[raymondh]

How is charging for a blue checkmark any different from games that sell virtual merchandise for real world money?

This is HackerNews. I would expect that more people would be interested on how a company like Twitter can monetize its services. As as long term share holder, it seemed to me like the company was being run as if it were a not-for-profit.

[ryanbrunner]

Typically you charge for something that has value for your users.

A blue checkmark that verifies that you are in fact the organization you say you are has value. But that's not what a paid checkmark is - @NewYorkT1mes can get a blue checkmark too. It's simply an indicator that you paid for Twitter, which in and of itself has very little value.

(It's also some other stuff like boosting your tweets which has value, but the idea that the paid checkmark is anything like the old verified checkmark is a bait and switch).

[jbothma]

Are they actually verifying identity when you subscribe?

If not, a little vamity badge doesn't represent much as a value proposition.

[consumer451]

> I would expect that more people would be interested on how a company like Twitter can monetize its services.

People are interested, this submission has many votes.

It may not be a result that someone like a shareholder would like to see, but a result none the less.