Twitter Exploring Letting Everyone Get a Blue Tick For Verification, CEO Jack Dorsey Says (cnbc.com) 62
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.
The Tick you say? (Score:5, Funny)
SPOON!
Stupid article, but (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:1, Funny)
The problem is, if everyone automatically got the blue tick, then you'd have, for sake of example, hundreds of accounts all claiming to be Tom Hiddleston and "verified" as such.
Or Donald Trump. And if you think the actual Donald Trump on Twitter doesn't cause enough problems, imagine hundreds of them, again, all verified, and posting all kinds of shit. One is enough, thank you.
Re: (Score:2)
"Shouldn't everyone have the blue tick (verified)."
No, I'm afraid of Lyme disease.
Re: (Score:2)
"Shouldn't everyone have the blue tick (verified)."
No, I'm afraid of Lyme disease.
I came to make that joke.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: The Sneetches (Score:1)
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
Re: (Score:2)
Richard Spencer is controlled opposition.
Re: The Sneetches (Score:2)
It's best when the semi-official opposition are clowns.
Comment removed (Score:3)
Easy to get a blue tick already (Score:2, Informative)
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.
Everyone is famous! (Score:2)
Unless they don't like you (Score:1)
Twitter has a habit of removing verification from people they don't like even though they are who they say they are.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh yeah. That's one of the reasons my Twitter account is my second-least used.
Just ahead of Snapchat.
Finally some Equality! (Score:2)
Super Blue Tick? (Score:1)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
except (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
So now we all *want* our real identity on Twitter? (Score:3)
... 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.
Re: (Score:1)
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
I'm Spartacus (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No, no ...
I'm Spartacus
Utterly pointless. (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:1)
You're looking at this from the point of an adult trying to rationalize something aberrant and horrible.
"Oh it's just those popular kids excluding the losers (like me), as usual"
Stop being such a pusillanimous coward.
Twitter is for kids. It's a tool to influence the most easily influenceable.
This 'blue checkmark' signals MORALITY to kids. They are being BRAINWASHED, trained on a narrow set of stimulus that directly factors into their judgement of society.
DO SOMETHING YOU FAT LAZY BASTARD
Re: Utterly pointless. (Score:2)
I, for one, plan to make an angry post on Slashdot!
Good way to weed out the crap (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
WELL THANK GOD you do that, I bet the millions of kids being brainwashed by hand-picked stimulus will follow your example, taking into account how FUCKING COOL you are
PROBLEM SOLVED EVERYBODY, it's just a matter of exercising our discretion on an individual/familial scale, it will all sort itself out from here.
Re: (Score:2)
I unfollow blue-ticked accounts.
I have a better solution. I have a Twitter account and I made it solely so I could follow one user: @DonaldTrump. It has saved me a lot of money since for the past year I have no longer needed to subscribe to The Comedy Channel.
super (Score:1)
Dash: [muttering] Which is another way of saying no one is.
or
Syndrome: *Everyone* can be super! And when everyone's super... [laughs maniacally]
Useless (Score:2)
When everyone has it, it becomes useless.
Translation (Score:1)
"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"