Hacker News Reader

Comment by LorenPechtel | Hacker News Reader

They have some valid gripes but then they get to:

Or consider the recent charges the EU levied against X. Under Elon Musk’s ownership, anyone can now purchase a blue check with a paid subscription, whereas blue checks were previously reserved for notable figures. EU regulators singled out the new system for blue checks as a deceptive business practice that violates the bloc’s Digital Services Act.

What are they thinking?? The blue check mark is supposed to mean verified. They changed it to simply mean paid subscription. They took a symbol of trust and utterly ripped out the trust part. I don't care how much you publicize it, that's not acceptable.

Would he be ok with my going and purchasing a SSL certificate for www.x.com???

View on HN

Don't be naive. It was never a symbol of trust. At most it was a symbol of prominence or notability as decided by a biased, unaccountable group of Twitter employees. Many of the old blue check mark accounts routinely posted inaccurate information or outright lies.

The new X Community Notes system is far superior for establishing trust.

https://www.hindustantimes.com/world-news/us-news/biden-clai...

https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2024-05-22/elon-m...

Fundamentally just because a software feature worked a certain way at one time doesn't create an obligation for tech companies to keep it working the same way. Whether you consider that acceptable is entirely irrelevant.

>Many of the old blue check mark accounts routinely posted inaccurate information or outright lies.

There are always going to be misinformation. It's crazy to think a company or any committee can determine these for us though. It's not even logical yet alone practical. then you need to determine whether said entity made any judgment errors in assessing a person or claim. Those who demand centralized 'truth' authorities are useful idiots for power seeking authoritarians.

> Many of the old blue check mark accounts routinely posted inaccurate information or outright lies.

So? The point of the old blue checkmark wasn't to assure me that what the account said was true. It was to provide some assurance that the account was really the account of the prominent or notable person with that name.

By "the new X community notes system" do you mean the same one that existed and was entirely developed before Elon bought Twitter?

It was a symbol of trust in identity, not trust in veracity. Same as SSL certificates.

Nah, it was never a symbol of trust in identity. A lot of those accounts were actually managed by social media staff, not by the "verified" people themselves. It was always just a meaningless vanity mark.

If the person chooses to have others manage it that's their business. That doesn't change the basic nature--it's saying this is who it claims it is.

As someone described it: You know that https://www.satan.com is actually Satan but that doesn't mean it's a good idea to sell your soul there.

It's not a certificate, it's a blue mark on a site that tell's you user is verified through payment. It should never be a symbol of trust, as twitter or anyone can't assess the trustworthiness of individuals :)

>as twitter or anyone can't assess the trustworthiness of individuals

You need to rethink what was being implied. Twitter CAN assess whether or not you can trust that the person that owns the account is who they say they are. That's what the blue checkmark was. It was NOT implying that the person was trustworthy.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com