[CamelCaseName]

How many people get scammed every day on X because the verification badge is a "Spend $1-5" badge?

This was especially plain to see in the crypto side of twitter.

Platforms cannot make statements on the legitimacy of a user without incurring some level of responsibility, regardless if it's "obvious" that a verified badge simply means that you've spent a couple dollars.

The average internet user is closer to your grandmother than you or me, and that is who these laws are meant to protect.

[gruez]

>Platforms cannot make statements on the legitimacy of a user without incurring some level of responsibility, regardless if it's "obvious" that a verified badge simply means that you've spent a couple dollars.

So what's the right level of "responsibility"? Is letsencrypt issuing certificates to websites (which shows a lock icon in browsers) also fooling grandma into sending over her credit card details? What about EV certificates from a few years ago, where you paid ~$300/yr for a green lock? Should the EU get in the business of regulating what levels of verification are required to show lock/checkmark icons?

[gjsman-1000]

To continue this train of thought, what happens when the EU decides that unverified users must be hidden by default and can only be accessed by direct lookup?

[fidotron]

It will end like Germany where to put anything on the Internet your physical address must be visible.

This is what they've been pushing for with app stores.

[ecshafer]

So as opposed to the old twitter method which was a vague “you know someone at twitter”, which led to random “journalists” and nobodies being verified. Paying money is just as arbitrary. Money at least means a credit card transaction happened.

[ceejayoz]

An actual human employee at Twitter vouching for someone’s existence seems far more reputable than being able to purchase a Visa gift card in a convenience store.

Verification was “this account is who it says it is”. Not “this account has $10 to spare”.