top | item 33568768 (no title) serbrech | 3 years ago Allowing people to suddenly buy a symbol that used to mean the source could be trusted (at least more than now)… what could go wrong discuss order hn newest v0idzer0|3 years ago Did it ever mean they could be trusted though? I think it’s healthy for everyone to distrust any and all tweets. jhanschoo|3 years ago In terms of factual information, no; in terms of identity verification, most could be trusted. papito|3 years ago The person behind the checkmark was a real person/entity and whatever they said, true or disinformation - they owned it. That is the difference.If Candice Owens had said something detestable, at least I knew that I was being triggered by the actual troll.
v0idzer0|3 years ago Did it ever mean they could be trusted though? I think it’s healthy for everyone to distrust any and all tweets. jhanschoo|3 years ago In terms of factual information, no; in terms of identity verification, most could be trusted. papito|3 years ago The person behind the checkmark was a real person/entity and whatever they said, true or disinformation - they owned it. That is the difference.If Candice Owens had said something detestable, at least I knew that I was being triggered by the actual troll.
jhanschoo|3 years ago In terms of factual information, no; in terms of identity verification, most could be trusted.
papito|3 years ago The person behind the checkmark was a real person/entity and whatever they said, true or disinformation - they owned it. That is the difference.If Candice Owens had said something detestable, at least I knew that I was being triggered by the actual troll.
v0idzer0|3 years ago
jhanschoo|3 years ago
papito|3 years ago
If Candice Owens had said something detestable, at least I knew that I was being triggered by the actual troll.