Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Twitter Said to Re-Launch Verification Program Next Week
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
you create your own social media platform just for trolls, and you could all use that in your little echo chamber 😁
make it members only and you have to prove your troll history to get in.
people often confuse the right to freedom of speech to demanding the right to be given a platform and the right to not have any consequence of what you say.
no-one has a right to be supplied a platform - create your own platform and say what you like, on the understanding of the consequences of what you say.
also, those demanding freedom of speech often want to silence those that oppose the view they are so adamant they want to be heard - strange that. and they, more often than not, want to remain anonymous whilst voicing their view.
I don’t use my real name on Twitter but if they had something like this I would.
Too late, Twitter burned that brand. "Twitter Verified" only means "we approve this narrative", not "this is who everyone thinks this is". Twitter absolutely destroyed any trustworthiness to fact-checking, whatever the form.
I agree that freedom of the press doesn't mean freedom to use someone else's press without their approval.
That said, if one offers to let others use a press for purposes of free speech, aggressively cancelling users for saying widely agreed-on (not even broadly unpopular) speech is a surefire way to drive users to another purported free press.
Most people will agree that outright obnoxious or illegal behavior should be removed from a public forum. Strange how many justify excluding those who merely disagree with others.
Don't conflate trolls with dissenters.
When are they going to deal with all the damn bots on that service? It’s a total mess.
As far as the verification goes, they should have stolen Parler’s idea and made one verification for regular people and one for media/celebrities.
They also need to give people the ability to filter out anon accounts from posting comments under their tweets.
Twitter sucks, and will continue to suck.
As far as the verification goes, they should have stolen Parler’s idea and made one verification for regular people and one for media/celebrities.
They also need to give people the ability to filter out anon accounts from posting comments under their tweets.
Twitter sucks, and will continue to suck.
Yeah, that’s what Parler was doing. Orange for media/celebrities and red for regular users.
Twitter is stuck in the past, I don’t see them understanding the need to change. People also need more granular control over who is allowed to post in their comments. Parler got that right too and also let you mute problem users, so their spam or obnoxious comments weren’t seen by anybody.
can you give some examples of that?
it should be noted though that just because a number of people "agree" with something doesn't equate to it be factually correct.
i'm not sure we should be using Parler as a the gold standard of how to run a platform.
if there was ever an echo chamber for certain views it is Parler.
It wasn't magic. Twitter made it clear that they'd still have their teams working to verify legit folks like celebrities, news personalities, and well known companies. I got several accounts verified. It was just the request process that was shut down.
Uh, Twitter and the very large number of users they cancelled (Trump included). Ditto Facebook and other sites. Such cases weren't anywhere close to involving outright illegal acts (ex.: child porn, soliciting felonies) or social pariahs (ex.: chronic trolls, pornography), they were simply expressing opinions held (and opposed) by millions.
Yes, widespread agreement doesn't equate to factual correctness, any more than unilateral self-declared "fact-checking" is. It does indicate reasonable debate about what is true, and often indicates that the subject is actually opinion, not truth. Cancelling those who simply disagree is historically a very bad move. Twitter & Facebook et al purport to be generic open forums to facilitate public communication, as contrasted with forums dedicated to topics/doctrines/partisanship. Just because I contend (for example) "the election was stolen" isn't grounds for cancellation on a neutral public forum.
Rise of such "cancel culture" (ex.: French Revolution) historically indicates onset of civil war. Let's really, really try to not go there. We can agree to disagree without cancelling dissenters (ejection leads to prohibition, leads to punishment, leads to grave bodily harm, leads to war - just because some wouldn't respect the liberty of others).
Guilt by association? The point was showing an example of user verification; nature of the forum's predominant content is irrelevant.
spreading mis-information and presenting it as fact is grounds for it though.
i suspected those would the examples you provided, and as such i think i'll walk away from debating it further with yourself.
Hehe...Twitter has become to me like most friends and family that still have Android devices. I do not respond to green bubbles...
Me too! I should make up t-shirts and bumper stickers. Would you buy one of my coffee cups?
Either you're in favor of this whole verification thing or you're a mad genius with the super power of making people double-take. I'll assume the latter, and say...👍
The difference is, I've chosen my echo chamber and I'm good with that. Even if it's not your echo chamber.
And, isn't that the whole meaning behind the word "predetermined"?
I agree! Even though I have zero idea what I'm really agreeing to...
Okay, now that's funny. But the question is, who verified your statement?
I know, right?
Your business model is missing something. Victims!
Yep, especially since Twitter is 5 people and 50 million bots. Somebody could say "I love waffles with maple syrup", and 35,000 bots will accuse that person of wanting to eliminate pancakes for the rest of us.
Twitter isn't real. It's 5 humans and 50 million bots. That's it, and that makes it untrustworthy as a platform.
And yes, I do like waffles with maple syrup, scrambled eggs, two strips of bacon, and two sausage links, with a big glass of orange juice.
No, I don't hate sausage patties or grapefruit juice, so bot off already! 😈
Yeah, somebody mentioned that already!
Yes, but a lot of people are red colorblind. Maybe choose a different color?
So with all this, Parler was just shut down because of politics?
"certain views"? Haven't you heard, that's fake news. We live in a time where if enough people say you're evil, you will be removed. From just about everything, with no real proof needed. Just know that depending on which side of the spectrum you're on, you may be at more risk from your political friends than you are from those who disagree with you.
You think it's misinformation, others think it fact. None are omniscient superiors with a moral right & obligation to silence others. The best way to resolve it is polite discourse, reviewing details and hashing out mutually recognized truth. Declaring "I'll walk away from debating it further" is fine insofar as you're not silencing others; actively blocking others from speaking is the problem, preventing polite discourse and leading (eventually) to use of force.
"'When you tear out a man's tongue, you are not proving him a liar, you're only telling the world that you fear what he might say." What, chenks, do you fear I might say?
(BTW: on election night, we did hear announcement that Cobb County GA was halting vote-counting at 10:30pm, to resume at 8AM. We did a double-take, wondering what shady event was transpiring. Soon after, surveillance video was published showing that vote counting resumed, involving then-unexplained boxfuls of votes, after the election observers left. ...but you'd just declare that "mis-information" and cancel me for it, denying my objective experience because it contradicts your chosen narrative.)
Last edited:
Except ... that's not true.
Word-thinking based on insults - to wit calling anyone with dissenting views "bots" and then dismissing them as non-sentient manufactured fakes - is a really bad position to base your world view on.
How? Can you show that being verified is dependent on certain viewpoints or that being suspended is dependent on not being verified?
Twitter executed a "great bluecheck purge" a couple years ago, with most revoked verifications hitting high-profile conservative twitterati. There was no question about the user's verification (Twitter had confirmed identity and nobody questioned who the account actually belonged to), yet the blue check was removed; only explanation was political inclination.
Me. As a Twitter user, I watched it happen, along with many discussions about it afterwards.
Seeing as I'm not Twitter Verified, you probably won't consider me a primary source, and can go research the details independently.
Hopefully this will go hand in hand with an option to only allow tweets from verified accounts in your feed.
I’ve left Twitter due to it being a cesspool, so I’d welcome this, personally.
I do admit that allowing anonymous accounts for those in repressive countries and whistleblowers is important though.
I’ve left Twitter due to it being a cesspool, so I’d welcome this, personally.
I do admit that allowing anonymous accounts for those in repressive countries and whistleblowers is important though.