[buscoquadnary]

You act like that's a really bad thing but tbh requiring payment for verification seems to me one of the easiest ways to combat misinformation. Suddenly you have an actual source of money tied to an actual person that ties someone to their actual account. Meanwhile it can be assumed that anyone that doesn't verify is likely pushing false information. Seems like it is the easiest way possible to combat the misinformation not by becoming some sort of arbiter of truth but merely making it harder for people to push information out anonymously in the first place.

[cmiles74]

Isn't the "verified" check mark meant to indicate that the account doing the tweeting is the famous or notable person they claim they are? In my opinion, Twitter puts the verified check mark on accounts as an aid to help other Twitter readers; to help ensure they are reading the person they intended to follow.

While paying for the check mark is certainly a valid way to earn money it won't really serve the same purpose. Many notable accounts may choose not to buy in, accounts that are not notable may choose to buy in, adding to the confusion.

[humanistbot]

> While paying for the check mark is certainly a valid way to earn money it won't really serve the same purpose. Many notable accounts may choose not to buy in, accounts that are not notable may choose to buy in, adding to the confusion.

In the current existing system, famous people also have to go a verification process when they are invited or approved to be verified. Paying for a checkmark would presumably include the same verification that takes place in the current system.

[rchaud]

> Isn't the "verified" check mark meant to indicate that the account doing the tweeting is the famous or notable person they claim they are?

I don't think so. There are blue check accounts that get purchased, and then have the name and image replaced with that of a famous person to sell scams. Check the replies under any real Musk tweet.

[yamtaddle]

There's nothing preventing them from adding more kinds of checkmarks.

[dragonwriter]

> Isn’t the “verified” check mark meant to indicate that the account doing the tweeting is the famous or notable person they claim they are?

That is what it was, in theory. There are some issues in practice, and in any case Musk has a very different vision of what it is for (the user facing reason seems to be largely “paying for positioning in the algorithm”.)

EDIT: In addition to algorithmic prioritization, you also get a 50% reduction in ads and the ability to post “long video and audio”, per Elon’s recent announcements.

[MallocVoidstar]

> Meanwhile it can be assumed that anyone that doesn't verify is likely pushing false information.

Or they're in a region where $20 is a significant portion of their monthly income. Of course, their government will be able to afford verification.

[xeromal]

That's a feature, not a bug when it comes to misinformation since loads of out comes from outside the US/West

[dragontamer]

> Suddenly you have an actual source of money tied to an actual person that ties someone to their actual account.

Did that stop Alex Jones from slandering the victims of Sandy Hook?

Last time I checked, Alex Jones's web traffic increased, because that slander / misinformation made him more money. People wanted that misinformation badly.

[choko]

His long term outlook is very poor though. Judgements will likely be reduced (if Jones co-operates with the court this time) but he'll be lucky to have a home when everything is over.

[klyrs]

> You act like that's a really bad thing

Did I? I thought I was spitballing for how twitter might be able to turn a profit. And, get this, without selling ads...

[gunapologist99]

Poe's law strikes again.

[jjulius]

>Seems like it is the easiest way possible to combat the misinformation not by becoming some sort of arbiter of truth but merely making it harder for people to push information out anonymously in the first place.

People with blue checks, who have had their identities verified and aren't anonymous, already stretch the truth and put out misinformation. Adding a $20/month fee isn't going to change that. $20/month is worth it for many people who want to bend the truth for their own personal gain, whatever that may be. I really don't understand how charging people for a blue check next to their name somehow also "combats misinformation".

[dragonwriter]

> You act like that’s a really bad thing but tbh requiring payment for verification seems to me one of the easiest ways to combat misinformation.

Sure, telling big accounts that are the major source of content bringing people to the platform that you view their presence as a headache that you need compensated extra for rather than a welcome thing that you are willing to do costly work to make secure is a great way to shrink the platform for all uses, including misinformation.

[choko]

Their content is basically advertising their brand to their fans though. Stephen King can announce a book tour or new title and reach millions of fans for a meager 20 bucks a month. On the flip side, I personally don't need to have celebrities on the platform to see the value. When Twitter started there were no celebrities on there and they only got involved once it took off because it is a cost effective way of reaching fans.

[vidarh]

People push misinformation under their real name all the time. Why anyone would expect this to change that, I don't know.

Meanwhile, plenty of people will farm out verification of accounts for purposes where paying the verification fee for an illusion of authority will be worth it for a lot of uses.

[gort19]

I have to assume this is satirical. It seems to rest on the idea that people with money don’t spread misinformation, which I don’t think it true.