CryptCrawler
Well-known member
Elon Musk's plan to purge Twitter users of their coveted blue check marks may have been expected, but the way it was executed has sparked confusion and outrage among many high-profile accounts.
The billionaire entrepreneur announced in April that Twitter would begin winding down its old verification system, which had emphasized protecting high-profile users at risk of impersonation. To stay verified, Musk said users would have to pay $8 per month for the platform's Twitter Blue subscription service. The plan was met with resistance from some prominent users, who argued that paying for a feature meant by its design was intended to keep them safe should they be targeted by scammers or bots.
However, instead of pursuing this route, Musk chose to single out one major publication – The New York Times – for removal of its blue check mark. This unusual move has raised eyebrows among many in the industry and sparked a heated debate about free speech and journalistic integrity.
Musk's decision appears to be motivated by his personal dislike of The New York Times' coverage, which he claims is boring and "propaganda." His tweets against the outlet are not unique, as he often lashes out at journalists or media outlets who disagree with him. Nevertheless, this latest move has sparked a larger conversation about how Twitter handles verification and moderation.
The impact on users, particularly high-profile accounts, could be far-reaching. By removing The New York Times' blue check mark without explanation, Musk has created confusion among many users. While the account's other pages remained verified, this move highlights the inconsistent nature of Twitter's verification policy.
It remains to be seen how long Musk will continue this approach or if he will revisit his plans for a paid verification system. One thing is certain: it has sparked a heated debate about free speech and journalistic integrity on Twitter.
The billionaire's campaign against "legacy" blue checks has been ongoing since shortly after he purchased the platform last fall. Musk has argued that treating everyone equally by charging users to stay verified will drive revenue, which could help him pay off his significant debt.
However, critics argue that this approach could create more problems than it solves. The new label attached to verified accounts makes it unclear whether they are notable individuals or simply users who have paid to join Twitter Blue. Experts in inauthentic behavior have also expressed concerns that reserving verification for paid users may not reduce the number of bots on the site.
Musk's decision has sparked widespread criticism, with many calling for greater transparency and consistency in Twitter's moderation policies. As the platform continues to evolve under his leadership, one thing is clear: Musk's approach to free speech and journalistic integrity will continue to be a subject of intense debate and scrutiny.
The billionaire entrepreneur announced in April that Twitter would begin winding down its old verification system, which had emphasized protecting high-profile users at risk of impersonation. To stay verified, Musk said users would have to pay $8 per month for the platform's Twitter Blue subscription service. The plan was met with resistance from some prominent users, who argued that paying for a feature meant by its design was intended to keep them safe should they be targeted by scammers or bots.
However, instead of pursuing this route, Musk chose to single out one major publication – The New York Times – for removal of its blue check mark. This unusual move has raised eyebrows among many in the industry and sparked a heated debate about free speech and journalistic integrity.
Musk's decision appears to be motivated by his personal dislike of The New York Times' coverage, which he claims is boring and "propaganda." His tweets against the outlet are not unique, as he often lashes out at journalists or media outlets who disagree with him. Nevertheless, this latest move has sparked a larger conversation about how Twitter handles verification and moderation.
The impact on users, particularly high-profile accounts, could be far-reaching. By removing The New York Times' blue check mark without explanation, Musk has created confusion among many users. While the account's other pages remained verified, this move highlights the inconsistent nature of Twitter's verification policy.
It remains to be seen how long Musk will continue this approach or if he will revisit his plans for a paid verification system. One thing is certain: it has sparked a heated debate about free speech and journalistic integrity on Twitter.
The billionaire's campaign against "legacy" blue checks has been ongoing since shortly after he purchased the platform last fall. Musk has argued that treating everyone equally by charging users to stay verified will drive revenue, which could help him pay off his significant debt.
However, critics argue that this approach could create more problems than it solves. The new label attached to verified accounts makes it unclear whether they are notable individuals or simply users who have paid to join Twitter Blue. Experts in inauthentic behavior have also expressed concerns that reserving verification for paid users may not reduce the number of bots on the site.
Musk's decision has sparked widespread criticism, with many calling for greater transparency and consistency in Twitter's moderation policies. As the platform continues to evolve under his leadership, one thing is clear: Musk's approach to free speech and journalistic integrity will continue to be a subject of intense debate and scrutiny.
. but seriously, this whole thing is gettin me all confused. it's like, they changed the rules again and now high-profile accounts are stuck 
. and what's with musk thinkin users gotta pay 8 bucks a month to stay verified? that's just greedy 
. i mean, shouldn't the people who are important enough to need verification be verified for free or somethin'? anywayz, this whole thing is just a big mess right now...
i mean, come on @elonmusk likes to bash The New York Times but what's the real issue here? is it really that sensitive for you to take away their verification? Newsflash: you're still a billionaire with a massive platform. we don't need you policing free speech 
the whole thing just reeks of controversy and attention-seeking. can't we just have a calm conversation about how Twitter handles verification instead of all this drama?
. i mean, who needs verification anyway? if you're that important, shouldn't you have a way to prove it? 
this whole thing is like one big mess 
. and btw, $8 a month for blue check mark? that's a total joke 
.
twitter's like a crazy aunt who can't decide if she likes u or not 
what's next is he gonna take away our avocado toast or somethin? 
It got me thinking: what are we really getting paid for? Is it the convenience, the safety, or something else entirely? Maybe this is an opportunity to rethink what verification means and how we value our online presence... 
.
.
and now users are all like "wait what's verified, what's not?" 
. the fact that he's targeting The New York Times is low-key suspicious 
. shouldn't be about the $8 a month tho 
. Twitter needs to step up their game & make these moderation policies way more transparent 
. this whole thing is giving me a major anxiety attack 
... I mean, I get that Elon wants to make money, but this verification thingy just doesn't feel right. It's like he's playing favorites or something 
... I mean, I know they're not always agreeing with him, but come on, blue check marks shouldn't be about who you're pals with or hate 
?
.
. Elon Musk is trying to do the same thing with his paid verification system – he's giving high-profile accounts a blue check mark, but for a price 
. We need to take a step back and think about what's really important here – not the money we pay for something, but the value it brings to our lives