3 ms·

World leaders should not be afforded any form of preferential treatment. Everyone is equal under the law; all users equal under a platform. That's it. The momen

World leaders should not be afforded any form of preferential treatment. Everyone is equal under the law; all users equal under a platform. That's it. The moment you treat a subset of the population differently from another (such as giving them a blue checkmark), you begin to break from this ideal. Of course, any platform is free to do as they please. But congrats, in doing so, you have devolved into a world of kings and queens.

bun_at_work 6y ago
Isn't the checkmark just a verification? Pretty sure that's there so users can differentiate between real and spoof accounts. That way users know that @realDonaldTrump is really him, instead of the (probably) co-opted account @DonaldTrump. It's a pretty far cry from having any sort of additional power. Furthermore, acknowledging status where it exists is not the same as creating a distinct group of people with special status. What about "Dr." for people with doctorate degrees? Doctors don't have any more rights than anyone else, and having the title exist certainly doesn't create some part of society that is inaccessible to others. Holding political leaders to a different standard on social media doesn't mean they are royalty, it's just an acknowledgement that they do hold power, elected, inherited, or otherwise. Furthermore, if Twitter's history is a sign of what any new policy would look like, world leaders would be held to a more restrictive standard than others, on Twitter.
- TheRealNGenius 6y ago
  I'm pretty sure that not just anyone can get a checkmark. If it were the case that anyone could get the checkmark, then sure, I agree it would just be just a form of verification. This would be perfectly fine :) You're right that acknowledging status exists is not the same as creating it. But does one not go hand in hand with the other in this case, where you are selectively picking who to acknowledge? Now, I don't know the specifics, but from what I understand, there is an overwhelming disparity between journalists/politicians getting blue checkmarks compared to others who may have more followers. Of course, that would also be fine, assuming there was a rigorous definition of what a "journalist" was. Keep in mind, this is not evidence: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ni8CpIJpmqw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ni8CpIJpmqw I want to be clear, I was not implying political leaders royalty. But when you hold some group to a different standard than others or have rules for them that differ (whether more restrictive or lax), you have basically reinvented legal inequality.

bun_at_work 6y ago

Isn't the checkmark just a verification? Pretty sure that's there so users can differentiate between real and spoof accounts. That way users know that @realDonaldTrump is really him, instead of the (probably) co-opted account @DonaldTrump. It's a pretty far cry from having any sort of additional power. Furthermore, acknowledging status where it exists is not the same as creating a distinct group of people with special status. What about "Dr." for people with doctorate degrees? Doctors don't have any more rights than anyone else, and having the title exist certainly doesn't create some part of society that is inaccessible to others. Holding political leaders to a different standard on social media doesn't mean they are royalty, it's just an acknowledgement that they do hold power, elected, inherited, or otherwise. Furthermore, if Twitter's history is a sign of what any new policy would look like, world leaders would be held to a more restrictive standard than others, on Twitter.

TheRealNGenius 6y ago
I'm pretty sure that not just anyone can get a checkmark. If it were the case that anyone could get the checkmark, then sure, I agree it would just be just a form of verification. This would be perfectly fine :) You're right that acknowledging status exists is not the same as creating it. But does one not go hand in hand with the other in this case, where you are selectively picking who to acknowledge? Now, I don't know the specifics, but from what I understand, there is an overwhelming disparity between journalists/politicians getting blue checkmarks compared to others who may have more followers. Of course, that would also be fine, assuming there was a rigorous definition of what a "journalist" was. Keep in mind, this is not evidence: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ni8CpIJpmqw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ni8CpIJpmqw I want to be clear, I was not implying political leaders royalty. But when you hold some group to a different standard than others or have rules for them that differ (whether more restrictive or lax), you have basically reinvented legal inequality.