[dfxm12]

Even before the takeover accounts could be "unverified", which makes a mockery of the concept of verification.

Why? Accounts can be sold/hacked, and there is a lot of that on social media. A verified account may even be a higher value target for some of the reasons you're bringing up, like algorithm boosts, verifications being considered an endorsement. In either case, unverification not only makes sense, but should be expected.

[xnorswap]

I knew a pedant would get me on that.

I'm talking about people, who are still verifiably the same people, becoming unverified.

Yes, where accounts have changed hands, or changed identity, they should be unverified.

That's actually one of the cases where twitter did not un-verify. Accounts "earned" the blue-check then changed identity to something else, appearing "verified" as that new identity.

[dfxm12]

If that's what you were talking about, you should have said that. Accounts are not people. This is not pedantry (and calling me names doesn't prove anything, either).

[xnorswap]

I did say that, it's the very next line:

> Verification should always have been "This is who they say they are", not an endorsement

[dfxm12]

Both syntax and context only support the "they" here to refer to "accounts" as used in your previous sentence.