Doesn't it meaningfulness depend on how the verification system is built?
Or do you think there will be bots built to mass-sign up and pay the subscription fees?
Merged Musk buys Twitter!/ Elon Musk puts Twitter deal on hold....
- Status
Doesn't it meaningfulness depend on how the verification system is built?
Or do you think there will be bots built to mass-sign up and pay the subscription fees?
I Am The Scum
Philosopher
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2010
- Messages
- 5,802
The problem is that it's not entirely clear what it means to "verify" the average Twitter user. Stephen King (for example) has an established, recognizable identity distinct from his online presence. The same cannot be said for most of us. What would it mean to "verify" you, or me, or anyone else posting in this thread? If I create a Twitter account and attempt to get it verified as Orphia Nay, the ISF poster, nobody would bother checking. That's not significant enough for them to care (nothing personal).
At least, that's the way it works now. There are three possibilities that I can see:
1. Change nothing. The new system is not really open to all. Even fewer people will have blue checks, because some segment of that population won't pay.
2. Loose standards. Twitter is now in a position of where they are attempting to verify users from all manner of niche communities from every weird corner of the internet. Easy for scammers to get verified and pose as authentic accounts.
3. No standards at all. Now "verified" is just a synonym for "I paid 8 dollars." The original purpose for the check is dead and now anybody can spoof anybody.
The secret 4th option is that he just drops this and promises something else even dumber in two weeks.
I think I'll stop speculating and just wait and see.
tyr_13
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Aug 8, 2008
- Messages
- 18,095
No, you weren't. You explicitly said that group, and by implication any group, shouldn't be banned if what they said wasn't literally illegal. It's the same topic. This point right here is a perfect illustration of why denialists posing as skeptics need to be identified and reputed.
There is no point in refuting everything you have said when you make it clear you're just weaponizing each and every grace of good faith. It isn't coincidence that the 'anti-woke' crowd does this so much. You were given evidence, and you pretend it doesn't exist. You want to re-litigate the very basics of how dehumanization and misinformation are harmful on one hand, while claiming to rally against it in the same point of argument. The idea that moderation is anywhere near the same problem as actual censorship doesn't get infinite benefit of the doubt.
Companies like Twitter have an interest in not being part of things like genocide, and keeping people from using their platform to talk about how great and justified that would be is an inordinately low bar, even if it is not and should not be illegal to discuss. Driving out users and advertisers is likewise an extremely clear and low reason to not associate with such things, even if one abandons moral and ethical considerations. You can try to pretend that's 'a circle jerk' all you like, pretend the people pointing out how daft that is are just weak, it doesn't change anything.
Your own argument is self-contradictory. If speech couldn't change anything it wouldn't be of harm to censor it. Duh.
Puppycow
Penultimate Amazing
I think it means that they simply verify that the person controlling the Twitter account is who they claim to be. That means their actual legal name, not an internet handle like "Puppycow" or "I Am The Scum".
It probably does cost Twitter some time and money to do this verification process, which is why in the past it was limited to famous people and journalists. So in that sense, I can understand why they would charge for the service if they are going to open it up to everyone.
I am assuming that they will still go through the verification process and not just take the person's word for it to save money. Otherwise it becomes meaningless for its originally intended purpose. Even someone with a blue check might not be who they claim to be.
mumblethrax
Species traitor
- Joined
- Apr 5, 2004
- Messages
- 5,017
It also conveys notability or public interest. I'm not going to get one.
I suspect that journalists and officialdom significantly outweigh household-name celebrities among verified users. An acquaintance who works at Bloomberg has a blue check, and I can just about guarantee you've never heard of him.
Musk has made it abundantly clear that he doesn't understand why any of this stuff is there, what it's meant to do, or which way the "value proposition" goes. And also that he's an intransigent idiot. Oh well, a fool and $44 billion are soon parted. Hopefully he doesn't cause a financial crisis in the process.
angrysoba
Philosophile
That would justify a one time payment, not a subscription.
If someone is going to subscribe, it would only make sense to offer better functions. I saw somewhere about Musk suggesting the ability to upload long videos etc...
Also, in the past there has been a controversial suggestion of an edit button. Perhaps, the new lords of Twitter will be able to go back and edit, claim that they never said what the plebian reply guys are claiming they did, etc...
Perhaps it will end up becoming a form of lost knowledge where the official name of the verification mark bears no relation to its origin such as how screen once meant shield and now means the thing you look at Twitter on.
Gulliver Foyle
Philosopher
It looks like Musk's plan is to make the most voluminous users pay to put their tweets up. Which is doubly stupid, because it drives away both those who give twitter its content and the advertisers who are only interested in mass eyeball exposure (though bigger advertisers seem to be copping on that the internet is not as productive as more traditional advertising media).
angrysoba
Philosophile
Oh, apparently there is already something called Twitter Blue that allows users to pay for more features for a price of 4.99 a month. I really am surprised that anyone bothers with it.
mumblethrax
Species traitor
- Joined
- Apr 5, 2004
- Messages
- 5,017
Hardly anyone does. I'm sure that quadrupling/almost doubling the price will solve that problem. Twitter Blue is almost certainly a Veblen good.
Meanwhile, IPG (one of the largest advertising conglomerates in the world) has recommended that its clients "pause" advertising on Twitter.
Uh oh. Maybe sextupling the price of Twitter Blue? Then Musk can post a boomer meme that trades on the oh-so-hilarious fact that sextuple starts with sex. Wait, no: $420.69/month!
Last edited:
Gulliver Foyle
Philosopher
It will agressively combat all real news that shows Musk in an unflattering (ie accurate) light. And all the shills now shouting about how twitter has become a "free speech utopia" will deafen us with their silence.
angrysoba
Philosophile
Yeah, I wondered what the numbers were on that. Who would bother?
Disbelief
Illuminator
- Joined
- Mar 27, 2007
- Messages
- 3,607
Here's an interesting way to see what Musk is going to do with disinformation.
https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/trumpisdead-trending-twitter-verified-user-000443923.html
https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/trumpisdead-trending-twitter-verified-user-000443923.html
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Mar 2, 2009
- Messages
- 23,741
And I stand by that. When that legality was decided in a democracy.
It's not the same topic as some generic endorsement of anything "awful but lawful". In a democracy we have already decided that no, it's not "awful" enough to be worth the trade off. In fact the majority has already decided that as compromises go, on the balance freedom of speech is not "awful" at all. We have in fact put it in all lists of human rights in civilized countries, rather than being something "awful" and to be discouraged. Just your not liking it doesn't overrule that. You're not that special. You don't get to do arguments about "awful but lawful" as if it were a fact, when it's about a human right.
Ah, yes, the regular woowoo peddler's hallmark of snipping all asking for evidence for their woowoo and complaining about how those asking for it aren't REAL skeptics. Heh. Nope, sorry, if that dumb flailing about how it's not REAL skepticism when someone questions THEIR bare postulates didn't convince me when the religious apologists and woowoo peddlers were doing it, it won't impress me when you are doing it either. You're not that special.
No. In fact, I was given an ALLEGATION by a litigious group, and exactly zero evidence that Y was caused by X at all, much less to such an extent as to be worse than throwing free speech out the window. Again, anyone can allege anything. You haven't given me a single shred of reason to believe that YOUR supposed causation has any more plausibility than the one where supposedly comics turn people into killers or atheism causes people to be amoral.
And I find it symptomatic that you decide to snip all that asking for evidence and go on a flailing offensive instead.
As long as it was voluntary you might have had a point, but when you can be sued for 150 billion dollars if you don't respect the censorship laws of some tin-horn generalissimo across the globe, then it IS actual censorship. As in, actually using the institutions of the state to enforce it. Shouldn't have brought up that lawsuit, if you guys wanted it to not be anywhere near. Sorry. Plus, see below...
What a company like Twitter does voluntarily, is covered under "freedom of the press" and thus their own business, and I've already said so. My point was just about the idiot mob's allergic reaction to even the slightest mention of freedom of speech. Just that there isn't YET actual enforced censorship (at least until such lawsuits create the precedent) doesn't change the fact that effectively that's what said mob is wishing for: a world where every view except their own is effectively censored.
It must be nice to live in your own world where you can just make up someone else's argument instead of actually reading, much less comprehending. Because my actual point was precisely that being able to control information has caused greater harm before. Including, yes, in the very same Myanmar genocide, and in the previous crimes against minorities in the same country.
But generally, what you're trying to do there is blur the distinction between
1. maybe caused one or two numpties to do something stupid, and
2. affect a GOVERNMENT's ability to do something awful on a much larger scale with impunity.
You haven't shown any plausible evidence (in the logical sense, not just that X and Y happened and you want real hard to believe they're linked) that #1 is caused to any significant degree as to actually be a genocide if lawful speech is allowed -- i.e., once you take out the actually illegal inciting to violence and such, since Elon did qualify it as only as long as it's not illegal -- whereas #2 is pretty much beyond any doubt for a very long time now. In fact, even in Myanmar the only reason there was any pressure on the government at any point (they at least tried to pretend they're liberalizing) was that, yes, information could reach more people than ever before in real time, both internally and externally, and they couldn't just filter it.
Last edited:
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Mar 2, 2009
- Messages
- 23,741
No, it does not. ONE guy shooting a gun and not hitting anyone is hardly the law of equivalent exchange, when it comes to throwing away basic human rights.
Besides, if one guy taking it as incitation to violence were enough to throw freedoms out the window, then we should have started censoring music when Charles Manson did that with the lyrics in Beatles.
Last edited:
Just had a thought - I am now thinking that Musk confused Twitter Blue and the blue check mark and thought they were the same thing, so he thought the likes of King with his blue checkmark was already paying $4.99 a month for their checkmark. That then explains his idea on increasing the price and his comment back to King.
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Mar 2, 2009
- Messages
- 23,741
Wouldn't surprise me, to be honest.
angrysoba
Philosophile
Could be. In the message to Stephen King they are clearly talking about blue check marks. In the tweets Checkmite has screenshot, he talks about both blue checkmarks and "Blue for $8".
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
To me the interesting aspect to this is that Musk by buying Twitter has made it a perfect pipeline of damning evidence straight from his mouth to the SEC. He's proven in the past that he cannot stop himself from crossing lines of legality there, and now that he owns the thing he can't claim shenanigans and interference and fake news. He's going to run his mouth again where he shouldn't and it's going to bite him.
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Mar 2, 2009
- Messages
- 23,741
It's pretty much why I said he can't actually promise much more than what he already did. Even if, say, libel is not a federal felony (but it is in some states), and whatnot, everything he says now can and will be used if it comes to a lawsuit later.
That said, it's even more than that. He's establishing a lot of patterns there and making claims which will at the very least damage his credibility down the line, including when it comes to legal defenses. Much as trolling is fun, it can bite one in the ass if then later it turns out that just that happened down the line, so it may indicate premeditation rather than it being a joke. Kinda like if you write a book about how to murder your wife, it may not be taken as satire if you do find yourself on trial for murdering the wife.
But hey, it's his constitutional right to shoot himself in the foot. (Second amendment and all that
)
Edit: Mandatory disclaimer: this is not legal advice. Consult with the local lawyers' guild if you plan to do anything even remotely like what Elon Musk is doing
That said, it's even more than that. He's establishing a lot of patterns there and making claims which will at the very least damage his credibility down the line, including when it comes to legal defenses. Much as trolling is fun, it can bite one in the ass if then later it turns out that just that happened down the line, so it may indicate premeditation rather than it being a joke. Kinda like if you write a book about how to murder your wife, it may not be taken as satire if you do find yourself on trial for murdering the wife.
But hey, it's his constitutional right to shoot himself in the foot. (Second amendment and all that
)Edit: Mandatory disclaimer: this is not legal advice. Consult with the local lawyers' guild if you plan to do anything even remotely like what Elon Musk is doing
Last edited:
- Status