8 ms·

> If twitter ‘verified’ means anything, it means a chain of identity has been established between Twitter and the purported owner of that account. Not really,

by kanox 6y ago

> If twitter ‘verified’ means anything, it means a chain of identity has been established between Twitter and the purported owner of that account. Not really, a blue checkmark is just a status symbol.

antihero 6y ago
It gives validity and implies trust.
Jaruzel 6y ago
This is exactly the problem with the blue tick. It's basically meaningless other than as a budge of honour. It's also restricted to large companies and 'public' figures. What I'd like to see is, the Blue Tick being restored to be an actual mark of Verification, and be something that anyone can apply for with the appropriate identification documentation. Additionally, there should then be a toggle switch, where only Verified accounts see tweets and replies from other Verified accounts[1]. This would effectively create two Twitters; one where every account is identifiable and accountable for what they tweet, and another that continues with the anarchic system they have now, where hate speech, racism and intolerance run rife[2]. --- [1] I've heard rumours that this toggle switch already exists on Verified accounts - can anyone confirm ? [2] Yes, free speech may be trapped here too, unless some sort of middle ground can be worked out.
- adrianhon 6y ago
  [1] Sort of. It's a tab on the Notifications screen that only shows replies/likes/mentions from other Verified accounts.
  - Jaruzel 6y ago
    Thought so. Thanks!
- joosters 6y ago
  Sounds just like the 'real names' policy that Google and Facebook have tried before. That never made any difference to hate speech, racism and intolerance, so why do you think it will magically make Twitter better?
  - Jaruzel 6y ago
    Because the world is in a different place now. As long as twitter doesn't make it mandatory, it should work. Those that want a bit of decency on Twitter can get verified and have the knowledge that the people they converse with are who they say they are, and those that do not can carry on using Twitter in the same way they always have.
  - chrononaut 6y ago
    I can imagine at minimum this would help with bots. Considering the problems you state are actual systematic issues we have in our society I would expect that the verification process should not be perceived as working towards solving those.
    - C1sc0cat 6y ago
      It would also exclude venerable people which is the problem with the real name idea
      - anonymfus 6y ago
        We can imagine a system where twitter checks that person is a real unique human but does not use their personal data for anything else.
        cameronbrown 6y ago
        Until the next hack links their real name with their handle? No thanks.
        sukilot 6y ago
        How to verify uniqueness?
- jerkstate 6y ago
  This problem has been solved for decades - cryptographic signatures. Twitter and their users are uninterested in a real solution, they just want engagement.
- jameshart 6y ago
  Do you really think blue check marks are ‘meaningless’? Are you thinking of them in the context of, among your peers who has blue checks and who doesn’t being somewhat arbitrary? Because for sure if you’re part of a professional community that is common - you’ll find academics and journalists and medical professionals and so on all have very random experiences with blue check marks, much like tech does. But at the same time, in aggregate, blue check marks do provide some degree of legitimacy to accounts - yes, this account is that person you know from outside twitter. But twitter don’t do a great job of explaining how they verified an account, or even who they verified it to be. As has recently gone viral, twitter gave @sistersofmercy a blue check mark, because they really are the catholic institute of that name - not the band (@tsomofficial doesn’t have a blue check mark ...) I think there’s the basis of something interesting in ‘verified accounts’ - and for sure they’re flawed - but I don’t think ‘meaningless’ is correct.
  - laughinghan 6y ago
    What do you think of Yonatan Zunger's proposed fix, to verify facts and not people? So @sistersofmercy might get a Verified Badge saying "Religious Institute, Ireland", and @tsomofficial might get a Verified Badge saying "Musical Group, UK". He wrote this in response to the Jason Kessler kerfuffle, well before the "factcheckUK" stunt, but it would have actually solved that too! Imagine seeing the username "factcheckUK" with the Verified Badge "Conservative and Unionist Party, UK 🇬🇧". https://medium.com/@yonatanzunger/the-hard-lessons-of-blue-checkmarks-c12094ed4a9c https://medium.com/@yonatanzunger/the-hard-lessons-of-blue-c...
    - jameshart 6y ago
      100% this is how to make it meaningful.
- laughinghan 6y ago
  I think the Yonatan Zunger had the right solution to this: Verify Facts Not People. Replace the checkmark with a Verified Badge that says their position if they're an elected official or major organization leader, or just Real Name if they've verified their ID. He wrote this in response to the Jason Kessler kerfuffle, well before the "factcheckUK" stunt, but it would have actually solved that too! Imagine seeing the username "factcheckUK" with the Verified Badge "Conservative and Unionist Party, UK 🇬🇧". https://medium.com/@yonatanzunger/the-hard-lessons-of-blue-checkmarks-c12094ed4a9c https://medium.com/@yonatanzunger/the-hard-lessons-of-blue-c...

by kanox 6y ago

antihero 6y ago

It gives validity and implies trust.

Jaruzel 6y ago

This is exactly the problem with the blue tick. It's basically meaningless other than as a budge of honour. It's also restricted to large companies and 'public' figures. What I'd like to see is, the Blue Tick being restored to be an actual mark of Verification, and be something that anyone can apply for with the appropriate identification documentation. Additionally, there should then be a toggle switch, where only Verified accounts see tweets and replies from other Verified accounts[1]. This would effectively create two Twitters; one where every account is identifiable and accountable for what they tweet, and another that continues with the anarchic system they have now, where hate speech, racism and intolerance run rife[2]. --- [1] I've heard rumours that this toggle switch already exists on Verified accounts - can anyone confirm ? [2] Yes, free speech may be trapped here too, unless some sort of middle ground can be worked out.

adrianhon 6y ago
[1] Sort of. It's a tab on the Notifications screen that only shows replies/likes/mentions from other Verified accounts.
- Jaruzel 6y ago
  Thought so. Thanks!
joosters 6y ago
Sounds just like the 'real names' policy that Google and Facebook have tried before. That never made any difference to hate speech, racism and intolerance, so why do you think it will magically make Twitter better?
- Jaruzel 6y ago
  Because the world is in a different place now. As long as twitter doesn't make it mandatory, it should work. Those that want a bit of decency on Twitter can get verified and have the knowledge that the people they converse with are who they say they are, and those that do not can carry on using Twitter in the same way they always have.
- chrononaut 6y ago
  I can imagine at minimum this would help with bots. Considering the problems you state are actual systematic issues we have in our society I would expect that the verification process should not be perceived as working towards solving those.
  - C1sc0cat 6y ago
    It would also exclude venerable people which is the problem with the real name idea
    - anonymfus 6y ago
      We can imagine a system where twitter checks that person is a real unique human but does not use their personal data for anything else.
      - cameronbrown 6y ago
        Until the next hack links their real name with their handle? No thanks.
      - sukilot 6y ago
        How to verify uniqueness?
jerkstate 6y ago
This problem has been solved for decades - cryptographic signatures. Twitter and their users are uninterested in a real solution, they just want engagement.
jameshart 6y ago
Do you really think blue check marks are ‘meaningless’? Are you thinking of them in the context of, among your peers who has blue checks and who doesn’t being somewhat arbitrary? Because for sure if you’re part of a professional community that is common - you’ll find academics and journalists and medical professionals and so on all have very random experiences with blue check marks, much like tech does. But at the same time, in aggregate, blue check marks do provide some degree of legitimacy to accounts - yes, this account is that person you know from outside twitter. But twitter don’t do a great job of explaining how they verified an account, or even who they verified it to be. As has recently gone viral, twitter gave @sistersofmercy a blue check mark, because they really are the catholic institute of that name - not the band (@tsomofficial doesn’t have a blue check mark ...) I think there’s the basis of something interesting in ‘verified accounts’ - and for sure they’re flawed - but I don’t think ‘meaningless’ is correct.
- laughinghan 6y ago
  What do you think of Yonatan Zunger's proposed fix, to verify facts and not people? So @sistersofmercy might get a Verified Badge saying "Religious Institute, Ireland", and @tsomofficial might get a Verified Badge saying "Musical Group, UK". He wrote this in response to the Jason Kessler kerfuffle, well before the "factcheckUK" stunt, but it would have actually solved that too! Imagine seeing the username "factcheckUK" with the Verified Badge "Conservative and Unionist Party, UK 🇬🇧". https://medium.com/@yonatanzunger/the-hard-lessons-of-blue-checkmarks-c12094ed4a9c https://medium.com/@yonatanzunger/the-hard-lessons-of-blue-c...
  - jameshart 6y ago
    100% this is how to make it meaningful.
laughinghan 6y ago
I think the Yonatan Zunger had the right solution to this: Verify Facts Not People. Replace the checkmark with a Verified Badge that says their position if they're an elected official or major organization leader, or just Real Name if they've verified their ID. He wrote this in response to the Jason Kessler kerfuffle, well before the "factcheckUK" stunt, but it would have actually solved that too! Imagine seeing the username "factcheckUK" with the Verified Badge "Conservative and Unionist Party, UK 🇬🇧". https://medium.com/@yonatanzunger/the-hard-lessons-of-blue-checkmarks-c12094ed4a9c https://medium.com/@yonatanzunger/the-hard-lessons-of-blue-c...