Twitter Reopens Its Account Verification Process After Another Pause

Twitter has again restarted its account verification process, the company said on Monday. TechCrunch reports: Since launching the revamped verification program this spring, Twitter had hit a few snags which have forced it to shut down verifications more than once. The most recent of these pauses was announced on August 13, when the company said it need to make improvements to both the application and review process. [...] Now, Twitter says users who are looking to be verified should keep checking their account settings screen for access to the in-app application. It didn't detail what, specifically had changed -- but hopefully the system will now remain open for good.

Who cares...

[NFN_NLN]

Wow, this is the cutting edge technical news I come to slashdot for.

Just what we need

[haunebu]

More blue check a**holes in our already ridiculously stratified society.

Re:

[Aighearach]

More blue check a**holes

There are still lots of those on OnlyFans.

Yawn

[Aighearach]

I stopped using twitter because just a few hours after creating an account it lies and tells me my account is "suspicious" but they'll unlock it if I give them free information they can sell, especially my phone number.

The comments are 90% hate anyway, so even just creating the account I was barely interested. But then they want to freemium me in a dishonest way.

Re:

[nospam007]

"I stopped using twitter because just a few hours after creating an account it lies and tells me my account is "suspicious" but they'll unlock it if I give them free information they can sell, especially my phone number."

Buy a dozen empty SIM-cards from eBay for $1, you can unlock tons of services with it.

Popularity

[bill_mcgonigle]

It's not really verification anymore, it's popularity among the Twitter staff.

I saw recently that the Mises Institute tried to get verified. Twitter said they weren't notable.

For evidence they submitted a recent tweet made by Jack Dorsey directing his followers to their website.

Doesn't matter.

Who gets verified...

[SmaryJerry]

I used to think being verified meant one thing, that you basically provided twitter your ID, Phone, or other personal information to confirm your identity. Then a whole bunch of people were complaining about not getting verified with millions of followers meanwhile some journalist with 10 followers was verified. Twitter released some statement claiming that verification was some kind of endorsement by Twitter? Seriously, just confirming you are who you say you are is an endorsement? If I was running twitter

Re: Who gets verified...

[MysteriousPreacher]

If memory serves they said that it's not an endorsement, and is instead supposedly about confirming authenticity of notable accounts. Instead they, as you note, clearly consider political views when deciding whether to grant verification. They remove verification from political opponents as punishment - contradicting their claim to mere verification.

Re:

[drinkypoo]

If memory serves they said that it's not an endorsement, and is instead supposedly about confirming authenticity of notable accounts

But they lied, it obviously is an endorsement. And why should notability be the standard, when the blue check affects perception of notability?

Re:

[tepples]

And why should notability be the standard, when the blue check affects perception of notability?

Per the rules [twitter.com], an organization is supposed to be notable-by-Wikipedia-standards before it can be notable-by-Twitter-standards. The rules mention Wikipedia by name.

Re:

[Trailer Trash]

And, yet, Rush Limbaugh was never "verified". You might not like him but obviously you know the name and he's obviously "notable". They also have a habit of removing the "verification" of conservatives who piss them off, often for simply stating facts.

Bigotry

[tepples]

Bigotry is one of the things that can keep Twitter from blue-checking a celebrity. Twitter's verification requirements page (linked above) defines it as

content that harasses, shames, or insults any individual or group—especially on the basis of race, ethnicity, national origin, sexual orientation, gender identity, religious affiliation, age, disability, medical/genetic condition, status as a veteran, status as a refugee, or status as an immigrant—or content that promotes the supremacy or interes

Re:

[Trailer Trash]

Bigotry is one of the things that can keep Twitter from blue-checking a celebrity. Twitter's verification requirements page (linked above) defines it as

content that harasses, shames, or insults any individual or group—especially on the basis of race, ethnicity, national origin, sexual orientation, gender identity, religious affiliation, age, disability, medical/genetic condition, status as a veteran, status as a refugee, or status as an immigrant—or content that promotes the supremacy or interests of members of any group in a manner likely to be perceived as demeaning on the basis of these categories

The bigotry policy for advertising on Twitter [twitter.com] gives a similar definition. Perhaps the issue is that paleoconservatives tend to be more likely to post bigotry than moderates or progressives.

A cursory look at Twitter shows that to not be the case.

I've read

[Sebby]

...that being verified means @Jack shit.

Why now, Jack?

[MysteriousPreacher]

Did the Taliban complain about not being verified?

Paid

[sudonim2]

When am I going to be able to pay Twitter directly. Honestly, $12/year would be more than they're making off me on advertising and their promised tools and actual humans to review cases are more than worth that. Frankly, Twitter and the Google apps that came on my phone are the only free apps on my phone I use. (There's some bloatware that I've disabled that's still technically on my phone. If I could remove Bixby, I would. I'll just settle for never using it.)