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 fo

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.