8 ms·

Could they simply disable the ability to change display names for verified users? It must match the government-issued ID / business documents / etc. that were u

Could they simply disable the ability to change display names for verified users? It must match the government-issued ID / business documents / etc. that were used to verify in the first place. If you want to change it, send updated verification documents. This takes away an avenue for self-expression (people will often change their display names based on trends, etc.) and might have edge cases (like transgender people whose preferred names may not match government ID cards) but it seems like it would be a step in the right direction...

tablespoon 4y ago
> It must match the government-issued ID / business documents / etc. that were used to verify in the first place. If you want to change it, send updated verification documents. That seems like a bad requirement, because I'd imagine a lot of these legitimately-verified accounts go by professional names (e.g. actors, authors with a pen name, etc.) not legal names.
- zerocrates 4y ago
  A sane policy would be that there's a process for verified accounts to change their name, and that process is that some human at Twitter sees the account's current name and new name and rejects changes that aren't obviously still "the same person." A policy like this could prevent these kind of "pretend to be Vitalik or Elon or whoever" schemes without actually having to review the verification itself. So you can still allow hashtags and emoji and so on being stuck onto names, still allow "spooky" Halloween names, but preserve some kind of value from the verified checkmark. I don't know how many verified users there are but this doesn't seem like it would necessarily be onerous. Of course, it's still more onerous than just doing nothing about it is.
- michaelt 4y ago
  You can be flexible in the initial validation - it's reasonable to allow William Jefferson Clinton to go by Bill Clinton if he wants to. And it's reasonable to allow name changes - it's not unusual for people to get married, or for companies to rebrand. But why let people change names without repeating the validation process? It's not like people are getting married several times a year or anything like that.
- cmelbye 4y ago
  So government ID + some reputable source (news article, etc.) that links your real name to your professional name, and then it can’t change.
  - numpad0 4y ago
    There is Facebook for that, used by no one.
    - cmelbye 4y ago
      Facebook policy is to require a real name for every user. I'm struggling to see how that's relevant here. If you want to tweet under an anonymous pseudonym -- great! We are talking about an optional verification feature for a subset of users who are at risk of impersonation. These people choose to participate in this program because they want their identity to be clear and legitimate.
      - numpad0 4y ago
        Maybe I've seen less Twitter users that satisfy (famous && real name && at risk) than normally observed...
- Ekaros 4y ago
  I think business documentation in these cases is obvious choice. So you present good enough claim to that name or what ever and you get verification. This however means it is not personal account, but tied to that name or entity. Whoever owns it.
miki123211 4y ago
People get verified because they're pretty well known, and people are rarely known by their legal names. Celebrities are the obvious example, you probably know who Eminem or Lady Gaga are, but very few people know who Marshall Bruce Mathers III or Stefani Joanne Angelina Germanotta are. Others might also want to have their title in there names, for example presidents, professors, kings etc.
- toss1 4y ago
  True, and there should be a way for people to get verified and use their professional / public persona names as Verified Identities. They just don't get to change the name or image on the account without going through a manually verified update process. Pretty trivial, a singer goes on a new tour and wants to use a new headshot, checks out faster than reading this paragraph. A cracker hijacks the account and wants to change it to Vitalik Buterin, also pretty obvious to deny, as this is clearly a different identity inconsistent with the previous one.
  - KeepFlying 4y ago
    That isn't always easy to verify though if you aren't familiar with the person, their public image, and their current events. For example if Ed Sheeran changes their profile picture to an X, how do you know he means his Multiply album and not some terrible Lil Nas X impersonation. What about if a performer changes their stage name? Can we reliably expect Twitter research this change and know that its the same person?
    - toss1 4y ago
      >>Can we reliably expect Twitter research this change and know that its the same person? Um, yes — it is their job. Most will be easy and some will be harder. I understand that some small subset of people can have different public-facing roles. Perhaps the solution is to allow two accounts for each? After all, one can have one for your person and one for your company.
_dain_ 4y ago
>This takes away an avenue for self-expression (people will often change their display names based on trends, etc.) and might have edge cases (like transgender people whose preferred names may not match government ID cards) but it seems like it would be a step in the right direction... or you know, women changing their surnames after getting married ...
stjohnswarts 4y ago
would that be useful if you don't require at least monthly proof?
pessimizer 4y ago
> Could they simply disable the ability to change display names for verified users? I don't know if I agree with this solution, but it is bizarre that there are plenty of blue checks where neither their twitter @id nor their display name have anything to do with their actual name. Who is the blue check verifying that they are? I propose showing the verified identity (whether that's a stage name or whatever) on mouseover on the blue check icon. I'll take my consulting fee through paypal.
- _jal 4y ago
  > Who is the blue check verifying that they are This is exactly my issue with the whole phenomena. They're utterly useless as anything but a weird form of status symbol. Hell, Twitter may as well sell them, might help with the revenue issue.
  - pessimizer 4y ago
    Musk proposed that. Making the verification process more elaborate and less fame-oriented, and charging for it.
    - _jal 4y ago
      Now I have to rethink this. If d00dly agrees with the idea, it is likely half-baked and missing something obvious.
- asddubs 4y ago
  Well, it kind of makes sense if you have e.g. a big youtube channel under and alias and people would know who you are based on that (e.g. Veritasium) but less people would know what your actual name is. However I don't use twitter so I have no idea how liberally this sort of thing is applied
  - wyclif 4y ago
    Another example would be MrBeast. His real name is Jimmy Donaldson but few people know him by that name.
dustinmoris 4y ago
eyelidlessness 4y ago
> might have edge cases (like transgender people whose preferred names may not match government ID cards) but it seems like it would be a step in the right direction... Edge cases which can get people irreversibly dead. Doesn’t seem like the right direction to me.

tablespoon 4y ago

> It must match the government-issued ID / business documents / etc. that were used to verify in the first place. If you want to change it, send updated verification documents. That seems like a bad requirement, because I'd imagine a lot of these legitimately-verified accounts go by professional names (e.g. actors, authors with a pen name, etc.) not legal names.

zerocrates 4y ago
A sane policy would be that there's a process for verified accounts to change their name, and that process is that some human at Twitter sees the account's current name and new name and rejects changes that aren't obviously still "the same person." A policy like this could prevent these kind of "pretend to be Vitalik or Elon or whoever" schemes without actually having to review the verification itself. So you can still allow hashtags and emoji and so on being stuck onto names, still allow "spooky" Halloween names, but preserve some kind of value from the verified checkmark. I don't know how many verified users there are but this doesn't seem like it would necessarily be onerous. Of course, it's still more onerous than just doing nothing about it is.
michaelt 4y ago
You can be flexible in the initial validation - it's reasonable to allow William Jefferson Clinton to go by Bill Clinton if he wants to. And it's reasonable to allow name changes - it's not unusual for people to get married, or for companies to rebrand. But why let people change names without repeating the validation process? It's not like people are getting married several times a year or anything like that.
cmelbye 4y ago
So government ID + some reputable source (news article, etc.) that links your real name to your professional name, and then it can’t change.
- numpad0 4y ago
  There is Facebook for that, used by no one.
  - cmelbye 4y ago
    Facebook policy is to require a real name for every user. I'm struggling to see how that's relevant here. If you want to tweet under an anonymous pseudonym -- great! We are talking about an optional verification feature for a subset of users who are at risk of impersonation. These people choose to participate in this program because they want their identity to be clear and legitimate.
    - numpad0 4y ago
      Maybe I've seen less Twitter users that satisfy (famous && real name && at risk) than normally observed...
Ekaros 4y ago
I think business documentation in these cases is obvious choice. So you present good enough claim to that name or what ever and you get verification. This however means it is not personal account, but tied to that name or entity. Whoever owns it.

miki123211 4y ago

People get verified because they're pretty well known, and people are rarely known by their legal names. Celebrities are the obvious example, you probably know who Eminem or Lady Gaga are, but very few people know who Marshall Bruce Mathers III or Stefani Joanne Angelina Germanotta are. Others might also want to have their title in there names, for example presidents, professors, kings etc.

toss1 4y ago
True, and there should be a way for people to get verified and use their professional / public persona names as Verified Identities. They just don't get to change the name or image on the account without going through a manually verified update process. Pretty trivial, a singer goes on a new tour and wants to use a new headshot, checks out faster than reading this paragraph. A cracker hijacks the account and wants to change it to Vitalik Buterin, also pretty obvious to deny, as this is clearly a different identity inconsistent with the previous one.
- KeepFlying 4y ago
  That isn't always easy to verify though if you aren't familiar with the person, their public image, and their current events. For example if Ed Sheeran changes their profile picture to an X, how do you know he means his Multiply album and not some terrible Lil Nas X impersonation. What about if a performer changes their stage name? Can we reliably expect Twitter research this change and know that its the same person?
  - toss1 4y ago
    >>Can we reliably expect Twitter research this change and know that its the same person? Um, yes — it is their job. Most will be easy and some will be harder. I understand that some small subset of people can have different public-facing roles. Perhaps the solution is to allow two accounts for each? After all, one can have one for your person and one for your company.

_dain_ 4y ago

>This takes away an avenue for self-expression (people will often change their display names based on trends, etc.) and might have edge cases (like transgender people whose preferred names may not match government ID cards) but it seems like it would be a step in the right direction... or you know, women changing their surnames after getting married ...

stjohnswarts 4y ago

would that be useful if you don't require at least monthly proof?

pessimizer 4y ago

> Could they simply disable the ability to change display names for verified users? I don't know if I agree with this solution, but it is bizarre that there are plenty of blue checks where neither their twitter @id nor their display name have anything to do with their actual name. Who is the blue check verifying that they are? I propose showing the verified identity (whether that's a stage name or whatever) on mouseover on the blue check icon. I'll take my consulting fee through paypal.

_jal 4y ago
> Who is the blue check verifying that they are This is exactly my issue with the whole phenomena. They're utterly useless as anything but a weird form of status symbol. Hell, Twitter may as well sell them, might help with the revenue issue.
- pessimizer 4y ago
  Musk proposed that. Making the verification process more elaborate and less fame-oriented, and charging for it.
  - _jal 4y ago
    Now I have to rethink this. If d00dly agrees with the idea, it is likely half-baked and missing something obvious.
asddubs 4y ago
Well, it kind of makes sense if you have e.g. a big youtube channel under and alias and people would know who you are based on that (e.g. Veritasium) but less people would know what your actual name is. However I don't use twitter so I have no idea how liberally this sort of thing is applied
- wyclif 4y ago
  Another example would be MrBeast. His real name is Jimmy Donaldson but few people know him by that name.

dustinmoris 4y ago

eyelidlessness 4y ago

> might have edge cases (like transgender people whose preferred names may not match government ID cards) but it seems like it would be a step in the right direction... Edge cases which can get people irreversibly dead. Doesn’t seem like the right direction to me.