Twitter Has Been Secretly Verifying Thousands of Accounts, Even Though It Insists Its Verification Program is on Hold (mashable.com) 97
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.
Re: The Real Donald J Trump (Score:1)
Please no HRC...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
You're asking people to step away from that and expecting that they'll be able to do so?
Re: (Score:3)
Twitter gave everyone a voice. Unfortunately that voice is cancer. We would all be better off if twitter just disappeared.
Hitler took their guns away. (Score:1)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh yeah I see twitter trucks driving around picking up Jews constantly.
Who can you trust? (Score:1)
Getting hard to trust any web centered company anyore. They tell you one thing and do entirely the opposite.
Re: (Score:1)
Getting hard to trust any web centered company anyore.
That's a strange fetish, but godspeed mofo.
Hate Speech (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Can you give a legal definition of "hate speech"?
Re: (Score:1)
The fact my post and the Parent's post asking for the legal are definition getting moderated as "Troll" (saying something that causes rage, causes people to become irrationally upset) pretty much proves my point.
People hold strong religious views over this so-called "hate speech" and in practice it has and still is used as a blasphemy law.
Re: (Score:3)
Can you give a legal definition of "hate speech"?
Can you tell me why you need a legal definition if it? It's not like twitter is obliged to host anyone at all.
Re: (Score:2)
Because hate speech cannot be defined in means clear enough for legal matters. It is entirely subjective like calling something art.
Re: (Score:2)
Because hate speech cannot be defined in means clear enough for legal matters.
So? We're talking about twitter not a court of law.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Stolen from Wikipedia because it nicely copy pastes all the relevant laws:
In England and Wales and Scotland the Public Order Act 1986 prohibits, by its Part 3, expressions of racial hatred, which is defined as hatred against a group of persons by reason of the group's colour, race, nationality (including citizenship) or ethnic or national origins. Section 18 of the Act says:
A person who uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or displays any written material which is threatening, abusive
Re: (Score:2)
You aren't imagining it, that is actually the case. Twitter gives established accounts more leeway and spends more time investigating the context of tweets. The newer the account, the harsher they are towards it, because when they ban people they often just make new accounts, or make lots of sock puppet accounts to harass someone, and rapid bans are their solution.
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
You misspelled "left wing". You can be left wing and openly call for violence, spout antisemitism and racism, whatever you want with utter impunity. Doesn't matter how established an account is, or how truthful accusations are or innocuous the statement, if you're not left wing you're fucked. People have been banned for quoting what a left wing bluecheck tweeted. It doesn't get more blatant than that.
Re: Hate Speech (Score:1, Troll)
hate speech
Pardon me but I have little patience for those who complacently spew propaganda. I believe you "meant" to say was "hateful speech" - in other words... speech.
Re: Hate Speech (Score:2)
Will wonders never fucking cease... ;)
Comment removed (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:1, Funny)
Tim Pool has a verified Twitter account by the way. I'm pretty sure that fact alone has done more to hurt Twitter's credibility than anything Pool has said or done.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Never click links. Never.
The goats from the old days were bad enough, but Joe Rogan?!
Never click.
Re: (Score:1)
>Links to Joe Rogan while making statements about credibility.
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
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.
Re:Proof of Twitter's Corruption (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
No, he doesn't just give everyone a platform without favour. He gives a platform to people who spout the same kinds of conspiracy theory rubbish that he does.
If that's what he wants to do then that is of course fine, it's up to him, but it doesn't add credibility to his show or anything he says. Quite the opposite in fact.
Re: (Score:3)
I think your identierian inclinations warped your thinking to the point that you can no longer tell the difference between discussing ideas and endorsing ideas. This is troubling, as logical conclusion of such framework is that one should never discuss ideas that are disagreeable. Obviously, I disagree, as I strongly believe that the proper way to discredit ide
Re: (Score:1)
He isn't giving anyone a platform, he is interviewing them. Do you acknowledge that there is a difference between interviewing and endorsing ideas?
Hmm, seems that you don't understand what "giving someone a platform" means. It doesn't mean endorsing their views, it means giving them an opportunity to reach an audience, in this case Rogan's audience. Obviously the reason he does it is because his audience likes his brand of conspiracy theory nonsense, and many of his guests offer similar but more extreme content.
It's a clever move because it makes him look reasonable and rational in relation to their far out ideas, while also providing a soft introduct
Re: (Score:3)
One troubling aspect of SJW ideology is that it is assumed that adults are incapable of making
Re: (Score:2)
If Rogan was completely even-handed and gave everyone a platform (clearly impossible) you might have a point. But he doesn't, by necessity he selects guests deliberately. I see nothing wrong with criticising his choices.
One troubling aspect of your ideology is that you make the assumption that everyone who disagrees with you is an SJW and is arguing using SJW logic. Your whole post is based on the assumption that I think adults need to be treated like children, which is not the case and not the basis of my
Re: (Score:3)
You are not just criticizing Rogan's choices of guest selection, you explicitly criticizing him and his audience for endorsing conspiracy theories. Your tenuous logic, that conflates interviewing with endorsing, is that because he had interviewed some conspiracy theorists he must also endorse their conspiratorial views.
I think "arguing using SJW logic" is a very reasonable model of your behavior when discussing socia
Re: (Score:2)
Sigh. I just said that it wasn't endorsement, kind of the opposite in fact. Why do you just ignore what I'm telling you and carry on arguing with the imaginary SJW version?
If you really are open to having your mind changed then why do you ignore anything I saw which contradicts your assumptions?
I'm happy to discuss with you, if you address the actual points I made. With the possible exception of puppet-master Mashiki I do try to give everyone a fair shake if they engage.
Re: (Score:3)
Sigh. I just said that it wasn't endorsement, kind of the opposite in fact. Why do you just ignore what I'm telling you and carry on arguing with the imaginary SJW version?
No, he doesn't just give everyone a platform without favour. He gives a platform to people who spout the same kinds of conspiracy theory rubbish that he[Rogan] does.
You need to reconcile these statements before we can move forward with our discussion.
Re: (Score:2)
Giving someone a platform is not an endorsement. I've explained that twice already, this is the third time. As I said, he often does it just to contrast their even more outlandish nonsense to make himself look more reasonable, i.e. the opposite of endorsing them.
That's one of his major gimmicks. Pretend to be rational and questioning when peddling basically the same crap.
Re: (Score:1)
Giving someone a platform is not an endorsement.
Drink! Amimojo explains a strawmanned form of his original statement, passing it off as having explained his original statement!
See, he originally didn't just say give a platform, he said give a platform with favour, followed by saying Rogan's guests have the "same kind" of conspiracy theories that Rogan does.
This makes the whole statement sound like Rogan lets on guests with conspiracy theories that Rogan favours (read: endorses)
This is one of Ami's gimmicks. He has many other gimmicks in fact. So much so
Re: (Score:3)
That is, you keep accusing Rogan of endorsing these views at the same time as stating "Giving someone a platform is not an endorsement".
Re: (Score:2)
Well rival car manufacturers manage to peddle basically the same crap without endorsing the competition, so it seems pretty obvious what the difference is. They might have a side-by-side comparison with a competitor's model, but only for the purposes of showing how much better their's is.
If you can't understand this then I'm afraid I'm out, it cannot be simplified any further and is mind-numbingly obvious. Having it explained to your four times is already more than I'm usually willing to entertain.
Re: (Score:2)
So far so good?
Next topic - you also asserted that Rogan independently promoting conspiracy theories. Do you have a
Re:Proof of Twitter's Corruption (Score:3)
Tim Pool destroyed Twitter's credibility.
Who the fuck is Tim Pool? I mean I've heard of twitter but I've never heard of that guy. So his "destruction" of Twitter's credibility is a little on the incomplete side.
Re: (Score:1)
Who the fuck is Tim Pool?
Stop being lazy and find out. Ever since his panel with Joe Rogan, Jack Dorsey and Vidaya Gadde, he's been gaining a lot of popularity. If you find this Twitter drama important, then it is important that you know who Tim Pool is and the impact he has made in this debate.
The panel discussion is nearly four hours long, and every damn minute of it is worth watching. This is how journalism used to be -- long format, not soundbites and memes and CG departments.
Re:Proof of Twitter's Non-Corruption (Score:2)
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 t
Re: (Score:1)
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! :)
TRANSLATION (IMHO)!!! (Score:2, Interesting)
"Twitter should explain how exactly they do verification so we can find ways to exploit/abuse it (& make it useless)!!!"
Re: (Score:1)
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?
Censorship is bad, mmkay? (Score:1, Insightful)
Re: Censorship is bad, mmkay? (Score:2, Insightful)
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: (Score:1)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
"Nanny like oversight" doesn't really fit with "turn a blind eye to hordes of the most obnoxious trolls posting hateful garbage", does it?
The "Twitter users criticize XYZ" thing is mostly just fake meta-outrage. There's a whole industry.
Re: (Score:1)
"Nanny like oversight" doesn't really fit with "turn a blind eye to hordes of the most obnoxious trolls posting hateful garbage", does it?
No, it doesn't, and that's the point you keep missing. The rules are being inconsistently applied. For "Infraction XYZ", the right gets banned immediately, the left get the benefit of the doubt, or the "we-have-to-look-at-the-context" bullshit from Jack's Vajayjay.
Re: (Score:1)
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.
Which is why verification is so important: if you're verified, you basically don't see non-verified users. All those replies from random people? Completely filtered. It's part of the not-so-secret features verified accounts get that regular user accounts don't. Verified accounts see a heavily filtered version of Twitter and are provided with a bunch of tools to help with that, which non-verified accounts aren't allowed to use.
Likewise, verified accounts are automatically boosted in searches while non-verifi
Re: (Score:3)
Of course, they still end up with egg on their face from the verification fiasco. Half-hearted disavowals of racism and stark displays of nepotism - they seem to be
It will cost you just a nickel (Score:2)
or was that a pound of flesh?
Utility? Publisher? (Score:2)
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.
Maybe change verification to a notarized process? (Score:2)
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.
Authentic Bullshit. (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not on Twitter either, but I think you're being deliberately obtuse. The check mark indicates that an account is not someone posing as the ostensible owner. If I happen to successfully register "@SilvioBerlusconi" because no one had taken it yet, they'd make sure I was actually authorized by the Italian politician/businessman/crook to speak on his behalf before anointing the account with a check mark.