4 ms·

This seems pathetic, like a bunch of twitter addicted journalists who've walked away from twitter but can't give up their addiction to being special on twitter.

This seems pathetic, like a bunch of twitter addicted journalists who've walked away from twitter but can't give up their addiction to being special on twitter. The twitter check was never a mark of credibility. Most of Fox News had twitter checks.

dvngnt_ 4y ago
FREE INSULIN FOR ALL
- MichaelCollins 4y ago
  That's a good example of the way the sensation of importance manufactured by social media is to the detriment of society. If a company has something market-moving to say, let them go to newspapers. When traders are reading social media instead of newspapers, society has a serious problem.
CaptWillard 4y ago
Fox are corporate, pharma-funded and biased, but looking objectively at the last 6-10 years they've proven more credible than the legacy networks, let alone their cable peers.
- MichaelCollins 4y ago
  If you really think Fox are credible, then swap MSNBC into my comment instead, the point stands. Or Graham Hancock and the ancient aliens sphere of influencers. Or Ben Shapiro or Richard Spencer. No matter which way you slice it, the twitter check has never been a mark of credibility.
  - CaptWillard 4y ago
    Agreed on that point. I just thought it was a good time to point out that the popular opinion about their relative credibility is outdated. Look at the big stories of the last 6-10 years. How many did Chuck Todd or NPR get totally wrong? And this is the important part: They got a lot wrong by simply not asking obvious questions, let alone any that would require the skepticism or curiosity that used to be requisite to the profession.
ajross 4y ago
The checkmark was, and was always supposed to be, a mark of identity. And we know it was needed because the instant they rolled it back a flood of fake "verified" accounts rushed in to demonstrate the need (c.f. what happened to LLY stock). And it's useful to put it on journalists for the same reason. The fact that you personally dislike these people doesn't speak to the need for those of us who don't to know who we're reading.
- MichaelCollins 4y ago
  The twitter check was, and was always supposed to be, a way to make people with the check feel special. Where the real journalism is done, their identity is confirmed by their publishers with bylines, not checkmarks. Confirming identity is not the purpose of checks; this is demonstrated by the fact that checkmark revocation is used as a punishment for breaking twitter rules, not when identity comes into question. Social media isn't a newspaper, it's a skinner box. We'd all be better off if they all walked away from their tweeting addictions for real, instead of moving to a synthetic analogue to replace their clout addiction. Mastodon is methadone.
  - ajross 4y ago
    > The twitter check was, and was always supposed to be, a way to make people with the check feel special. No, stop it. That kind of hyperbole isn't helping the discussion. It's very clear what the intent was behind verification. It's clear from the name itself; Twitter was quite clear about it at the time. And as pointed out, it's abundantly clear that it was serving exactly that need well, as the second it was modified people started getting fooled into selling the wrong drug stock! I'm sorry you're upset at Twitter, but it doesn't help things by lying about their products.
    - ghaff 4y ago
      It was verification if you were important enough (based on whatever metrics) to be awarded verification. Therefore it's not surprising that some people explicitly denied verification after submitting documentation would take offense.
Goronmon 4y ago
The twitter check was never a mark of credibility. I mean, you are right, it never was a mark of credibility. But no one really claimed it ever was, so it's confusing that you are using it as an accusation.

dvngnt_ 4y ago

FREE INSULIN FOR ALL

MichaelCollins 4y ago
That's a good example of the way the sensation of importance manufactured by social media is to the detriment of society. If a company has something market-moving to say, let them go to newspapers. When traders are reading social media instead of newspapers, society has a serious problem.

CaptWillard 4y ago

Fox are corporate, pharma-funded and biased, but looking objectively at the last 6-10 years they've proven more credible than the legacy networks, let alone their cable peers.

MichaelCollins 4y ago
If you really think Fox are credible, then swap MSNBC into my comment instead, the point stands. Or Graham Hancock and the ancient aliens sphere of influencers. Or Ben Shapiro or Richard Spencer. No matter which way you slice it, the twitter check has never been a mark of credibility.
- CaptWillard 4y ago
  Agreed on that point. I just thought it was a good time to point out that the popular opinion about their relative credibility is outdated. Look at the big stories of the last 6-10 years. How many did Chuck Todd or NPR get totally wrong? And this is the important part: They got a lot wrong by simply not asking obvious questions, let alone any that would require the skepticism or curiosity that used to be requisite to the profession.

ajross 4y ago

The checkmark was, and was always supposed to be, a mark of identity. And we know it was needed because the instant they rolled it back a flood of fake "verified" accounts rushed in to demonstrate the need (c.f. what happened to LLY stock). And it's useful to put it on journalists for the same reason. The fact that you personally dislike these people doesn't speak to the need for those of us who don't to know who we're reading.

MichaelCollins 4y ago
The twitter check was, and was always supposed to be, a way to make people with the check feel special. Where the real journalism is done, their identity is confirmed by their publishers with bylines, not checkmarks. Confirming identity is not the purpose of checks; this is demonstrated by the fact that checkmark revocation is used as a punishment for breaking twitter rules, not when identity comes into question. Social media isn't a newspaper, it's a skinner box. We'd all be better off if they all walked away from their tweeting addictions for real, instead of moving to a synthetic analogue to replace their clout addiction. Mastodon is methadone.
- ajross 4y ago
  > The twitter check was, and was always supposed to be, a way to make people with the check feel special. No, stop it. That kind of hyperbole isn't helping the discussion. It's very clear what the intent was behind verification. It's clear from the name itself; Twitter was quite clear about it at the time. And as pointed out, it's abundantly clear that it was serving exactly that need well, as the second it was modified people started getting fooled into selling the wrong drug stock! I'm sorry you're upset at Twitter, but it doesn't help things by lying about their products.
  - ghaff 4y ago
    It was verification if you were important enough (based on whatever metrics) to be awarded verification. Therefore it's not surprising that some people explicitly denied verification after submitting documentation would take offense.

Goronmon 4y ago

The twitter check was never a mark of credibility. I mean, you are right, it never was a mark of credibility. But no one really claimed it ever was, so it's confusing that you are using it as an accusation.