21–30 of 151 posts
This “verified” nonsense is silly. Twitter knew who Assange was but refused to “verify” him. They should change what they call verified to another label like “goodie two-shoes” instead. As it is is a complete misnomer. It’s basically used to get users to behave a certain way and if they don’t conform they don’t get verified or if they are verified it gets revoked.
When will Twitter re-open verifying? It's been closed for 2 years...
This “verified” nonsense is silly. Twitter knew who Assange was but refused to “verify” him. They should change what they call verified to another label like “goodie two-shoes” instead. As it is is a complete misnomer. It’s basically used to get users to behave a certain way and if they don’t conform they don’t get verified or if they are verified it gets revoked.
"Verified" ceased to be meaningful as actual verification as soon as "unverified" became a thing. I think making it a brand-coloured tick conveyed too much of a positive message so people took it as an endorsement, leading to pressure to "unverify" if that person did or said something bad. Given that action, the "verified" tick then becomes an even stronger signal of endorsement. Perhaps it would be better to call th…
Of course they could abandon all pretenses and just call it "ticked" accounts without saying what it means at all...
This is the behavior of monopolists. The FTC and existing anti-trust organizations would do well to return to their jobs and take a look at these practices broadly across the tech industry.
What I think is the problem is the terminology. 'Verified' makes it sound like there is some identity checking going on. It is nonsense to say that because someone is posting on 2 platforms, they suddenly aren't who they say they are. If you use the term 'affiliate' or 'partner' it is a different story. If you are posting on 2 or more platforms, it is logical for all involved platforms to not feel like partners anymo…
Call me paranoid but it seems increasingly that Big Tech uses all their avenues to force conformity. The message is that if you don't do what we want, bad things start happening. It can happen anytime anywhere and you wont necessarily know why. It's about encouraging a helpless, submissive, fearful mentality. Maybe they'll no longer show you as verified. Maybe your posts will be demoted a bit in the feed. Maybe you n…
This “verified” nonsense is silly. Twitter knew who Assange was but refused to “verify” him. They should change what they call verified to another label like “goodie two-shoes” instead. As it is is a complete misnomer. It’s basically used to get users to behave a certain way and if they don’t conform they don’t get verified or if they are verified it gets revoked.
Completely insane.
Not that I agree with this practice, but I've heard from people who stream on twitch that if you are streaming on their platform, you cannot stream to you-tube, d-live or other platforms and keep the affiliate/partner status which allows viewers to subscribe and donate via twitch currency to you. You may stream to multiple platforms at once, however you lose your ability to be verified on twitch by being an affiliate…
What I think is the problem is the terminology. 'Verified' makes it sound like there is some identity checking going on. It is nonsense to say that because someone is posting on 2 platforms, they suddenly aren't who they say they are. If you use the term 'affiliate' or 'partner' it is a different story. If you are posting on 2 or more platforms, it is logical for all involved platforms to not feel like partners anymo…
Call me paranoid but it seems increasingly that Big Tech uses all their avenues to force conformity. The message is that if you don't do what we want, bad things start happening. It can happen anytime anywhere and you wont necessarily know why. It's about encouraging a helpless, submissive, fearful mentality. Maybe they'll no longer show you as verified. Maybe your posts will be demoted a bit in the feed. Maybe you n…
because these big tech companies are all dependent on advertising revenue, and thus converge to advertiser friendly behaviour.
One upon a time an evil file might be called 'vader' or 'skynet'. Now harry potter fans are senior enough to decide on project names. I feel old.
This “verified” nonsense is silly. Twitter knew who Assange was but refused to “verify” him. They should change what they call verified to another label like “goodie two-shoes” instead. As it is is a complete misnomer. It’s basically used to get users to behave a certain way and if they don’t conform they don’t get verified or if they are verified it gets revoked.