Yet more elite seething on this issue. They’ll pay for it because they are addicts craving attention and dopamine. Musk sees straight them all.
chris Barton
1 year ago
Don’t care for Twitter as its not a real place but the meltdown from the usual crowd because their opponents wont be censored as much is hilarious.
AC Harper
1 year ago
Aha! Musk Derangement Syndrome is born.
Brendan Ross
1 year ago
The article is confused.
Blue Checks are not objectively about engagement, they’re subjectively about Twitter, Inc.’s approval of the account holder. They’re discretionary. That’s the problem with them, and Musk sees that as clear as day. It’s frankly shocking that this article overlooks that key fact.
If checks were objective, for people with engagement over a certain amount automatically, then that would be one thing — but they are not that, and never have been. They’re, in fact, a core part of the dark heart of Twitter — the corporate thumb on the scale — that Musk seems interested in changing, and it can’t happen too soon.
And if the journos and “textual MOBA” combatants dislike the new rules and leave, it will only help society as a whole, so that’s a win for us all. I fail to see the downsides. Diluting his investment? Isn’t that his call to make? How does Askonas know that Musk isn’t prioritizing changing Twitter (or, if needed, neutralizing it) over strict ROI? Askonas doesn’t have any idea, really, nor does anyone else, because Musk owns it privately now and can act however he wishes — ROI or not.
Hugh Bryant
1 year ago
Oh dear, an entire article based on a simple misapprehension: blue checks will still confer status because they will still be assigned by Twitter.
And of course they should pay. Twitter is advertising for brand ME. Advertising has to be paid for.
In fact everyone should pay, even if it’s only a penny a year. If every Twitter account was connected to a bank account the platform would be a much less toxic place.
I agree. If every Twitter account was linked to a real credit card, Twitter would be a much less toxic place. It would then be possible to sue Twitter, get real names and sue those names to make them accountable for what they say. That would cut down on the lies, on the cancel culture, etc. Once, a very long time ago, I was a content moderator on an early Internet bulletin board. What we discovered was that forcing users to use their real names eliminated the flame wars that otherwise broke out. If someone insisted on anonymity, we simply threw them out.
Yes, real identities are the key to real debate.I agree entirely that if people felt responsible for what they say then they’d be a lot more careful.There are some obvious problems for the John Smiths of this world so some kind of secondary identification would be necessary. I’m sure the whizz-kids in Technopolis could come up with some solution not involving a total loss of privacy.
Bo Davis
1 year ago
The entire point is identity verification to get rid of anonymous Twitter bots and elevate the tone. Musk has stated that public figures will be given a separate identifier just as politicians and official government accounts hold.
This is about real verification and accountability. In this case, you pay the $8, upload a photo ID – just as every online bank requires – and you are verified… Accordingly the system and Twitter-verse now know you are a real, verified person and your Tweets and interactions are elevated. However – you now have to act with a bit of decorum – you are no longer anonymous.
This makes perfect sense if you understand how bots and fake accounts infect the system, or how blanket anonymity pollutes the system…
This policy should make it almost impossible for bad actors to create and maintain bot farms. This stops the whack-a-mole games currently being played in the election arena and many other places of public discourse. No check – your Tweets become second tier.
It is irrelevant if you are a public figure or not because it’s impossible to be Checked without ID and bank details – that are then verified thru non-public databases. You can’t be misrepresented. If someone did go to the trouble of creating fake current ID and providing fake but proper address and bank details – then they have the sophistication to beat any system, regardless of what you put into place…
This will knock out 90% of the bot issues instantly because the bots will be shadow-banned by default.
Last, in countries and jurisdictions that are poorer or unsafe, they have been clear there will be diverging policies… Nothing says in a dangerous jurisdiction you cannot maintain an anonymous handle – it just says there has to be a real, verified person or organisation behind the account.
Sounds like an intelligent solution and a win/win regardless…
This will not affect free speech??? Free accounts are still allowed…
I’d go so far as to say over some term – every account should be verified. If not for a monthly fee – a one off fee of a nominal amount that further pushes towards universal verification.
I agree .. but only if it is a one-time fee. This monthly thing should only apply to some kind of extra services .. which might be where he ends up on it. A Gold Check.
Arkadian X
1 year ago
Honest question, what are “twitter’s distinctive advantages’?
Julian Farrows
1 year ago
A blue check on Twitter doesn’t confer status – it merely denotes who is the approved establishment voice.
Benjamin Holm
1 year ago
I agree that the blue checks are ‘the talent’, but that doesn’t make them deserving of being such. Most of it is undeserved and it’s good that Musk will destroy that system of group think. Many of the journalists on there have less intelligence than your average mechanic, so they should be brought down a notch or two.
Lewis Lorton
1 year ago
There is a grammatical error in para 6 where the adjective ‘demure’ is used where the verb ‘demur’ is meant.
Samuel Gee
1 year ago
They already pay for it. He’s just putting the price up.
Ethniciodo Rodenydo
1 year ago
It will end well if it ends in the demise of Twatter
Chauncey Gardiner
1 year ago
“Many of the technology entrepreneurs around Musk rightly believe that a blue check is quite valuable.” But, what is the value of a “blue check”? Do the “many” understand it (correctly or not) as an indication of quality, or does it merely reveal conformity?
Richard Calhoun
1 year ago
I think your confused Jon … to win a blue tick you have to be granted it by twitter who decide whether you meet their credentials …
But twitter are a ‘speakers corner’ … no one should have privilege at a speakers corner … you just rock up with your soap box and start spouting
Brett H
1 year ago
I know this probably absurd, but Musk and De Santis as a political team? Does just the idea of it make our current politicians look absurd?
The author doesn’t seem to understand economic viability. Twitter lost money consistently. Harassing half their potential users gave Twitter a lot fewer eyeballs to sell to advertisers. Twitter purged literally 100,000’s of conservative users after Jan. 6.
Musk’s purchase is based on expanding the user base, in effect the audience for the advertisers. This expansion requires restoring/establishing political neutrality.
In the past, blue checks were primarily a mark of Twitter’s political favor. A neutral Twitter can afford to charge a nominal amount for blue checks, which now will indicate you’re a real serious person who has a source of funds.
Jerry Carroll
1 year ago
Strikingly, the photo of the author serves to nicely authenticate the juvenility of the article. Another one in the Wall Street Journal I read today listed ten “celebrities” who threaten to leave Twitter. I had only heard of one, Stephen King.
Bill Mische
1 year ago
I have no more idea how it’s going to pan out than anyone else but it’s amusing to watch. Partially because I don’t think a blue tick is as significant as people who have one would like to believe, partially it’s because I remember a few years ago when right wingers were loudly moving to Mastodon.
Antony Hirst
1 year ago
Nobody understands Twitter. It is a psychotic communications platform for sociopaths.
John Riordan
1 year ago
Very interesting. I follow the logic, but would add that the blue check is a status good only if the status in question describes how high up the liberal-orthodox ladder one is.
It may well be that diluting the status of such individuals could be done without wrecking the business model, but it is also likely that it might result in no replacement of them with a more balanced commentariat, which is supposedly what Musk wants.
That said, Musk does seem to know what he’s doing generally, so I am confident there’s more to this than we know presently. I certainly don’t believe he’s spent $44bn purely to make a point about left-wing authoritarian bias in the tech sector, any more than he started Tesla solely out of a desire to save the planet.
Last edited 1 year ago by John Riordan
Nicky Samengo-Turner
1 year ago
Musk is a man who has quite incredibly convinced the world that his 1 dollar bill , Tesla , is worth more than Toyota’s 10 dollar bill….
Yet more elite seething on this issue. They’ll pay for it because they are addicts craving attention and dopamine. Musk sees straight them all.
Don’t care for Twitter as its not a real place but the meltdown from the usual crowd because their opponents wont be censored as much is hilarious.
Aha! Musk Derangement Syndrome is born.
The article is confused.
Blue Checks are not objectively about engagement, they’re subjectively about Twitter, Inc.’s approval of the account holder. They’re discretionary. That’s the problem with them, and Musk sees that as clear as day. It’s frankly shocking that this article overlooks that key fact.
If checks were objective, for people with engagement over a certain amount automatically, then that would be one thing — but they are not that, and never have been. They’re, in fact, a core part of the dark heart of Twitter — the corporate thumb on the scale — that Musk seems interested in changing, and it can’t happen too soon.
And if the journos and “textual MOBA” combatants dislike the new rules and leave, it will only help society as a whole, so that’s a win for us all. I fail to see the downsides. Diluting his investment? Isn’t that his call to make? How does Askonas know that Musk isn’t prioritizing changing Twitter (or, if needed, neutralizing it) over strict ROI? Askonas doesn’t have any idea, really, nor does anyone else, because Musk owns it privately now and can act however he wishes — ROI or not.
Oh dear, an entire article based on a simple misapprehension: blue checks will still confer status because they will still be assigned by Twitter.
And of course they should pay. Twitter is advertising for brand ME. Advertising has to be paid for.
In fact everyone should pay, even if it’s only a penny a year. If every Twitter account was connected to a bank account the platform would be a much less toxic place.
I agree. If every Twitter account was linked to a real credit card, Twitter would be a much less toxic place. It would then be possible to sue Twitter, get real names and sue those names to make them accountable for what they say. That would cut down on the lies, on the cancel culture, etc. Once, a very long time ago, I was a content moderator on an early Internet bulletin board. What we discovered was that forcing users to use their real names eliminated the flame wars that otherwise broke out. If someone insisted on anonymity, we simply threw them out.
Yes, real identities are the key to real debate.I agree entirely that if people felt responsible for what they say then they’d be a lot more careful.There are some obvious problems for the John Smiths of this world so some kind of secondary identification would be necessary. I’m sure the whizz-kids in Technopolis could come up with some solution not involving a total loss of privacy.
The entire point is identity verification to get rid of anonymous Twitter bots and elevate the tone. Musk has stated that public figures will be given a separate identifier just as politicians and official government accounts hold.
This is about real verification and accountability. In this case, you pay the $8, upload a photo ID – just as every online bank requires – and you are verified… Accordingly the system and Twitter-verse now know you are a real, verified person and your Tweets and interactions are elevated. However – you now have to act with a bit of decorum – you are no longer anonymous.
This makes perfect sense if you understand how bots and fake accounts infect the system, or how blanket anonymity pollutes the system…
This policy should make it almost impossible for bad actors to create and maintain bot farms. This stops the whack-a-mole games currently being played in the election arena and many other places of public discourse. No check – your Tweets become second tier.
It is irrelevant if you are a public figure or not because it’s impossible to be Checked without ID and bank details – that are then verified thru non-public databases. You can’t be misrepresented. If someone did go to the trouble of creating fake current ID and providing fake but proper address and bank details – then they have the sophistication to beat any system, regardless of what you put into place…
This will knock out 90% of the bot issues instantly because the bots will be shadow-banned by default.
Last, in countries and jurisdictions that are poorer or unsafe, they have been clear there will be diverging policies… Nothing says in a dangerous jurisdiction you cannot maintain an anonymous handle – it just says there has to be a real, verified person or organisation behind the account.
Sounds like an intelligent solution and a win/win regardless…
This will not affect free speech??? Free accounts are still allowed…
I’d go so far as to say over some term – every account should be verified. If not for a monthly fee – a one off fee of a nominal amount that further pushes towards universal verification.
I agree .. but only if it is a one-time fee. This monthly thing should only apply to some kind of extra services .. which might be where he ends up on it. A Gold Check.
Honest question, what are “twitter’s distinctive advantages’?
A blue check on Twitter doesn’t confer status – it merely denotes who is the approved establishment voice.
I agree that the blue checks are ‘the talent’, but that doesn’t make them deserving of being such. Most of it is undeserved and it’s good that Musk will destroy that system of group think. Many of the journalists on there have less intelligence than your average mechanic, so they should be brought down a notch or two.
There is a grammatical error in para 6 where the adjective ‘demure’ is used where the verb ‘demur’ is meant.
They already pay for it. He’s just putting the price up.
It will end well if it ends in the demise of Twatter
“Many of the technology entrepreneurs around Musk rightly believe that a blue check is quite valuable.”
But, what is the value of a “blue check”? Do the “many” understand it (correctly or not) as an indication of quality, or does it merely reveal conformity?
I think your confused Jon … to win a blue tick you have to be granted it by twitter who decide whether you meet their credentials …
But twitter are a ‘speakers corner’ … no one should have privilege at a speakers corner … you just rock up with your soap box and start spouting
I know this probably absurd, but Musk and De Santis as a political team? Does just the idea of it make our current politicians look absurd?
Just look at the current POTUS.
The author doesn’t seem to understand economic viability. Twitter lost money consistently. Harassing half their potential users gave Twitter a lot fewer eyeballs to sell to advertisers. Twitter purged literally 100,000’s of conservative users after Jan. 6.
Musk’s purchase is based on expanding the user base, in effect the audience for the advertisers. This expansion requires restoring/establishing political neutrality.
In the past, blue checks were primarily a mark of Twitter’s political favor. A neutral Twitter can afford to charge a nominal amount for blue checks, which now will indicate you’re a real serious person who has a source of funds.
Strikingly, the photo of the author serves to nicely authenticate the juvenility of the article. Another one in the Wall Street Journal I read today listed ten “celebrities” who threaten to leave Twitter. I had only heard of one, Stephen King.
I have no more idea how it’s going to pan out than anyone else but it’s amusing to watch. Partially because I don’t think a blue tick is as significant as people who have one would like to believe, partially it’s because I remember a few years ago when right wingers were loudly moving to Mastodon.
Nobody understands Twitter. It is a psychotic communications platform for sociopaths.
Very interesting. I follow the logic, but would add that the blue check is a status good only if the status in question describes how high up the liberal-orthodox ladder one is.
It may well be that diluting the status of such individuals could be done without wrecking the business model, but it is also likely that it might result in no replacement of them with a more balanced commentariat, which is supposedly what Musk wants.
That said, Musk does seem to know what he’s doing generally, so I am confident there’s more to this than we know presently. I certainly don’t believe he’s spent $44bn purely to make a point about left-wing authoritarian bias in the tech sector, any more than he started Tesla solely out of a desire to save the planet.
Musk is a man who has quite incredibly convinced the world that his 1 dollar bill , Tesla , is worth more than Toyota’s 10 dollar bill….
And therein lies the art of marketing. So many thousand-dollar handbags are just cheap tat with a brand name.
Agree. But I’ve no idea why this comment attracted 3 downvotes at time of writing. For the hell of it, here’s another one 🙂