3 ms·

> I never liked the classist undertones associated with the twitter verified badges. In some ways it’s satisfying to see the badge stripped of its meaning a pre

> I never liked the classist undertones associated with the twitter verified badges. In some ways it’s satisfying to see the badge stripped of its meaning a prestige. This seems to be a recurring opinion of Twitter users, but as someone who doesn't use it I thought it was just a way to prove that some slightly public figure is who they say they are and not some imposter? It seems weird to be upset that "Elon Musk " is Elon Musk and not some crypto scammer (maybe a bad example), so I guess I'm missing something.

bombcar 4y ago
That's still how it was for the highest profile users (Trump had the check mark, remember) - but down in the lower-regions it was a status symbol for those who "made it" - and the rumor is that status symbol could be gamed. Verification had a "notoriety" aspect - I couldn't get verified because I'm a nobody; dang might be able to, Paul Graham for sure.
- paulpauper 4y ago
  I think it changed and nobodies can get verified if they submit docs
grok22 4y ago
Yeah, I too don't understand why the earlier system was 'classist'? It seemed like a better way to be sure that someone was who they said they were? The proposed mechanism of paying to get a check-mark seems suspect. I understand paying for extra features, but paying to say "I am who I am" seems like it could get abused and not a good idea. Now only people who think they need to pay for it and think it worthwhile will get it and that seems like classist in a different way.
Pyrodogg 4y ago
That's largely the way I've viewed it as well by being exposed to more prominent infosec people than A-list celebrities. But it's also not enough. You can change your name, photo, bio, to be like someone else, even if you have the checkmark. Users have to also read the handle (unique within the app), but the page styling gives that significantly less emphasis. Jeph Jacques, author of Questionable Content webcomic and verified Twitter user, has been having fun this week by making a parody of Musks's account. https://twitter.com/jephjacques https://twitter.com/jephjacques (currently partially restricted, but you can click through) "Name + Checkmark" doesn't make a good certificate of authenticity.

bombcar 4y ago

That's still how it was for the highest profile users (Trump had the check mark, remember) - but down in the lower-regions it was a status symbol for those who "made it" - and the rumor is that status symbol could be gamed. Verification had a "notoriety" aspect - I couldn't get verified because I'm a nobody; dang might be able to, Paul Graham for sure.

paulpauper 4y ago
I think it changed and nobodies can get verified if they submit docs

grok22 4y ago

Yeah, I too don't understand why the earlier system was 'classist'? It seemed like a better way to be sure that someone was who they said they were? The proposed mechanism of paying to get a check-mark seems suspect. I understand paying for extra features, but paying to say "I am who I am" seems like it could get abused and not a good idea. Now only people who think they need to pay for it and think it worthwhile will get it and that seems like classist in a different way.

Pyrodogg 4y ago

That's largely the way I've viewed it as well by being exposed to more prominent infosec people than A-list celebrities. But it's also not enough. You can change your name, photo, bio, to be like someone else, even if you have the checkmark. Users have to also read the handle (unique within the app), but the page styling gives that significantly less emphasis. Jeph Jacques, author of Questionable Content webcomic and verified Twitter user, has been having fun this week by making a parody of Musks's account. https://twitter.com/jephjacques https://twitter.com/jephjacques (currently partially restricted, but you can click through) "Name + Checkmark" doesn't make a good certificate of authenticity.