This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Yeah, but the median twitter user, even the median twitter user with 50k followers, aren't gonna spend $8/month for the checkmark (although if they did, twitter would get a new massive revenue stream), so it won't have that effect
Regular people don't have to spend $8/month for either of my mechanisms work.
The closest thing to "regular people" who get a bluecheck in my example is @joespizzastamfordct. Those sorts of people absolutely do pay for similar things on other social media: WhatsApp business accounts, linkedin pro, google map's "not the closest or best but they paid us so they get to the top" search results, yelp for business.
Is someone really going to impersonate @joespizzastamfordct? Is that enough for joe to pay 100/month? And a lot of accounts with 10k+ followers are people like crypto or music 'influencers', or just guys who like shitposting. There's no way >20% of twitter accounts with 10k+ followers will buy the blue checkmark - which means that it'll not be effective in reducing spam.
It's $8/month. And the answer is yes, that's pocket change for @marietherealtor - she regularly spends 10x that on things like donuts + paper fliers + balloons for an open house. It's quite cheap if you put it into the category of marketing/reputation spend.
Assuming the average person reading replies scrolls down a full screen, you need between 3 and 7 people who replied to ElonMusk/ye/etc to be verified and spam is pushed down.
But hey, probably you have a better grasp on stopping scams than Elon Musk (early Paypal) and David Sacks (early Paypal). At least one person in this conversation is also experienced in stopping organized crime from doing scams online (albeit not at the same scale) - is that person you?
Here's an example of how 8/mo verified accounts won't stop spam replies to people like Musk: https://twitter.com/ArmisteadMaupin/status/1589022522175111170 this is currently the top reply to a 6h old elon musk tweet. It's a sexy girl spam link (link to archive, nsfw), and is posted by a hacked verified account. Note that this is an account that was verified before musk's takeover (can they just pay someone to watch elon and vitalik's tweets?). Verified accounts currently appear to sell for $1.5k on some website I didn't look too hard at. So ... in that sense, $8 is clearly a win for spammers! (the scammer probably pays less than the $1.5k upfront per account, if they even do at all vs hacking, so who knows how hard it is to actually get an account ofc).
If you think there's some silver bullet to 100% stop scams, and Musk's failure to find it means the effort is worthless, then you simply don't understand the problem.
You also didn't even read what Musk wrote about $8/verified account, namely that the verification process still happens. It's not simply "send $8 worth of shitcoins for a bluecheck".
So let me illustrate how you've clearly not thought this through. Here's a simple way Musk can use the $8 payment process to verify the account in a manner that is hard for hackers to exploit directly, and also incentivizes them to bother someone else: no CC, you pay via bank transfer authorized by Plaid.
Now in order to get a verified twitter, a scammer also needs to either a) hack plaid b) hack BofA/Chase/etc. In both cases, if successful, there are far more lucrative things the hacker can do with the hack than get a checkmark - transfer money directly from the victim, buy an XBox using Afterpay/Klarna/Affirm (set up auto repayment via bank transfer with plaid) then sell it on eBay, that kind of thing.
I highly, highly doubt that. Musk and twitter seem to be approaching this as a generic way to make money, slapped on top of Twitter Blue, and any friction there will significantly hurt revenue. I'll follow it, and if he does, that'd be my mistake. But I'm pretty sure you'll be able to pay for blue with a credit card.
Even then though, a cracked bank account (via cracking.com) seems to be around $100, which is still much cheaper than $1500, so ... it's not helping! (note: prices seem to vary a lot - some sell verification for $60/$150, others sell for $800-$1500, maybe the former is scamming i dunno)
These aren't cracked. They are empty accounts opened up in the identity of nonexistent or defunct people, typically with negligible history. (If you want an account with a few transactions, that's more expensive.) Best case, you're now verified for spamming as Herman Lopez, a 90 year old guy in Florida currently in assisted living.
(Folks in assisted living are generally the best fake identities; not on a "he's dead" list but also unlikely to notice.)
Anyway, you don't seem to disagree that the cost of spamming has gone up.
I'm sorry but this just reads like you're just trusting musk or something? I don't have anything for or against musk, but these arguments don't really make sense.
True, my typo
That is fine, it's just as good as the currently stolen verified accounts - journos, authors, random musicians, none of whose names are distinguishable from 90yo floridians. If we look at the above example of using verified accounts to spam - they just want the blue checkmark next to a random name. I'm not entirely sure why, honestly, who clicks a 'i will trade nudes with you. i am a hot 18 year old' posts because they're posted by a author bluecheck named 'Armistead Maupin'? If you click the post, the spam shows up as a top reply despite having fewer likes, comments than the replies beneath it. Maybe it's the verified that's boosting it - which would be incredibly ironic given this entire argument - but even then there are verified posts 10 replies down with more likes, comments. This is how people are using verified accounts to spam. (Also, you're assuming they'd disable 8/mo blue check accounts' ability to rename. I'm not sure they would do that - maybe they do not currently, see the recent examples of famous people changing name and pfp to 'elon musk' (many now [are]https://twitter.com/zoo_bear/status/1588834121308307456) apparently suspended, but that happens to spam accounts anyway so lol), but that is orthogonal to the utility of paying 8/mo for them. Almost all of the security improvements you're positing will either not actually happen, or come from changes that could be easily made without adding paid bluechecks!)
I disagree that the appreciable cost of spamming will be increased in by the blue checkmark change. Non-verified account spamming, which is afaict the dominant kind, won't be affected at all. (unless they implement your 'blue checkmark replies get massive priority boosts over non bluecheck replies' theory - which would only hurt it a bit - a 20% or 50% boost or something would not make a difference here, - they probably will not do that, even if they did it would seriously harm the twitter product experience) Spamming with verified accounts would become, probably, easier, or maybe stay the same.
edit: just saw here they will be removing bluechecks on name changes. Also says "will suspend accounts that impersonate without clearly specifying parody", which i assume refers to all accounts? That kinda sucks tbh, and is not very free speech.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
My bad, I meant $100/year.
She certainly can afford it, but that's different from finding it valuable enough to purchase.
If it's implemented as you describe, where verified posts crowd out nonverified no matter what, wouldn't that that'd severely degrade the twitter experience, because unverified people often post better replies than verified people? not sure what you mean precisely
They've spent a lot of time as VC/executives, and even smart people who are experts can make mistakes. I know someone who works in a related area IRL who agrees, and the people I follow on twitter who work at twitter seem to agree too.
I mentioned a realtor because the general sentiment I'm seeing on retwitter and fintwit is a mix of "wtf why so cheap" and a few "I want to verify but stay anon". For example @realestatetrent, an anon account wants to be verified as "a PE guy who buys strip malls" so people take him seriously when he talks about never buying a place where a dry cleaner ever was.
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1587500060853424129
How does it degrade the experience? Musk has explicitly described bluechecks getting to the top of replies, search and mentions. Assuming the typical screen holds 6 replies, and the typical @kanyewest tweet gets >1000 replies, you need 0.6% of people who reply to be verified to push spammers and cheapskates 1-2 screens down where most people will never see. Eyeballing a few other celebs - @kingjames, @kyliejenner - suggests 1000 is a reasonable number. For your 20% number to make sense, are you aware of many crypto scams in the replies of minor celebs who get only 30 replies/tweet?
0.6% is a lot less than the 20% you were talking about, making me think you didn't do any back of the envelope math on the mechanics proposed.
I have no direct experience with replies, but my experience with search and browse is that > 2 screens might as well not exist. Do you have different info? What do you think is the 95'th/99'th percentile of scroll in twitter replies?
Color me shocked that people angry about a hostile takeover don't like anything about the new guy.
Yeah, and that means the top replies will be 'by people who paid' and not 'the funniest tweets as selected by likes'. It degrades the experience by destroying the 'like' mechanism sorting good tweets to the top! It's better to have the top reply be <funny joke that got 500 likes> as opposed to <tweet from verified user @JoeRealtor saying "Wow, great job!".
I'm specifically referring to the bluecheck thing here.
I also can't tell if the checkmark will involve identity verification? As it stands I don't think it will, it'll just be a nice checkmark that's part of blue?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link