4 ms·

They were always uncool. At best the blue check was useful at times (“this really is the CEO of BigCo”), but people who think they have “status” on Twitter have

They were always uncool. At best the blue check was useful at times (“this really is the CEO of BigCo”), but people who think they have “status” on Twitter have always been the worst of it. However, now, the conflation of paid features and the blue check makes me reticent to pay Twitter for features I want because it’s bundled with so-called status I don’t.

hammyhavoc 3y ago
Was it? It certainly seemed cool for many years. You only had to look at how much fanbases loved to see their favourite x get verified "at last". Not every community drags rising stars down by their ankles and instead celebrates success. Especially when you consider that their favourite x would now see supposedly well-deserved placement in the algorithm without spending on ads, and what's good for their favourite x is good for them as a trickledown effect, whether that's content, better products, or more art. Success definitely seemed cool to consumers at the time rather than the old mentality of calling them "sellouts" in years prior. It usually meant decent press coverage, notability in some way (thus impersonation was damaging), or you'd hit 50 IMDb credits. I do however agree that the current implementation of blue checks is absolutely meaningless and lends credibility to random people, as such, I don't browse Twitter anymore as the replies to tweets are full of "experts" claiming x without sources, but the blue check seems to convince a lot of people in terms of the weight of their argument if the stats on their tweets are anything to go by.
- ecshafer 3y ago
  Blue checks were definitely uncool. Maybe people felt it showed they were serious or famous, but that’s always been uncool as well. “Twitter blue check” is used in a derogatory manner for someone that is self important and not a free thinker, and has been for years now.
- phailhaus 3y ago
  > I do however agree that the current implementation of blue checks is absolutely meaningless and lends credibility to random people This is the crux of it: anyone get get one now. It no longer means you are verified or a notable person, it now only means you bought the Twitter Blue subscription!
  - barnabee 3y ago
    This is a reason they suck now. But it’s still better than lending credibility to whoever Twitter thinks should have it. I don’t want tech platforms like Twitter having that power.
    - phailhaus 3y ago
      Sure, but now it will never have credibility. That's the tradeoff: either the check is discerning, or it is not. Musk agrees with you and thinks that Twitter should not be deciding who is "notable" or not, so now the check just means you are a subscriber. It will never mean anything more, because that's all it is.
    - dragonwriter 3y ago
      > But it’s still better than lending credibility to whoever Twitter thinks should have it. It’s okay, Twitter has introduced different ways of doing that, too, with new flair distinct from the paid blue/gold checks.
- barnabee 3y ago
  To me you are cool if you consistently add things (to Twitter, or wherever really) that I’m glad I saw, without being self aggrandising, overtly or excessively tribal, etc. and without hidden or perversely commercial incentives. I don’t want brands and influencers and celebrities. I don’t care how rich you are or what you’re in charge of. I want novelty, dialogue, curiosity, the odd hidden gem, and an absence of drama. Surprisingly, given what some people would have you believe, I think Twitter delivers this fairly well if not perfectly, if you follow the right people. The right people rarely have/ had blue checks (at least under the old model).
  - hammyhavoc 3y ago
    > I think Twitter delivers this fairly well if not perfectly, if you follow the right people It certainly used to. But post-acquisition has been rough, and a lot of great folks have left. This will inevitably be a demographic thing. Does an exodus of x demographic mean Twitter is "dying"? No. But for me, it's largely no longer relevant to me. Even with 100,000+ tweets since Twitter launched, I never let go of my RSS feeds, and I likely never will. I've very little interest in Mastodon, not because it's not as-good as Twitter, but because it's a Twitter-like without fixing most of what wasn't great about Twitter. Furthermore, most of who and what I'm interested in isn't on Mastodon, and likely never will be. The zeitgeist that birthed Twitter has come and gone, and you can't force it artificially as a mass exodus from one platform to another.
- prepend 3y ago
  It seemed cool to twitter people. But to normal people it didn’t matter. I never heard anyone talk about their blue check mark who didn’t sound like a tool. I don’t need a blue check mark to know who the real Howard Stern is. I think the old blue check mark was a way for non-famous people to pretend they are as famous as famous people because they both had a blue check. People should not trust an old blue check mark because it just meant that someone at twitter thought the person was reputable, but that’s not very useful. The new blue check isn’t that great either as all it means is someone paid $8. So at least they can be sued because they have an identity paying somewhere, or are more likely to be sued.
  - hgsgm 3y ago
    How do you propose protecting against a Howard Stern impersonator?
    - nozzlegear 3y ago
      I’m not a Howard Stern listener or even a Twitter user, but in Stern’s case I guess I’d listen to his radio show to hear him say what his real Twitter handle is.
    - prepend 3y ago
      I’m not sure I need protection against a Howard Stern impersonator. But I suppose the exact same way HN protects me from a John Carmack impersonator. The platform does nothing to protect me. And I don’t really care if someone impersonates him. If I did, I would check on his website or somewhere else that he publishes his HN handle. Kind of like on AMAs when people post a photo saying their handle and the date. I trust that more than the platform anyway.
      - hammyhavoc 3y ago
        IMO, HN and Twitter are not comparable. You can't follow people. Whereas for example, if someone isn't a major figure or org, but is somewhere in-between, what's to stop someone buying followers or rebranding an existing account and spouting nonsense? You might not value authenticity, but the average consumer placed a lot of importance in it. Have people learned nothing with deepfakes? A picture isn't proof.
- bavell 3y ago
  Yes, it was always really lame and silly.

hammyhavoc 3y ago

Was it? It certainly seemed cool for many years. You only had to look at how much fanbases loved to see their favourite x get verified "at last". Not every community drags rising stars down by their ankles and instead celebrates success. Especially when you consider that their favourite x would now see supposedly well-deserved placement in the algorithm without spending on ads, and what's good for their favourite x is good for them as a trickledown effect, whether that's content, better products, or more art. Success definitely seemed cool to consumers at the time rather than the old mentality of calling them "sellouts" in years prior. It usually meant decent press coverage, notability in some way (thus impersonation was damaging), or you'd hit 50 IMDb credits. I do however agree that the current implementation of blue checks is absolutely meaningless and lends credibility to random people, as such, I don't browse Twitter anymore as the replies to tweets are full of "experts" claiming x without sources, but the blue check seems to convince a lot of people in terms of the weight of their argument if the stats on their tweets are anything to go by.

ecshafer 3y ago
Blue checks were definitely uncool. Maybe people felt it showed they were serious or famous, but that’s always been uncool as well. “Twitter blue check” is used in a derogatory manner for someone that is self important and not a free thinker, and has been for years now.
phailhaus 3y ago
> I do however agree that the current implementation of blue checks is absolutely meaningless and lends credibility to random people This is the crux of it: anyone get get one now. It no longer means you are verified or a notable person, it now only means you bought the Twitter Blue subscription!
- barnabee 3y ago
  This is a reason they suck now. But it’s still better than lending credibility to whoever Twitter thinks should have it. I don’t want tech platforms like Twitter having that power.
  - phailhaus 3y ago
    Sure, but now it will never have credibility. That's the tradeoff: either the check is discerning, or it is not. Musk agrees with you and thinks that Twitter should not be deciding who is "notable" or not, so now the check just means you are a subscriber. It will never mean anything more, because that's all it is.
  - dragonwriter 3y ago
    > But it’s still better than lending credibility to whoever Twitter thinks should have it. It’s okay, Twitter has introduced different ways of doing that, too, with new flair distinct from the paid blue/gold checks.
barnabee 3y ago
To me you are cool if you consistently add things (to Twitter, or wherever really) that I’m glad I saw, without being self aggrandising, overtly or excessively tribal, etc. and without hidden or perversely commercial incentives. I don’t want brands and influencers and celebrities. I don’t care how rich you are or what you’re in charge of. I want novelty, dialogue, curiosity, the odd hidden gem, and an absence of drama. Surprisingly, given what some people would have you believe, I think Twitter delivers this fairly well if not perfectly, if you follow the right people. The right people rarely have/ had blue checks (at least under the old model).
- hammyhavoc 3y ago
  > I think Twitter delivers this fairly well if not perfectly, if you follow the right people It certainly used to. But post-acquisition has been rough, and a lot of great folks have left. This will inevitably be a demographic thing. Does an exodus of x demographic mean Twitter is "dying"? No. But for me, it's largely no longer relevant to me. Even with 100,000+ tweets since Twitter launched, I never let go of my RSS feeds, and I likely never will. I've very little interest in Mastodon, not because it's not as-good as Twitter, but because it's a Twitter-like without fixing most of what wasn't great about Twitter. Furthermore, most of who and what I'm interested in isn't on Mastodon, and likely never will be. The zeitgeist that birthed Twitter has come and gone, and you can't force it artificially as a mass exodus from one platform to another.
prepend 3y ago
It seemed cool to twitter people. But to normal people it didn’t matter. I never heard anyone talk about their blue check mark who didn’t sound like a tool. I don’t need a blue check mark to know who the real Howard Stern is. I think the old blue check mark was a way for non-famous people to pretend they are as famous as famous people because they both had a blue check. People should not trust an old blue check mark because it just meant that someone at twitter thought the person was reputable, but that’s not very useful. The new blue check isn’t that great either as all it means is someone paid $8. So at least they can be sued because they have an identity paying somewhere, or are more likely to be sued.
- hgsgm 3y ago
  How do you propose protecting against a Howard Stern impersonator?
  - nozzlegear 3y ago
    I’m not a Howard Stern listener or even a Twitter user, but in Stern’s case I guess I’d listen to his radio show to hear him say what his real Twitter handle is.
  - prepend 3y ago
    I’m not sure I need protection against a Howard Stern impersonator. But I suppose the exact same way HN protects me from a John Carmack impersonator. The platform does nothing to protect me. And I don’t really care if someone impersonates him. If I did, I would check on his website or somewhere else that he publishes his HN handle. Kind of like on AMAs when people post a photo saying their handle and the date. I trust that more than the platform anyway.
    - hammyhavoc 3y ago
      IMO, HN and Twitter are not comparable. You can't follow people. Whereas for example, if someone isn't a major figure or org, but is somewhere in-between, what's to stop someone buying followers or rebranding an existing account and spouting nonsense? You might not value authenticity, but the average consumer placed a lot of importance in it. Have people learned nothing with deepfakes? A picture isn't proof.
bavell 3y ago
Yes, it was always really lame and silly.