3 ms·
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
by prepend 4y 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 4y agoHow do you propose protecting against a Howard Stern impersonator?
- nozzlegear 4y agoI’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 4y agoI’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 4y agoIMO, 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.
- prepend 4y agoThere’s due diligence to follow people and the blue check mark shouldn’t remove the need for knowing who is the person you follow or at least what you do with their info. I don’t think a blue check mark pre acquisition met this requirement just as it doesn’t now. Photos can be deepfaked, but there are ways to help against that. Like having the photo posted by a known person. I mean, users could deepfake the ids used for pre acquisition twitter, but I’ve never heard of anyone doing that. Just like I’ve never heard of anyone deepfaking their way past an AMA proof.
- hammyhavoc 4y agoYou're looking at it from the wrong side of the glass. Look at it from the consumer perspective, not whoever gets verified. Uh, the blue checkmark used to mean they'd submitted ID and other docs, mate. It meant a great deal pre-acquisition.
- prepend 4y agoAgain, to normal people it meant nothing. To people who tweeted a lot and were into twitter (ie “twitter people”) it was important, but not in the real world. For the vast majority of people who just read twitter, it meant nothing.
- hammyhavoc 4y agoUh, 450m people used Twitter monthly in 2022, that makes Twitter fairly "normal". What makes Twitter not the "real world"? It's a direct reflection of real events. Such a weird take. So if there's two accounts claiming to be a game publisher, and they both have the same amount of followers, and one rips off the tweets of the other, using a script, can you at least concur that the blue check was useful and meaningful as it meant someone had verified their identity through documentation to Twitter?