4 ms·

I assume you're speaking about the quality of the content, which would be subjective, but I think platform quality is relevant here. My personal use for twitter

I assume you're speaking about the quality of the content, which would be subjective, but I think platform quality is relevant here. My personal use for twitter was following some bands and artists I like, I followed them there because I knew it was them or someone authorized to represent them. Once God Emperor Elon took over that went out the window and the quality of the platform, for me (and others), went to 0.

mcpackieh 3y ago
I mean that prior to the change, twitter gave the checkmark to famous people and brands who's identities were verified, not to accounts that they thought posted particularly good content. It was never intended to be a mark of quality in the first place. If [famous celebrity] was posting nothing but their fart schedule, they were eligible for a check. If [random grad student] was posting insightful findings from their research, they weren't eligible for a check mark because they lacked the requisite notability/fame.
- TeMPOraL 3y ago
  It still was correlated with quality to a degree. Most celebrities and notable people or businesses are not going to post their fart schedules or any other kind of similar garbage. This worked as a good heuristic, because even if it missed the highest-quality posters, it would still beat the average Twitter poster by a wide margin.
  - mcpackieh 3y ago
    I disagree, most celebrities were/are posting what may as well be their fart schedules. Why would anybody care the vacations or fancy meals or random musings of some guy famous for being in movies? Some people evidently do care (voyeurism, and they'd care just as much about his fart schedule) but the point is the such an account doesn't have a check mark because it posts relevant or interesting content but rather because the guy is famous for things completely unrelated to what he posts about. The checkmarks for celebrities had nothing to do with what they posted and everything to do with who they are.

mcpackieh 3y ago

I mean that prior to the change, twitter gave the checkmark to famous people and brands who's identities were verified, not to accounts that they thought posted particularly good content. It was never intended to be a mark of quality in the first place. If [famous celebrity] was posting nothing but their fart schedule, they were eligible for a check. If [random grad student] was posting insightful findings from their research, they weren't eligible for a check mark because they lacked the requisite notability/fame.

TeMPOraL 3y ago
It still was correlated with quality to a degree. Most celebrities and notable people or businesses are not going to post their fart schedules or any other kind of similar garbage. This worked as a good heuristic, because even if it missed the highest-quality posters, it would still beat the average Twitter poster by a wide margin.
- mcpackieh 3y ago
  I disagree, most celebrities were/are posting what may as well be their fart schedules. Why would anybody care the vacations or fancy meals or random musings of some guy famous for being in movies? Some people evidently do care (voyeurism, and they'd care just as much about his fart schedule) but the point is the such an account doesn't have a check mark because it posts relevant or interesting content but rather because the guy is famous for things completely unrelated to what he posts about. The checkmarks for celebrities had nothing to do with what they posted and everything to do with who they are.