5 ms·

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

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.

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.