News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on The EU's Fine Against X Is Not About Speech or 'Censorship'. Parent comment

Re:The EU's Fine Against X Is Not About Speech or 'Censorship' by ceejayoz on Wednesday December 24, 2025 @10:14AM (#46376281)
An actual human employee at Twitter vouching for someone’s existence seems far more reputable than being able to purchase a Visa gift card in a convenience store.

Verification was “this account is who it says it is”. Not “this account has $10 to spare”.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:The EU's Fine Against X Is Not About Speech or 'Censorship' by surgical_fire on Wednesday December 24, 2025 @11:29AM (#46376932)
I remember it being just a "good boy" badge.

People routinely had their checkmark removed when they said something controversial.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:The EU's Fine Against X Is Not About Speech or 'Censorship' by myvoiceismypass on Wednesday December 24, 2025 @12:31PM (#46377460)
> People routinely had their checkmark removed when they said something controversial.

It was not indeed happening "routinely".

https://www.theverge.com/2017/11/15/16658600/twitter-verific...

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:The EU's Fine Against X Is Not About Speech or 'Censorship' by surgical_fire on Wednesday December 24, 2025 @05:09PM (#46379792)
Still something that defeats the purpose, no?

A verification badge should be something that says "this person indeed is who they claim to be" not "they can spend a couple of bucks a month" nor "we like him enough to give them a checkmark". Both are extremely unhelpful. The latter probably even more unhelpful since it is very subjective.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:The EU's Fine Against X Is Not About Speech or 'Censorship' by ceejayoz on Thursday December 25, 2025 @12:01PM (#46385602)
Verification came with moderation tweaks for high-profile accounts to combat things like brigading via mass abuse reports. That's why consistently bad behavior tended to lose the check.

Probably should've been two different flags, but it wasn't.

[ Parent | on HN ]