Paid and legacy Twitter verification now indistinguishable Following an announcement last month that Twitter would be "winding down" its "legacy verified program" on April 1, those lucky enough to possess a coveted blue tick waited for the symbol to disappear off their accounts over the weekend. And waited... And waited... It seems that a high-profile backlash against the incoming $8 …
From other reporting I've seen elsewhere it appears (according to insiders, whatever that might mean), that removing Blue ticks is a manual process, and cant be automated. So someone has to physically go through and uncheck those boxes. Probably, why it's taking so long...
The New York Times's removal is due to a clear spat between El Musky und the NYT. And it's a spat that really just makes him look even more of a thin skinned Twat then he already did. I was surprised that was possible. I really was...
And it's a spat that really just makes him look even more of a thin skinned Twat then he already did. I was surprised that was possible. I really was...
I dunno. I think it's a sign of the times that despite the MSM moving their content behind paywalls, they're still not generating enough money to pay for their use of the 'essential' Twitter service.
You wish the NYT didn't generate enough money to pay for anything it wanted.
It's just a little strange that they use paywalls and require subscriptions to view their product, yet don't want to pay another publisher to distribute their content. Especially as the MSM are also keen on charging other 'big tech' businesses fees for services like news aggregation. Also not sure why they're bothered about ticks when many of their 'news' stories are unverified anyway.
This is the way it usually works, the flow of payments goes towards the content producer.
Sure. For centuries, paper mill owners paid businesses like the NYT to have ink applied to their virgin paper. The way it usually works is that there's payment for services. The MSM obviously doesn't value the service, so the service should be withdrawn.
There are simple solutions though, which could also benefit the wider society. Twitter regulary adds warnings to people's content, although less than it used to before the change in control. One notable exception being a polite reminder that the US legal system hasn't required defendents in trials prove their innocence. Well, not until recently anyway. But given we live in the era of fake news and misinformation, all Musk needs to do is add a warning that tweets are unverified.
This may upset some people who need their sense of identity validated by 3rd parties, but there are costs involved in providing that service. Well, normally anyway.
(Hope everyone's stocked up on popcorn ahead of the trial of the century. I really hope Trump loses, because that will establish a few interesting precedents that can be used to prosecute other politicians.)
I think we're all grown up enough here to distinguish between paying for paper/hosting and paying for content.
The closest model is syndicated stories. Twitter would pay for them and its own advertising on its own site would recover the cost of the syndication fees.
Not sure what Trump has to do with content licensing, whatever makes you happy.
The closest model is syndicated stories. Twitter would pay for them and its own advertising on its own site would recover the cost of the syndication fees.
Nope. Closest model is paying for services. Businesses tweet to drive traffic, subscription fees and ad revenues. Businesses would expect to pay for TV or radio ads, why should they expect the Internet to do that for free? Especially when again, they've been busily implementing paywalls, monetising their user's data and lobbying for more money to be sent their way. Plus they're struggling with falling subscribers, increased competition and rapidly decreasing trust.
Not sure what Trump has to do with content licensing
Well, you may or may not have noticed but he's been in the news recently. A lot. He's also been generating a lot of Twitter traffic, mostly unverified and currently unverifiable. But look on the bright side, if the NYT, Pelosi or even the Whitehouse lose their ticks, it'll make it easier for them to deny they ever said stuff.
"Nope. Closest model is paying for services. Businesses tweet to drive traffic, subscription fees and ad revenues. Businesses would expect to pay for TV or radio ads, why should they expect the Internet to do that for free? Especially when again, they've been busily implementing paywalls,"
Because posting on Twitter isn't advertising. They also advertise on Twitter for which surprise! they pay money. Posting on Twitter is free. Twitter is within its rights to make it not free, but they haven't, so people don't voluntarily pay them for the privilege. The paper could pay for a tick icon, but like everyone else's tick icon, it is worthless. I don't pay for worthless things and neither will most companies.
"look on the bright side, if the NYT, Pelosi or even the Whitehouse lose their ticks, it'll make it easier for them to deny they ever said stuff."
No, it wouldn't, since it is still easy enough to check the history without a tick icon, but given your list of suspects, I doubt you ever do that level of research.
Because posting on Twitter isn't advertising.
Sure it is. There's a whole ecosystem based on 'influencers' promoting their 'brands' (ie themselves), which then translates into advertising and sponsorship deals. Or for the MSM, promoting news stories that drive viewers to their or their employer's websites.
Posting on Twitter is free
Nope. Distributing tweets costs money, just as dstributing newspapers does. This is the reason why pre-Musk Twitter burned collosal amounts of cash and never made any money.
..but like everyone else's tick icon, it is worthless. I don't pay for worthless things and neither will most companies.
I know this, you know this, and it's one of the reasons I don't waste money on a TV Licence. But if it's 'worthless', why all the fuss about removing the tick? Surely all the complaints about being de-loused suggest current tick users see some value in the service, but just don't want to pay for it.
No, it wouldn't, since it is still easy enough to check the history without a tick icon, but given your list of suspects, I doubt you ever do that level of research.
So what you're saying is that it's possible to do some sender verification on tweets that don't have a tick? If so, again why are people so bothered? As for research, if you read the link I gave you, you'll see that none (from memory) are suspects given they've been charged and fined by the SEC. But I've never used Twitter, or most 'social' media because as you say, I find them worthless. As the old saying goes, if it's free, then the product they're selling is probably you..
Me: "Because posting on Twitter isn't advertising."
You: "Sure it is. There's a whole ecosystem based on 'influencers' promoting their 'brands' (ie themselves), which then translates into advertising and sponsorship deals."
Which isn't advertising, you know, the paid-for product kind of advertising. It's useful, but it's different. Twitter also does advertising, it's called advertising, and it works like advertising. Posting there is just posting, and although people sometimes do it to make money, they sometimes also do it just for its own sake.
Me: "Posting on Twitter is free"
You: "Nope. Distributing tweets costs money, just as dstributing newspapers does."
Yes, but Twitter doesn't charge for it. It is not free to Twitter. It would be free to me. It is still free to anyone else, tick or no tick. Twitter can change that but they have not.
But if it's 'worthless', why all the fuss about removing the tick? Surely all the complaints about being de-loused suggest current tick users see some value in the service, but just don't want to pay for it.
I don't care very much, and the people who have millions of dollars aren't choosing not to pay for it because they don't like spending the $96 per year. They either don't like Musk and don't want to give him money, or they think the tick is so useless now that it's not worth $96 a year (and I would agree with them on that). They choose to post about that, but that doesn't mean they care strongly about the issue, since Twitter appears to be used to post random thoughts people have, not all of which are of major importance to them.
So what you're saying is that it's possible to do some sender verification on tweets that don't have a tick? If so, again why are people so bothered?
Of course it is. Check the handle. You can't forge those. The tick was useful for people who were too lazy to do that. Now it isn't useful for anything. Again, I'm not bothered and I don't think other people are as bothered as you appear to believe. Just because The Register chooses to write an article and I choose to write a comment on the article doesn't mean either of us cares that much. So Musk broke another feature of Twitter; that's what I expect these days. Some people who liked Twitter might complain about someone coming along to smash parts of it up, but that doesn't make it everyone's opinion.
"The MSM "
You keep saying that. Yet the article points out that some of "The MSM" are paying and others are not. So is it only those who are NOT paying that are "The MSM" and those who ARE paying are NOT "The MSM"? I'm confused. Who are "The MSM". Please be explicit and exhaustive when compiling the list. I'd love to know.
Who are "The MSM". Please be explicit and exhaustive when compiling the list. I'd love to know.
I'd love to know as well. The article mentions NYT, plus-
Other media companies refusing to pay include CNN, the Los Angeles Times, Politico, BuzzFeed, the Washington Post, and Vox.
All familiar names associated with the term 'MSM', although in the case of CNN and their plummeting ratings, I'm not sure if they really count as 'mainstream' any more. But they're also notable for leaning far to the left, having dishonourable mentions in the Twitter files, and a general dislike of both Musk and the concepts of free speech since his take-over of their favorite toy.
(I am curious now if Fox will pay, or even the Bbc. I suspect yes to both given both can afford it. One gets views, the other gets gifted probably close to £4bn a year now, plus all it's income from commercial activities.)
What you have just amply demonstrated is that you don't know, or can't tell, the difference between a supplier and a publisher.
To take your contrived example, a paper mill supplies the raw paper to the NYT, who pay to have their words printed on it, and then pay a distributor to take those printed copies to places where they are sold, where the vendor pays for them and then sells them on to the consumer at a small profit.
Except, of course, most "newspaper" business these days is online, so there is no paper or distribution involved. The NYT produces content, which it publishes on its web site, and charges users for access. Other publishers may have decided to wholly, or partially, fund their operations through advertising (as it often used to be with "free" papers).
It's hardly a surprising business model, and if Elon Musk thinks he can come along and take a cut for allowing them to use his service (which is currently largely funded via advertising, although he has done plenty to piss advertisers off), he is going to find that his business model doesn't work quite as well.
Whilst the supply of paper is vital to the production of printed newspapers, the supply of Twitter is not vital to the production of online news content, and His Muskiness seems to be unaware of its actual place in the online ecosystem.
They can't afford it just like LeBron James can't afford it.
It is hilarious how all the right wing nutjobs want nothing more than for the NYT to go bankrupt and the state of California to become a place no one wants to live. It is so frustrating for them that neither of these things ever shows any sign of happening!
...the state of California to become a place no one wants to live. It is so frustrating for them that neither of these things ever shows any sign of happening!
Nah, not frustrating, just amusing and inevitable. But here's a story from some 'right wing nutjobs'-
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/may/02/california-population-decline-trend-covid
California’s population has shrunk for the second year in a row, according to newly released figures.
Officials blamed the decrease on declining birth rates, higher deaths from the pandemic and fewer people moving into the state from elsewhere in the US. California lost 117,552 people in 2021, putting its population at 39,185,605, the California department of finance said on Monday.
That was from a year ago, and it's been shrinking again since then. It's much the same story for NYC. Slight snag for both is the impact on the tax base. Wealthy people move out, taking their income, assets and spending with them. People that do move in often have no income, and increase the costs of providing social services. The extreme left has never had a sound grasp of economics, and don't understand why this is a bit of a problem. Places like LA and NYC aren't quite at Detroit levels of sound monetary policy, but that time is approaching fast. Meanwhile, other states like Texas and Florida welcome people's money.
From other reporting I've seen elsewhere it appears (according to insiders, whatever that might mean), that removing Blue ticks is a manual process, and cant be automated. So someone has to physically go through and uncheck those boxes. Probably, why it's taking so long...
It's stored in a database; it could be automated.
Assuming the twit in chief hadn't have fired everybody who knew how to do that of course, who would have been followed out the door by everybody else with transferrable skills as the place collapses. That leaves those left who've been picked because primarily because their wages are cheap and who don't have transferrable skills to easily get another job. Therefore they don't know how to do that and can't figure it out.
This forces them to use the existing GUI, which was probably written in an era where a single person probably needed removing every few months. As they have the script, then somebody with even mediocre tech skills *could* reverse engineer that script to figure out what needs to be done. However, you'd then have the problem that the people who can do that are needed to keep the entire thing running, and if they stop doing that then the entire show will collapse around them.
As they have the script, then somebody with even mediocre tech skills *could* reverse engineer that script to figure out what needs to be done.
Unless some stressed(*) engineer reused the single "has_blue_tick" flag for both legacy and paid ticks.
(*) Not that I can think of any reason for one of Musk's engineers to be stressed.
He's the most famous sports person on the planet. He (and the rest of the legacy notable blue ticks) were the product and the draw, they were never the consumer. They were never going to pay.
Having seen how Musk runs Twitter, I wouldn't buy a paper clip from him, never mind a £50,000 self driving car.
Well I've heard of him, and I'm not from the USA. I feel like he's one of the most famous sports people on the planet, along with... erm... Kevin Keegan.
Also, I don't really know anything about SportBall.
So, that makes it 7.799999999b population of the planet or fewer. (so, you're probably quite close).
Well I've heard of him, and I'm not from the USA. I feel like he's one of the most famous sports people on the planet,
Wasn't that because he had dodgy knees or something? Neil Rutter is far more famous after winning the World Championship 4 times in a row, and I think will be a strong contender to win again in August.
"He's the most famous sports person on the planet."
Bullshit.
I follow zero sports, I have less than zero interest (it's a signed integer ;) ), and have no intention of changing.
So... There's Botham, Beckham, Bolt, that bloke that was messing up Pakistan, Higgins, Lester Piggott, Steve Davis, Giggs, and Wiggins.
But the guy you mentioned? No idea, never heard of him.
Pay attention to the list I gave. Asides from Beckham, you might not know any of the rest. Because they're (mostly) British. Google says your guy plays for NBA, which I'm guessing is basketball going by the photo. So, uh, no, why would I know and/or be interested in this? I guess, at least, he's not a crash test dummy.
If you want an (in)famous American sports person, try Lance Armstrong.
There's a browser extension to fix that. Apparently they have gathered a list of all "traditionally" verified accounts.
https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/eight-dollars/fjbponfbognnefnmbffcfllkibbbobki
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/eightdollars/
https://microsoftedge.microsoft.com/addons/detail/eight-dollars/ehfacgbckjlegnlledgpkmkfbemhkknh
I used to think it meant something. That those people are somehow noteworthy? However, I've since learned that some left-leaning blogger with a few hundred followers has got one, whereas a right-leaning journalist with hundreds of thousands of followers didn't get one. So, it's kinda biased. Like most Twitter employees. Or most Big Tech Silicon Valley employees.
Being something of a centrist (I can't stand any of them), I like things to be a bit more balanced. I really hate it when I see Big Tech putting their finger on the scale to move the needle towards their favoured causes. And it's now clear that this has been happening a lot. I can see the temptation to do this, but that doesn't make it right.
I would guess that those who use twitter would like to know if someone they are following is real, and not just a scammer.
Nope, that won't help you. See for example-
https://www.courthousenews.com/sec-charges-eight-celebrities-over-promotion-of-cryptocurrency-on-social-media/
According to an SEC settlement filing, Lohan, who moved to Dubai in 2014, was paid $10,000 to promote the cryptocurrency tokens on social media.
"Exploring #DeFi and already liking $JST, $SUN on $TRX. Super fast and 0 fee. Good job @justinsuntron,” the "Freaky Friday" star posted on Twitter in February 2021.
Pretty sure she has/had a tick. Never heard of most of the other 7, but not uncommon for 'influencers' to get paid for stuff like this. Why someone might be acting on financial advice from Lohan is a different question.
II think 'd consider it very useful if I twitted.
There's your first mistake. Reagan may have said 'Trust, but verify', but he didn't mean look for the tick. Developing criticial thinking skills is a far, far better defence.
I said nothing about the quality of the verified person, just that they were really who they say.
If someone unverified pretends to be my verified MP, I'll assume they are a scammer.
And actually, I'd trust a verified Lindsey Logan less than an unregistered one!
I wouldn't blindly think someone is a trustworthy soul just because of their verification tick. After all, I've seen enough reprinted posts from Farage, Banks, Tories, and all the other brexit grifters who sucked you in are/were verified. - I'm not stupid enough to trust them as you have done... Maybe you should use those critical thinking skills yourself sometime?
"It's obvious if you think about it. Leave the blue ticks be, and give the people who paid a blue dollar sign."
That would need a new column in a database and new code added to process said new column.
Twitler has fired anyone who could do this so they have to reuse the existing column/code and hence cant distinguish old legacy from new paid.
Bluck
I'm as harsh a critic of Musk as anyone (no really, check my comment history), but this makes me feel sorry for Twitter.
Leave aside the specifics of the catastrofuck that is Musk's acquisition of the blue bird, and look at the principle. If we are to have a social media where your shit isn't being sold to third parties, then we'll have to pay for it. (I know Musk is only doing this because he's paid over the odds and driven away all Twitter's advertisers. But as I said, leave that aside.) Yet here we have a bunch of people who could afford to pay refusing to do so. And the only principle in play seems to be that they're cheap. It appears we are now so wedded to free that we are stuck with the consequences.
And, I admit, I'm someone who earns a living because people are willing to pay for stuff I've helped code. It's constant uphill struggle. So, from my point of view, it would have been worth the price if it changed people's attitudes and sense of value.
No. The blue tick used to be a verification marker - it showed they were who they said they were. If it still had that use, I'd agree with you about some of them being cheap, but it doesn't. The blue tick now means nothing but "this person has paid".
I'd not expect previously verified users to start paying whilst still not retaining their verification status.
"here we have a bunch of people who could afford to pay refusing to do so. And the only principle in play seems to be that they're cheap."
Maybe their principle is that they don't pay for nothing, and right now, their tick means nothing. It no longer serves to verify to people that they are who they say they are, since it only translates to "they give us money". If El Reg came out with a new feature where I could pay them something and they'd turn off the ads, I'd consider it (I'm blocking the ads again because something must have gone wrong with the ads in the past, but still I'd consider it). If they had a plan where they took away my badge icon which I didn't ask for but I could pay to get it back, I wouldn't be paying. It's not because I'm cheap, but because the badge icon has no value to me and a meaningless blue tick may have no value to the people who have lost it now that it no longer means what it once did. It may not have had much value to them even then, but it certainly won't now.
And the only principle in play seems to be that they're cheap.
I think the principle at play here is actually customer choice. They have the choice of whether to pay for a service, and have, quite rightly, decided that it's not a "service" worth paying for, so have not.
It doesn't matter whether you're the richest guy on the planet, or up to your neck in debt, the same principle applies; a waste of money is a waste of money. The outlay vs reward equation remains the same.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
