3 ms·

I saw one of the Ethan Klein tweets, and it was not immediately apparent as parody without clicking through to his account. Someone scrolling through their time

I saw one of the Ethan Klein tweets, and it was not immediately apparent as parody without clicking through to his account. Someone scrolling through their timeline can't see a user's bio or banner picture, it just looked like an Elon Musk tweet with a blue checkmark (except for the incorrect @). It looks like they are moving to address this by making the blue check tied to a specific name, which makes a lot of sense. If someone wants to change their display name, they can go through reverification, which should also fix the preexisting issue of blue check accounts getting hacked and used for scams.

kibwen 4y ago
> it was not immediately apparent as parody without clicking through to his account The tweet in question: "Even though Jeffrey Epstein committed horrible crimes, I do still miss him on nights like this for his warmth and comradery. Rest In Peace old friend" Parody is usually identifiable by its content, not because someone has to put a big "[WARNING: PARODY]" tag at the top.
- pseudo0 4y ago
  The issue is impersonation and confusion, not parody. A significant fraction of the population, especially infrequent Twitter users, are not aware of the display name vs. handle distinction. So if someone has a blue check, the same profile picture, and the display name of another user, they are creating confusion about the source of the statement in question. With the Onion or the Babylon Bee, they are "reporting" crazy-sounding stories with their own name and account, and thus with their attached reputation as established satire sites. That's an important distinction, in my opinion.
afiori 4y ago
> it just looked like an Elon Musk tweet with a blue checkmark (except for the incorrect @). Honestly this should have been the bannable offense. The checkmark was meant to guaranteed that you are who your claims to be (without having to check the @ on a side channel). If you intentionally use it for deceit then what is the point? Personally I dislike both Musk and Twitter, but I hope (and also doubt) that Twitter keeps an adequate level of user verification for the checkmarks.
- pseudo0 4y ago
  I believe that is what they are actually banning people for, "impersonation", as they are using a verified account to do a more convincing impersonation of another verified account. The easiest option in my opinion would be to force verified users to submit tickets for display name changes, or warn them that they will have to reapply for verification when they try to change their display name and remove it. Musk sounds like he is choosing the latter.
- krapp 4y ago
  >The checkmark was meant to guaranteed that you are who your claims to be (without having to check the @ on a side channel). If you intentionally use it for deceit then what is the point? The point is that it's now possible to simply purchase a checkmark for $8.00/mo with no identity verification involved. So the checkmark is now unfit for any purpose besides impersonating other accounts. Which is why everyone is using it to shit on Elon Musk.
Lapsa 4y ago
this is a parody post, you are expected to laugh in 3... 2... 1... liftoff!

kibwen 4y ago

> it was not immediately apparent as parody without clicking through to his account The tweet in question: "Even though Jeffrey Epstein committed horrible crimes, I do still miss him on nights like this for his warmth and comradery. Rest In Peace old friend" Parody is usually identifiable by its content, not because someone has to put a big "[WARNING: PARODY]" tag at the top.

pseudo0 4y ago
The issue is impersonation and confusion, not parody. A significant fraction of the population, especially infrequent Twitter users, are not aware of the display name vs. handle distinction. So if someone has a blue check, the same profile picture, and the display name of another user, they are creating confusion about the source of the statement in question. With the Onion or the Babylon Bee, they are "reporting" crazy-sounding stories with their own name and account, and thus with their attached reputation as established satire sites. That's an important distinction, in my opinion.

afiori 4y ago

> it just looked like an Elon Musk tweet with a blue checkmark (except for the incorrect @). Honestly this should have been the bannable offense. The checkmark was meant to guaranteed that you are who your claims to be (without having to check the @ on a side channel). If you intentionally use it for deceit then what is the point? Personally I dislike both Musk and Twitter, but I hope (and also doubt) that Twitter keeps an adequate level of user verification for the checkmarks.

pseudo0 4y ago
I believe that is what they are actually banning people for, "impersonation", as they are using a verified account to do a more convincing impersonation of another verified account. The easiest option in my opinion would be to force verified users to submit tickets for display name changes, or warn them that they will have to reapply for verification when they try to change their display name and remove it. Musk sounds like he is choosing the latter.
krapp 4y ago
>The checkmark was meant to guaranteed that you are who your claims to be (without having to check the @ on a side channel). If you intentionally use it for deceit then what is the point? The point is that it's now possible to simply purchase a checkmark for $8.00/mo with no identity verification involved. So the checkmark is now unfit for any purpose besides impersonating other accounts. Which is why everyone is using it to shit on Elon Musk.

Lapsa 4y ago

this is a parody post, you are expected to laugh in 3... 2... 1... liftoff!