[ecshafer]

So as opposed to the old twitter method which was a vague “you know someone at twitter”, which led to random “journalists” and nobodies being verified. Paying money is just as arbitrary. Money at least means a credit card transaction happened.

[ceejayoz]

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”.

[surgical_fire]

I remember it being just a "good boy" badge.

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

[myvoiceismypass]

> 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...

[surgical_fire]

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.

[ceejayoz]

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.