It’s been a weird week. I lost something that should not mean anything to me and yet there is a period of mourning for my Twitter Blue Check.
When I got verified more than a decade ago, it started with an email and then a process where I did have to provide proof of identity (instead of just a phone number, I believe I provided my driver’s license as proof of identity). As what could best be described as a Twitter power user, I was thrilled to get the recognition. It did seem like an honor and one I’d earned.
When Elon Musk stripped away legacy checks from me and millions of other accounts on April 20, I was a little sad and maybe more than a bit worried that whatever I tweeted would no longer be seen, not so much because I thought my check was giving me more access to a wider Twitter audience but because I knew for a fact that the new Twitter would be boosting paid Twitter Blue subscriber posts over those from users without the Blue check (so much for a meritocracy).
While I struggled with that new reality, I watched as Musk, as is his way, kept changing the rules. He started by handing blue checks to some celebrities and notables who didn’t even want them, including Stephen King and Kara Swisher. I actually believe people at this level of notoriety need that kind of automatic social media identity verification and protection but there’s no getting around the burgeoning inconsistencies in Musk’s “level the playing field plan.”
Over the course of 48 hours, Musk kept finding ways to reverify dozens of accounts. The calculation appears to be 1 million followers or more but then Ryan Reynolds's account, which has 21 million followers, is not verified. Musk might just be hand-picking accounts for verification, but then why would he do so for accounts representing dead people?
The concern here is not about whether or not these people are verified, but what those who are paying $8 a month for the Twitter Blue Subscription think about this. Musk has often said that the elites were unfairly handed these Blue ticks and now he’s essentially doing it all over again.
To me, it’s just another indication of how wrong-headed most of Musk’s Twitter policy moves have been.
Recently, I read an old interview with Steve Jobs who spoke about how, as CEO of Pixar, employees were not working for him as much as he was working for them. I don’t imagine the current Twitter is anything like that. Mostly it seems as if the Twitter team is carrying out his whims and dictums and no one can say no to him.
A case in point would be the “State-sponsored media” label he slapped on NPR’s account. It was nonsensical and born out of a musk’s extreme distaste for all traditional media (he favors 100% citizen journalism). NPR gets a small fraction of its funding from the government and in the face of the misrepresentation, it stopped tweeting altogether.
Musk, without fanfare, quietly relented. He’s done this a lot. He comes up with a thought, tells his team to make it so, and then that same team has to mop up when he finally realizes he was wrong.
The new Twitter where many media and content creator accounts have lost their blue check and a lot of visibility is, sadly, a much less interesting and useful place than it was. With the hard promotion of paid blue checks, it’s much more of a sycophantic echo chamber for Musk’s libertarian thoughts, ideals, and occasional Al crude jokes.
I would be lying if I said that the change has not caused me any anxiety. I built a personal brand with Twitter as its foundation. In hindsight, that may have been a mistake. I won’t stop tweeting, nor will I harbor ill will toward those who paid for their checks. I just hope they care, as I do, to fill the platform with useful, factual, and entertaining information.
Missed on TechRadar
Save yourself a smart home headache by avoiding my Wi-Fi network mistake
In Mrs. Davis, AI is almost identical to magic – and that's the whole point
iPhone 15 will never beat Galaxy S23 without this big upgrade
That’s all for now
Be good to each other