2 ms·

I also kind of see the blue mark as being a benefit to Twitter more than anyone else, before the blue mark existed, people just kind of new which account was "t

I also kind of see the blue mark as being a benefit to Twitter more than anyone else, before the blue mark existed, people just kind of new which account was "the account", then the check mark was introduced, probably to prevent fraud, imposters etc; However, this is why I see it as being important to Twitter, it made their platform safer and therefor more valuable. I don't see why people would pay for this? I also felt like saying, maybe just for fun, that I feel Twitter was better without the check marks, it felt like everyone was equal, that was nice.

LatteLazy 4y ago
I think for a lot of corporate accounts, they want the blue tick so their advertising is clearly from them. When Sony Tweets about the PS6 they want it to be clear it's a "real" tweet. Really, it's just advertising, Sony is not a person it's a corporation, it has no opinions or thoughts. So to them the blue tick might be worth 240USD/y. The same logic applies for most managed accounts I think: politicians are basically the same with the exception of 1% who actually run their own accounts (for better or worse). The other 99% are basically just advertising their campaign, whipping votes etc. Letting Sony or <boring senator number 37> have an account gains twitter nothing really, it's actually costing them advertising probably since such corps can tweet for free. That's my cynical opinion at least. For people providing actual useful information (I couldn't think of an example but someone else suggested scientists) I think you're right that it's worth more to Twitter to clearly mark them than to the individual themselves. Maybe they can add a free tier for people with .ac emails and accredited media orgs?