3 ms·
The New York Times says it is not planning to pay for Twitter verification
- latexr 4y agoNot only The New York Times, but also The Los Angeles Times, BuzzFeed, and POLITICO. They all cite essentially the same reason: “verification no longer establishes authority or credibility”.
- tatimes58595 4y ago[dead]
- fasthands9 4y agoI'm surprised Twitter didnt just do a "reset" of verification and give a free check mark to the 1000 biggest celebs and the 50 biggest news orgs. Then it would have value to those beneath that status who would want to shell out for it. Instead we may actually get to a spot where the check mark subconsciously signals a low quality account instead of a high quality.
- v0idzer0 4y agoIt never signaled either. Now it signals a paid account
- rsynnott 4y ago> Instead we may actually get to a spot where the check mark subconsciously signals a low quality account instead of a high quality. While I'm not sure it ever really signalled a _high quality_ account (it did at one time usually signal an _important_ account), I mean, we're very much already there on the paid checkmarks signalling a low quality account.
- smoldesu 4y agoThey're right to call it out as an insidious olive branch, but the alternative is damning for them. Journalists and news orgs aren't taken seriously on Mastodon and many instances outright ignore them. Moving to another for-profit social media just puts your chips on a different bet. Twitter may be the last place where they can find meaningful traction, and now it's just as money-grubbing as they are. Game, set and match.
- v0idzer0 4y agoIt never established that nor did any of them ever have that