression is that it never was. Rather, the notion that the blue-check is an indicator of celebrity was cultivated by Twitter itself. It's just not something they can come out and say directly anymore.
lawnchair_larry 7y ago
If you’re referring to Milo, it was stripped for violating the terms of the checkmark, not for being controversial. His profile claimed he was a Buzzfeed reporter IIRC. Although he was being satirical, he didn’t indicate such, and this causes problems because the whole point of the checkmark is to signal that this person is who they say they are (including any claims in their bio). Since the average random person doesn’t even know who Milo is, they may see his verified profile and attribute his inflammatory comments to Buzzfeed staff members. Twitter has many examples of taking enforcement actions for silly reasons, but this one actually made sense given that logic.
- cameronbrown 7y ago
  But that's still an issue. Twitter knew who Milo was, they'd verified his identity, and although he broke the rules, removing the checkmark told his followers one thing: "we now know anyone Twitter verifies is someone they agree with politically". This puts them on the hook for everybody who's verified. It should be a verification only. If they didn't like what he said then they should've removed the account.
  - tptacek 7y ago
    You can "should" all you want, but it's not verification only. If it was, anyone could get verified. It's endorsement, and nobody wants to endorse Milo Yiannapoulos.
    - Domenic_S 7y ago
      According to twitter themselves, "The blue verified badge on Twitter lets people know that an account of public interest is authentic." https://help.twitter.com/en/managing-your-account/twitter-verified-accounts https://help.twitter.com/en/managing-your-account/twitter-ve... But i agree, in practice it's a "twitter endorses this account" indicator.
      - xwowsersx 7y ago
        You and others keep repeating what others have shown is obviously not true. Whatever the stated reasons for the blue checkmark are, it is clear that, in practice, it is not just verification.
  - asdf9240 7y ago
    As the person who you're replying to said, it was for verification. Milo does not work at Buzzfeed, but Milo claims to work at Buzzfeed on twitter. This resulted in the loss of the checkmark because Milo working at Buzzfeed is unverified.
  - lawnchair_larry 7y ago
    It’s like you didn’t even read my response. No, it had nothing to do with his politics and it had nothing to do with not liking what he said. It was because he was impersonating a buzzfeed reporter while wearing a verified identity marker.
    - isoskeles 7y ago
      We all know that twitter would recognize satire as satire if it comes from someone whose politics agree with theirs.
      - tptacek 7y ago
        We in fact do not know that and Twitter routinely bans satirical liberal accounts. Twitter moderation is bad. But, of course, good moderation would also eject Milo Yiannopolous; no serious company wants that guy around. He's banned from Facebook too. These people get banned from everywhere. Is it Laura Loomer that's banned from Uber Eats?
        s_y_n_t_a_x 7y ago
        > These people get banned from everywhere. At least you're admitting it. It's called persecution.
        JadeNB 7y ago
        Experiencing consequences for acting like a jerk isn't persecution.
        s_y_n_t_a_x 7y ago
        You talk like it's one person. It's an entire community. No proof either.
        belltaco 7y ago
  - SpicyLemonZest 7y ago
    Milo’s followers do seem to believe that, but it’s not a reasonable conclusion; lots of people who Twitter doesn’t agree with politically have blue checks.

Not that I disagree with your point, but Twitter has been known to "strip" the checkmark from controversial accounts. It's no longer for simply verifying authenticity.

tptacek 7y ago

My impression is that it never was. Rather, the notion that the blue-check is an indicator of celebrity was cultivated by Twitter itself. It's just not something they can come out and say directly anymore.

lawnchair_larry 7y ago

If you’re referring to Milo, it was stripped for violating the terms of the checkmark, not for being controversial. His profile claimed he was a Buzzfeed reporter IIRC. Although he was being satirical, he didn’t indicate such, and this causes problems because the whole point of the checkmark is to signal that this person is who they say they are (including any claims in their bio). Since the average random person doesn’t even know who Milo is, they may see his verified profile and attribute his inflammatory comments to Buzzfeed staff members. Twitter has many examples of taking enforcement actions for silly reasons, but this one actually made sense given that logic.

cameronbrown 7y ago
But that's still an issue. Twitter knew who Milo was, they'd verified his identity, and although he broke the rules, removing the checkmark told his followers one thing: "we now know anyone Twitter verifies is someone they agree with politically". This puts them on the hook for everybody who's verified. It should be a verification only. If they didn't like what he said then they should've removed the account.
- tptacek 7y ago
  You can "should" all you want, but it's not verification only. If it was, anyone could get verified. It's endorsement, and nobody wants to endorse Milo Yiannapoulos.
  - Domenic_S 7y ago
    According to twitter themselves, "The blue verified badge on Twitter lets people know that an account of public interest is authentic." https://help.twitter.com/en/managing-your-account/twitter-verified-accounts https://help.twitter.com/en/managing-your-account/twitter-ve... But i agree, in practice it's a "twitter endorses this account" indicator.
    - xwowsersx 7y ago
      You and others keep repeating what others have shown is obviously not true. Whatever the stated reasons for the blue checkmark are, it is clear that, in practice, it is not just verification.
- asdf9240 7y ago
  As the person who you're replying to said, it was for verification. Milo does not work at Buzzfeed, but Milo claims to work at Buzzfeed on twitter. This resulted in the loss of the checkmark because Milo working at Buzzfeed is unverified.
- lawnchair_larry 7y ago
  It’s like you didn’t even read my response. No, it had nothing to do with his politics and it had nothing to do with not liking what he said. It was because he was impersonating a buzzfeed reporter while wearing a verified identity marker.
  - isoskeles 7y ago
    We all know that twitter would recognize satire as satire if it comes from someone whose politics agree with theirs.
    - tptacek 7y ago
      We in fact do not know that and Twitter routinely bans satirical liberal accounts. Twitter moderation is bad. But, of course, good moderation would also eject Milo Yiannopolous; no serious company wants that guy around. He's banned from Facebook too. These people get banned from everywhere. Is it Laura Loomer that's banned from Uber Eats?
      - s_y_n_t_a_x 7y ago
        > These people get banned from everywhere. At least you're admitting it. It's called persecution.
        JadeNB 7y ago
        Experiencing consequences for acting like a jerk isn't persecution.
        s_y_n_t_a_x 7y ago
        You talk like it's one person. It's an entire community. No proof either.
        belltaco 7y ago
- SpicyLemonZest 7y ago
  Milo’s followers do seem to believe that, but it’s not a reasonable conclusion; lots of people who Twitter doesn’t agree with politically have blue checks.