Twitter Has Been Secretly Verifying Thousands of Accounts, Even Though It Insists Its Verification Program is on Hold (mashable.com)

Twitter has verified more than 10,000 accounts in recent months, despite putting its verification program on hold. From a report: The company has said little publicly about verification, which it suspended in 2017 following backlash over its verification of a white supremacist. But data viewed by Mashable suggests the company is verifying a flurry of accounts each month despite the supposed break. Celebrities, and others with backchannel connections to the company, are able to become verified as Twitter ignores everyday users and those without insider access. In many ways, this secretive process is now more opaque and unfair than it was when anyone could apply on Twitter's website. At a time when Twitter says it's trying to be more transparent about its rules, the lack of an official verification policy is hurting groups already susceptible to abuse, critics say. Further reading: 'Verified' Is Now a Derogatory Term on Twitter.

Comments

Re:Feeding the Beast

[Anonymous Coward]

Just like how everyone stopped paying attention to the Nazi regime in the 40s and it ceased to be.

There's no such thing as hate speech.

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah. I'm sure "bitchtits" it's really concerned with the decorum of the Internet.

Anyway, there's no such thing as hate speech; there is no such thing as incitement to/of violence. You are either violent or you are not.

Censorship is bad, mmkay?

[sideslash]

I don't use Twitter, primarily because I refuse to submit to their censorship. Twitter is concerned with nanny like oversight of its users political views and affiliations. They censor some people from telling the truth (particularly right leaning), because it is perceived to hurt other people's feelings. Meanwhile they turn a blind eye to (particularly left leaning) hordes of the most obnoxious trolls posting hateful garbage. Twitter replies to any public figure are usually just about as edifying to read as any popular YouTube channel's comment section, particularly if you aspire to be edified by meaningless schoolyard level taunts. Whenever a journalistic publication attempts to manufacture news with a lead like "Twitter users criticize XYZ" they are just showing either their naivety, or perhaps what a slow news day it is.

Re: Censorship is bad, mmkay?

[Anonymous Coward]

As a New Zealander I looked for what I could best do in response the murders of my fellow citizens. The message from the survivors is "this started with hate speech. Call it out when you see it, stop it spreading, we should all be bettr than this, don't be complicit."

Re:Hate Speech

[ArchieBunker]

Can you give a legal definition of "hate speech"?

Re:Proof of Twitter's Corruption

[AmiMoJo]

I'm afraid Joe Rogan's journalistic ethics are questionable to say the least, given that he peddles conspiracy theories and is rather easy going on Infowars alums. You can see the effect right here - this story has been tagged "whitemaleboogyman", which is of course one of the conspiracies he has pushed in the past.

It's a shame because Tim Pool had some interesting things to say, but then Rogan throws his own nonsense in and ruins it.