3 ms·

>making verification only about ID and being a real person is a broadly good change Where does he say there will be any verification around ID? Twitter needs

by slg 4y ago

>making verification only about ID and being a real person is a broadly good change Where does he say there will be any verification around ID? Twitter needs to make sure that I can't just name my account @WhiteHouseCommunications and pay $8 to get a blue checkmark. The whole point of the blue checkmark was to personally review those accounts to make sure they are who they say they are. Is Twitter still going to put in this manual effort for a greater base of verified users especially after they seemingly plan to downsize staff?

Fomite 4y ago
This. The conflating of an authentically derived status ("This person is real") with a paid form of status both defeats the purpose of the first, and is somewhat telling about a particular mindset.
- parineum 4y ago
  I don't think that's the goal. I think the goal is to reasonably be able to know a checkmark isn't a bot.
empressplay 4y ago
They don't need to, your 'full' name is just locked to whatever's on your payment method. Problem solved.
- adrr 4y ago
  That’s cool. I can set the bill name and address of my visa gift cards for online purchases. Sure hope they do this for $8/m.
- slg 4y ago
  That isn't how verification currently works and I can't imagine that is how Twitter would want it to work in the future. People change their display name all the time on Twitter and can even change their username. Plus Facebook has already shown that real name policies are hard and can cause user pushback and that was with a community that already is more lined up with our real life identities. Pseudonymous accounts are a huge part of Twitter.
chipotle_coyote 4y ago
Yeah, that strikes me as the real problem with this plan. Setting aside all the criticisms that can be made of how Twitter has handled verification (and "de-verification") in the past, the point of being verified was to signal "Twitter, the company, has a high degree of confidence that this account is who or what they claim to be," not to signal "Twitter, the company, is getting eight bucks a month from whoever this person is".

by slg 4y ago

Fomite 4y ago

This. The conflating of an authentically derived status ("This person is real") with a paid form of status both defeats the purpose of the first, and is somewhat telling about a particular mindset.

parineum 4y ago
I don't think that's the goal. I think the goal is to reasonably be able to know a checkmark isn't a bot.

empressplay 4y ago

They don't need to, your 'full' name is just locked to whatever's on your payment method. Problem solved.

adrr 4y ago
That’s cool. I can set the bill name and address of my visa gift cards for online purchases. Sure hope they do this for $8/m.
slg 4y ago
That isn't how verification currently works and I can't imagine that is how Twitter would want it to work in the future. People change their display name all the time on Twitter and can even change their username. Plus Facebook has already shown that real name policies are hard and can cause user pushback and that was with a community that already is more lined up with our real life identities. Pseudonymous accounts are a huge part of Twitter.

chipotle_coyote 4y ago

Yeah, that strikes me as the real problem with this plan. Setting aside all the criticisms that can be made of how Twitter has handled verification (and "de-verification") in the past, the point of being verified was to signal "Twitter, the company, has a high degree of confidence that this account is who or what they claim to be," not to signal "Twitter, the company, is getting eight bucks a month from whoever this person is".