pull down to refresh
35 sats \ 2 replies \ @gmd OP 9h \ parent \ on: EU revenue from US tech fines > EU revenue from EU tech taxes charts_and_numbers
Blue checkmark is not deceptive at all. Outside of the first few months of people complaining about the clear change in policy, it has long been clear that the purpose is to levy a monetary cost on posting to attempt to limit bots, similar to here and other older concepts on charging for email. IG now has the exact same thing. The old blue check verification system was completely corrupt and non-transparent at all, people paying insiders for checkmarks etc.
I hate half of the toxic stuff that's posted on X but it's the best free speech major social media platform and that's why I paid for a blue checkmark on day 1.
Yeah, I didn’t like the previous blue check either. What prevents bots or deceptive profiles from buying a blue check?
I mean the real problem is that you can now buy a blue check. There's no verification involved, and everybody can create a new disposable credit card if that's the verification
meta has been fined for that too, heavier than X’s fine
reply
Ultimately nothing- it's just a minor deterrent but at least it incurs some cost. Same as sats here.
To me the blue check clearly means "I'm paying money for this account so I'm more likely to be a human" and/or "I support this website through my subscription", and/or "I'm trying to earn Elon bucks"
They have done good job recently surfacing the geolocation of posters so we can see who has been larping as an american. Along with community notes they at least appear to doing more than every other major platform. God only knows what's even happening on TikTok.
In the end I'm not sure it will matter as we rapidly spiral towards a dead internet.
reply