12 minutes ago, we_gotta_believe said:

Any average moron being able to get verified by just paying $8 a month is a really dumb idea. 

It seems the "true” verification for public figures will be a tag underneath their name, similar to the ones verified politicians have.

 

26 minutes ago, TEW said:

It seems the "true” verification for public figures will be a tag underneath their name, similar to the ones verified politicians have.

So what’s the point of the fake verification?  It’s just a sign around your neck that says you’re an easy mark. 

15 minutes ago, VanHammersly said:

So what’s the point of the fake verification?  It’s just a sign around your neck that says you’re an easy mark. 

Spammers will pay $8 a month to get a higher profile on twitter.  Elon is a genius!

 

He's doing lines of coke and live tweeting his brainstorming sessions. 

40 minutes ago, VanHammersly said:

So what’s the point of the fake verification?  It’s just a sign around your neck that says you’re an easy mark. 

From what I’ve read it will come with some perks like no limits on video length for uploads etc.

I also think it’s going to be one way to attack the bot problem.

Isn't the point of verification that the site confirms that tweets are actually coming from a certain person? Letting Joe Schmo from bumF spend $8 to get his @TheRealBernieSanders account "verified" then post a bunch of cuck porn and Jewish conspiracy theories seems like it might undermine that function just a smidge.

Does anybody think any of these proposed ideas are actually good?

2 minutes ago, Paul852 said:

Does anybody think any of these proposed ideas are actually good?

This is my favorite reaction so far

 

 

1 hour ago, TEW said:

It seems the "true” verification for public figures will be a tag underneath their name, similar to the ones verified politicians have.

Entirely defeats the purpose of what verification was intended for, but okay.

55 minutes ago, TEW said:

From what I’ve read it will come with some perks like no limits on video length for uploads etc.

I also think it’s going to be one way to attack the bot problem.

lolwut? Literally has nothing to do with bots. Bots weren't getting verified en masse before, that wasn't really the problem at all. Where are you coming up with this stuff?

Just now, we_gotta_believe said:

lolwut? Literally has nothing to do with bots. Bots weren't getting verified before, that wasn't the problem at all. Where are you coming up with this stuff?

I guess Musk letting verified accounts get priority in replies etc over unverified accounts would make it easier to drown out bots (kinda like what reddit does?), IF he didn't just announce that "verification" means F all now in the tweet right before. 

2 hours ago, Dave Moss said:

dang, even @NOTW is gonna have a blue checkmark now

 

Pretend you are important on my social media platform for the low low price of $8 a month 

 

1 minute ago, Dave Moss said:

 

I for one can now rest easy that the anti-Semitic hate messages I read on twitter are from the actual daily stormer and not from one of KZ’s burner accounts. 

Just now, DEagle7 said:

I guess Musk letting verified accounts get priority in replies etc over unverified accounts would make it easier to drown out bots (kinda like what reddit does?), IF he didn't just announce that "verification" means F all now in the tweet right before. 

I mean, if that's the case, then you can just prioritize verified accounts without charging for verification, or at least keep the existing vetting process. If the bot problem is as big as he claims, there are a thousand different ways to address the issue that are better than this. Captchas, more frequent 2FAs, post frequency limits, daily post limits, restricted posting APIs, etc.

All of this seems to be operating on the assumption that bots/scammers won't spend $8 to do bot/scammer stuff. Seems like those are the exact people much more likely to spend $8 than PhD candidates sharing their papers, pollsters sharing data or journalists sharing videos from a breaking scene. 

8 minutes ago, Dave Moss said:

 

This makes no sense whatsoever. The infinitesimal number of bot accts that somehow managed to squeek through verification before are now going to be deterred not by the vetting process itself but by an $8 monthly fee? As if they weren't at risk of account suspension before this fee? LOL. This is just embarrassing at this point.

7 hours ago, toolg said:

Twitter is about to go in the direction of MySpace:

 

I'm not an expert in any way but those numbers make zero sense 

49 minutes ago, we_gotta_believe said:

Entirely defeats the purpose of what verification was intended for, but okay.

I don’t disagree. At the very least it will cause a lot of confusion in the near/mid term as people get used to the checkmark being a paid service and the "stamp” or tag or whatever it’s called being the official mark of a verified org/public figure.

But I think the idea is that the blue checkmark will transition into something that filters the accounts in an indirect way to be a true person or organization while simultaneously increasing revenue, essentially leveraging the social status of the blue checkmark to get people to buy in.

3 minutes ago, TEW said:

I don’t disagree. At the very least it will cause a lot of confusion in the near/mid term as people get used to the checkmark being a paid service and the "stamp” or tag or whatever it’s called being the official mark of a verified org/public figure.

But I think the idea is that the blue checkmark will transition into something that filters the accounts in an indirect way to be a true person or organization while simultaneously increasing revenue, essentially leveraging the social status of the blue checkmark to get people to buy in.

There's no issue with the current verification process for this purpose. I also have no idea what "stamp" or tag you're even referring to.

5 minutes ago, we_gotta_believe said:

There's no issue with the current verification process for this purpose. I also have no idea what "stamp" or tag you're even referring to.

 

 

Edit:

As far as there being no issue with the current verification system, the intent is to filter actual humans from not accounts. They want something in between an official government worker/public figure and anonymous accounts.

3 minutes ago, TEW said:

 

I don't see that for senators or house reps. Indicating someone's occupation isn't gonna to make sense in a lot of cases, and if users can choose the tag then it's no different than a bio. There are reasons why companies beta test or use pre-prod pilot programs to hash out these half-baked ideas before launching them in production.

Just now, we_gotta_believe said:

I don't see that for senators or house reps. Indicating someone's occupation isn't gonna to make sense in a lot of cases, and if users can choose the tag then it's no different than a bio. There are reasons why companies beta test or use pre-prod pilot programs to hash out these half-baked ideas before launching them in production.

The idea is to expand that. Not saying it’s a good idea, just that it is the idea.