Blue check used to mean "identity objectively verified", useful to confirm the twiterati using the name is the actual person/group others think they are.
Then came the Great Bluecheck Purge, where anyone exhibiting opinions not preferred by Twitter management had their blue check revoked/denied - which in practice was applied generally to Republicans, who constitute about half the USA. (We're talking mainstream views, not just weirdos.)
Ergo, anyone with a blue check is, by Twitter decree, not a Republican. For Republicans, blue check now amounts to a "badge of shame" indicating Twitter-approved opposition.
Blue checks were changed from "identity confirmed" to "one of us, not them".
No, you're confused. Those are suspensions. We're talking about removing the blue check mark or denying it. This happens to people who aren't morally-approved by Twitter for moral reasons.
For example, the blue check was removed from Milo Yiannopolous (the gay conservative provocateur who was canceled a few years ago), after he was previously verified.
Every "rule" on Twitter is no more than a tool used to create the appearance of left-wing consensus by suppressing alternative views through selective enforcement. Nothing is even-handed, and it's incredibly obvious when you're the target.
dirtbag leftists can't get blue checks and right wingers say "no one's being persecuted but us".
please move beyond this a bit and come to the understanding that every single thing Twitter does is arbitrary from rules enforcement, labeling, suspensions, etc. It's the nature of the service, and frankly boring at this point. We could talk more about why the business model sees this to continue (twitter can't disrupt its income stream and the rules that get enforced are those that allow Twitter to stay in business).
Interesting comparison: for the Left, you choose the qualifier “dirtbag” which presumably is a very small fraction of that faction ... while comparing that unpleasant small minority with the entire other half of the political spectrum.
I can (sort of, but would rather not) see denying authentication to problematic nutcases of any kind, and can see that edge case not pedantically covered/excluded by “nobody but us”. Sure, we can chalk up fringe cases to inconsistent boundaries of enforcement. But lumping in a plurality of users with edge cases is willful blindness to the blue check exclusion being official from-the-top policy, not mere erratic enforcement of vague rules by underpaid contractors.
Sure it’s boring if you’re not in the targeted plurality. It’s significant when Twitter is your only viable podium in the public town square, and anything you want to say that’s meaningfully & reasonably dissenting may get you kicked out because Twitter management is decidedly biased.
I’ve been blogging since before blogging was blogging. Personal blogs are now, on the whole, not viable.
Twitter is among the best platforms for being heard by the most people with the least cost/effort.
Yeah, I get your point - to wit “get your own press”, a line I’ve used long and often. Nonetheless I recognize the value of a place where a great many congregate to converse with many - and know the importance of that forum being neutral for the betterment of all, a truism Dorsey abandoned for the worse.
Wouldn't it be amusing if Twitter started doing verified red badges to signify Republicans? I guess if they really want to be all-inclusive, allow users to customize their badge colors too.
(I didn't know what a blue checkmark was until I turned off dark mode)
Amusing, but still problematic. Blue check was intended as neutral authentication. Turning it into a preferred faction indicator just serves to promote factional divisions - something Twitter could use a lot less of. …which brings us back to the OP point that blue checks have become a mark of shame, promoting division instead of objectivism.
Sure, but it wasn't so absolute. They didn't uncheck all conservatives, they just applied standards unevenly (but probably, in their minds, justifiably), which results in disproportionate results.
It's an echo chamber problem, but I'm not sure it's deliberate.
In an organization with hundreds, possibly thousands of people, how would you get human-defined standards to be applied evenly when other people are actively existing in the grey area between what is and is not okay? Eg how do you define pornography that won't also get eg breast exams for cancer blocked? Now imagine that someone stands to make tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars if they can get something past your very human operators that both is (according to viewers) and is not (according to the censors) pornography.
The problem's even harder with text - sarcasm and satire just don't come off in pure text. Emoji and "/s" helps, but they're not requisite.
The world must be so simple and straightforward to you when you can just throw millions of people in a slur-labeled category and then treat them as non-humans deserving of unlimited suffering.
Then came the Great Bluecheck Purge, where anyone exhibiting opinions not preferred by Twitter management had their blue check revoked/denied - which in practice was applied generally to Republicans, who constitute about half the USA. (We're talking mainstream views, not just weirdos.)
Ergo, anyone with a blue check is, by Twitter decree, not a Republican. For Republicans, blue check now amounts to a "badge of shame" indicating Twitter-approved opposition.
Blue checks were changed from "identity confirmed" to "one of us, not them".