←back to thread

E.U. Prepares Major Penalties Against X

(www.nytimes.com)
139 points dotcoma | 2 comments | 06 Apr 25 17:47 UTC | HN request time: 1.436s | source
Show context
dionidium ◴[06 Apr 25 18:49 UTC] No.43603902[source]▶
> Blue checkmarks "used to mean trustworthy sources of information," Commissioner for Internal Market Thierry Breton said.

Obviously you can write a law that says anything you want, but as an aesthetic matter, this strikes me as pretty ridiculous. A company makes up a thing called a "blue checkmark" and then, what, it has to mean the same thing for the rest of all time? It's not like the new Twitter lied about what was happening. They said plainly that they were changing the checkmark system to mean something new. Why would anybody cheer a government stepping in to say, "no, sorry, you can't do that?"

replies(6): >>43603959 #>>43604023 #>>43604345 #>>43604359 #>>43606563 #>>43607023 #
1. pessimizer ◴[06 Apr 25 19:48 UTC] No.43604359[source]▶
The worst part isn't that a company makes up a designation and is forced to stick with it by regulators. A designation could have been designed from the beginning specifically to head off regulators.

The worst part is that it is simply a lie. Blue checkmark never meant "trustworthy source of information," and most people who had blue checkmarks were not trustworthy sources of information. Thierry Breton is spreading misinformation here, but that would not have ever been grounds to remove his checkmark.

Blue checkmarks were an arbitrary piece of gamified tat given by twitter when it felt like it, and now it's a paid piece of gamified tat that can be revoked whenever Musk feels like it.

replies(1): >>43608781 #
2. Ekaros ◴[07 Apr 25 07:24 UTC] No.43608781[source]▶
At best checkmarks were "verified" accounts. That meant that most likely party with access to account had identifiable identity connected to it. Say celebrity or real business. For any given value of celebrity also big enough "influencer" counting.

Now would celebrities, influencer or company marketing accounts always be trustworthy sources? For more cynical almost never...