Slashdot Mirror
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.
Getting hard to trust any web centered company anyore. They tell you one thing and do entirely the opposite.
As an avid twitter user, I encounter a lot of hate speech on twitter. When I report people, it seems those that are verified get away with it while those with no blue tick are temporarily or permanently suspended, even for the exact same behaviour. Twitter isn't thoroughly awful, though some thoroughly awful people get verified blue ticks and continue to pollute the internet .
https://youtu.be/DZCBRHOg3PQ Tim Pool destroyed Twitter's credibility. Twitter seems to have doubled down instead of reforming. It was brilliant watching someone with journalistic ethics who did his homework do his thing.
*musical note* Just don't look, just don't look...
"Twitter should explain how exactly they do verification so we can find ways to exploit/abuse it (& make it useless)!!!"
I think Twitter is just another form of whatever the Jerry Springer Show was (is?) in that it's a dumpster fire that draws people in like moths to its dumpster fire flame. Only Twitter lets you be act like part of the live studio audience and join in dumpster fire from anywhere on the planet.
You're asking people to step away from that and expecting that they'll be able to do so?
When speech turned into Kristallnacht, what could you do without your guns, or without a cultural reverence for denying tyranny?
You try Kristalllnacht here in the U.S., and you gon' die.
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.
Twitter gave everyone a voice. Unfortunately that voice is cancer. We would all be better off if twitter just disappeared.
Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
Oh yeah I see twitter trucks driving around picking up Jews constantly.
Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
or was that a pound of flesh?
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
A utility would just pass comments between people.
A publisher now wants control over who can say what. Control over the politics of every account.
Social media becomes the owner and publisher of its users comments.
But still expects the full protections of only been a utility with every user still fully responsible for their comments.
Only some people may publish and be approved to publish.
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
Please no HRC...
Maybe change verification to a real process, like using a notary public to verify one's identity?
That blue checkmark is an unnecessary status symbol. Twitter should be like any other service and only use the blue checkmark as a mundane notification that an account is the real person and not an anonymous troll or an impersonator.
Kriston
The nutcase outright said "I'm doing this so you'll do X, Y, and Z" in his manifesto.
The manifesto was banned (10 years for possession, 14 years for distribution, in NZ), and the NZ government did X, Y, and Z, achieving his goals.
I've always thought it would be a great idea if people gave themselves "blue ticks" using GPG/PGP signatures, rather than relying on a corporate monarchy to hand them out like a knighting ceremony. You could also unverify yourself if your account is compromised simply by uploading a revoke.asc, rather than waiting for the mods to notice something is wrong.
Of course, that would make sense, so it will never happen until you or I make such a platform. Race you to it! :)
I'd certainly complain. Why wouldn't I want my enemies to have free speech? How else am I supposed to laugh at what they're saying if they can't run their mouths?
The company has said little publicly about verification, which it suspended in 2017 following backlash over its verification of a white supremacist.
As a non-Twitter user, can someone explain to me the purpose of the blue check? I had assumed it was to verify a persons identity. Now it seems to be weaponized and abused to filter out people based on their ideology.
Here's what Twitter says:
"The blue verified badge on Twitter lets people know that an account of public interest is authentic."
Authentically what? Liberal? Politically Correct? I'm not sure what's worse, the bias or the bullshit.
I've watched that interview and others. The position of Twitter has been consistent and actually fits the facts of being reasonably non-biased. It just seems that way because the pattern recognition of harassment behavior, is flagging people in ways that seem to bias some arguments. They are actually just trying to promote productive discussions and discourage harassment as a means to win arguments.
No one was banned because tweeted an 'N' at someone. They were banned because they used multiple twitter accounts, participating in harassing people by tweeting one letter of N-word at a time to people.
Similar with the gender issue or dead naming. It was the behavior of attacking an individual, instead of an idea, that was flagging the bans. So it is the behavior, that would have gotten you banned with either left or right wing positions, that is getting the account penalties.
Now to the anti-capitalist right wing whiners like Tim Pool, Twitter is under no obligation to destroy its shareholder value by keeping toxic people on its platform. It is not a public service and is not getting public money. (Just because a bible publishing company won't publish your gay porn book does not mean your free speech has been violated.) You are free create your own platform or make the government provide one. Saying that no one will use the new platform only proves that Twitter is correct in assessing that some people weaponize, what is technically free speech, to harass others out of the conversations.