Verified Blues
Вставка
- Опубліковано 3 бер 2023
- Blue check marks on most popular social media platforms are pointless!
The statement stands in regards to both how and why they’re granted, as well as the wider public perception of what they stand for.
In this video, I’m gonna to explain exactly why that is so, and how it could potentially be fixed.
_____________________________________________________
Sources and references:
Twitter Verification Requirements
/ about-twitter-verified...
UA-cam Verification Requirements
support.google.com/youtube/an...
Facebook and Instagram Verification Requirements
/ verify-facebook-instag...
Understanding Verification on Instagram
/ understanding-verifica...
Wikipedia: “Account Verification”
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Account...
ABC News: “Twitter's blue check: Vital verification or status symbol?”
abcnews.go.com/Business/wireS...
ESPN: “La Russa sues Twitter over fake page”
www.espn.com/mlb/news/story?i...
Twitter announcing Verified Accounts:
/ not-playing-ball.html
Business Insider: “Here are 17 of the most outrageous impersonations to come from Elon Musk's Twitter Blue rollout blunder”
www.businessinsider.com/elon-... - Наука та технологія
I think, at least here on UA-cam, verified badges can be helpful when combating those scambots that are always popping up in comment sections. It's obviously not a perfect solution, but I've seen a lot of UA-camrs using the blue checkmark (now a gray checkmark tho) to warn their viewers about the bots, and it probably is at least somewhat helpful for that
YT is actually pretty decent when it comes to badges. The only requirement is that you pass 100k, and (what is the actual point of the whole thing) - prove who you are. The situation with scams in the comments is a whole nother mess
I'd like to think that most people would be able to distinguish between the real channel owner and a scam-bot regardless of the verification-check, but then I remember people are humans. 😒
Authenticity of notable people isn't pointless. Sure, this system doesn't authenticate people nobody knows, but if you see someone who is supposed to be well known and don't see a checkmark, then you know that's a fake.
Ok, who are notable people?
@@chmtech I don't think I should have to define it. Most people are capable of figuring that out on their own. As long as they have the intuition to think, "Arianna Grande would probably be notable enough to have a checkmark", that makes the feature useful.
@@michawhite7613 > I should have to define it. Most people are capable of figuring that out on their own.
- I've lost track of the number of times I've seen someone "famous" somewhere and asked "wtf is this? 🤨"
- Also, the very notion of saying some people are "notable" as in, worth taking notes of (read recording and documenting their lives) is just offensive. For example, that PBS show _Finding Your Roots_ only tracks the genealogy of celebrities despite the fact that just because they're famous now doesn't mean their ancestors were notable or conversely, just because someone's "nobody" now doesn't mean they don't have famous ancestors. 😒
@@I.____.....__...__ Say for the sake of argument that a blue checkmark is given to somebody I don't know (not hard to imagine). How does that erase the usefulness of giving the checkmark to people I do know about?
You build credibility. You don't get it from your overlord for following their rules and what your told.
We had some very funny blue check marks stories here in Germany, my fav was PUNICA, a juice brand basically, many 80s and 90s kids loved and is associated with what you loved as a kid. Sadly not on the market anymore. But someone posing as PUNICA with a blue check mark first ofc got hopes up for many that it will be revived and then trolling around the clock.
Trolled a right wing christian politician from Bavaria, who tweeted that the currend gov. is the worst in our history, PUNICA replied with a pic of the gov. during the Third Reich with a giant Nazi eagle in the background and commented "I doubt it", tweeted ironic stuff like "Did you accept Jesus Christ as your lord and saviour?", hardcore s*xual memes about PUNICA (the juice) being some PUNICA mascots j*zz, who sneaks up on you while you sleep...well I think I'll stop here. Oh and the grande final was my favourite some days ago, literally just retweeting a Buzzfeed article and pausing the account saying "Ok, now even f*cking Buzzfeed wrote about us, I think it's time to stop, it's not funny anymore now", LOL
And half the fun was of course that contrast of having a """"verified"""" account of that childhood memory post this and seeing this name every time with that "check mark", like seeing your freakin' favourite kids show main character official mascot doing that stuff in front of you.
I think it's sorta thought about backwards. A blue checkmark helps these social media platforms with verification by verifying the kinds of people who would likely be affected by impersonation. The average person has the really powerful shield of anonymity and a lack of importance to dodge needing verification, few can be bothered to impersonate a nobody. In a way, the average person already has a verification badge, and it makes less sense to go through the effort time and money verifying them. That being said, the paid verification model is just obvious cash grabbing.
You're talking about "security through obscurity" which in security circles is pronounced "NOT security". That's like saying people who aren't rich or famous don't need a PIN for their bank accounts because few people are going to target them. 🙄 Sure, a "nobody" might not be a target by random strangers they don't know, but they WILL be a target by people they DO know, such as a bitter ex who will frame you to make you look bad to get custody of the kids or an angry neighbor getting revenge by getting you in trouble with the cops or losing your job, and so on. Identity-theft doesn't happen to only rich and famous people. 😒
@@I.____.....__...__ I don't recall saying identity theft only happened to the wealthy. I'm pretty sure I said it happens disproportionately to people relevant to be targeted because of the objective of this impersonation, and in a system with finite resources hemoraging money it makes a whole lot of sense to only help the people most effected while allowing the generally unaffected to either be unaffected as a product of anonymity, or to handle identity theft themselves at a local level. The general reason you dish out verification badges is to prevent damage done online that enough people see to make it problematic. A fake copycat of a father might put his job on the line, but is quickly disproven and isn't seen by thousands or even millions. Don't try to make a stupid argument I didn't make just to make it easier to see flaws in. This also doesn't even track for bank accounts because unlike the internet where accounts are generally targeted to look authentic for message and virus spreading, a bank account likely always has money in it so any account is a fine target. This would be like if every social media account had 100,000 followers. I also have no idea what you mean by pronounced "not security.", the best way to keep a network secure is of course standard security measures like airgap, alongside keeping it in an unnotable location rather than say, an expensive building. Security by obscurity is powerful and effective always.
@@celestialowl8865 a great example of why he's wrong with no real weakness.
For some reason when I said something similar, but not as concretely worded, he decided to act like a troll and misrepresent what I said and even making sarcastic comments as if I'm some horrible person for daring to disagree with him.
It's a shame I was subscribed to this channel because I'd watched a few well made videos explaining some things (I can't remember exactly but I remember them being very good) but after seeing the last couple videos and mostly because of this experience I have 0 respect to give him, I know this is unrelated and you probably don't care but I had to get this out of my system and I like how well written your comment is.
and after looking at other comments I've noticed he hearted all the comments simply agreeing with him and has left trollish replies on other comments that disagree with him (which is why I comented on the strength of your comment)
They want your identity. It's part of a larger tracking system. Like social credit scores in totalitarian states.
@@ComfyCherry Sorry to hear that.
Thing is, more people can be famous than before. 20 years ago, every kid wanted to be in a band but only 1 in 10,000 ever became 'notable'. Nowadays, anyone can make an account and have a good chance of becoming important in some sub-community to the point of fearing imitators.
Dating Apps are the only places I can think of where verification badges are an absolute necessity, UA-cam is the closest any social media gets to doing it right (you can't see subscriber counts in comments, so badges do serve some fiction).
@@maxresdefault_ Meh, verification badges don't help with dating-apps, they have far too many other problems to be saved with verification.
As for getting famous, yes, everybody CAN have their 15-minutes of fame now more than ever (Warhol was into computers back in the 80s; I don't know if he made that statement based on that 🤔). That said, very few actually do get their 15 minutes, look at how many YT channels have
I agree with questioning the 3 assumptions you did, but damn was this poorly argued. I don't mind a click-bait, over-generalized title, but if I told someone "the blue checkmark is pointless" anyone with common-sense would correct me. The number of times I heard the term "pointless" contradicted was silly, it's used categorically wrong, colloquially wrong, according to this video it's inaccurate... this is how you muddy the waters with poor communication 😓
Care to clear the waters, then?
@@chmtech Would you like me to use random examples of people using the word pointless, or a dictionary, or refer to your video when you state it exists for a financial reason? I think using words in such a hyperbolic way isn't helpful.
@@chmtech Keeping the click-baity title is fine imo (I couldn't prove it's leading to more bad than good, and your points are well reasoned) but routinely using pointless in a generalized way isn't good
Acknowledged.
The requirement to be notable is reasonable. Famous people/companies are more likely to be impersonated, and due to their high following, this has a much bigger impact. In addition, verification is quite expensive because it is a manual process involving which doesn't scale and staff is one of the highest costs for a business.
Nobody should take anything away from notable individuals. But… Sure, the difference between the impact of a celebrity losing a brand deal (for example), and a regular dude losing his job may be large on paper, but the “lesser” problem is just as detrimental for the person affected, if not even more. That’s why I believe notability shouldn’t be a key requirement.
And also, even if it should, where is the line that divides notables from non-notables? Some randome dude with 30k followers on tiktok gets the same badge C.Ronaldo has. Meanwhile, a business owner who employs a dozen workers, and is certainly notable in his community, is not eligible?
I don't fully agree on your justification why being notable isn't a good criteria.
Yes, your friend could be impersonated, but he isn't a public figure. If everyone around him turns on him because of his bad twitter take, either:
a) hes already a bad person
b) you and others terrible friends and his coworkers hate him
If someone impersonated me, my circle is small enough to tell everyone that, "hey, that wasn't me. Someone is impersonating me"
But, for a public figure, its important that everyone know its actually you. Look when musk made the blue checkmark available to everyone, then eli lilly and lockheed crashed(though they do deserve it)
Subs can easily be bought and if there isn't defense against impersonation, bad actors can be used target other public figures.
Aside: you want twitter to treat your friend and public figures the same, but do you really want to give twitter your drivers license or passport?
Your storytelling style videos are my favourite!!!
Blue check mark processes for obtaining are problematic but they do serve a purpose. Monetizing it, especially with no verification destroys why it exists in the first place.
This is just an extension of the offensive notion of "notability" on Wikipedia. Wikipedia has deleted many pages about people or things because they weren't "notable" enough, meanwhile, inane things like the _pets and belongings_ of fictional characters get their own Wikipedia pages. It's incredibly offensive that a few people get to decide who is worthy enough to have their lives documented and remembered. 😠 The verification badge is just more of the same offensiveness.
Musk-Twitter is just an outright joke (one where the punchline was forgotten). He went in, messed with stuff, made a mess, cost companies billions of dollars, possibly allowed a rando to help force Eli Lilly's hand in reducing and locking insulin prices (along with Biden's regulation, which was possibly also influenced by that tweet), change stuff around, ruined everything, then created a "new" system which was just the original system but he took credit for it (like he has done with literally every single one of his companies, he's never created anything new, just re-invented the wheel 🙄).
9:15 Musk conflated "verification" for "flair". Lots of social-media sites allow you to pay for cosmetic junk but the verification badges are NOT COSMETIC, they're a SECURITY FEATURE! 🤦 - Also, I didn't think it was physically possible for the _richest person in the world_ to get more pathetic, but then he went and begged for $8 in the middle of a prestigious interview like a homeless beggar outside the dollarstore. 🤦
in your removal of notability it ignores that the places that the check mark actually helps the number of followers/subscrbers isn't present (posts and comments/replies) therefore removing proof of authenticity from notable people without the presence of some other marker and it's unreasonable to make/expect people click on someone's account load up their page and check their follwers/subscribers to verify it then go back to the place to interact, and most people wouldn't even consider it, so the checkmark does its job of verifying that that account with a notable persons name is said notable persons account and not a fake.
meanwhile twitter is trying to destroy people's ability to trust the marker in the name of profit
I didn't say anything about removing verification for notable people. What I'm saying is that verification should be there for authentication, and for everyone who can prove their identity, regardless of their status in soceity. Verification should have nothing to do with notability. A person with over a million followers will not be any more notable with a checkmark.
@@chmtech you are not understanding what I said, I said that the removal of notability (as a reason of getting the checkmark) was wrong, and if you read my whole comment that would be clear, but you abviously read the first sentence and wrote it off as misunderstanding your statement.
I understood your comment just fine. In the first sentence you mention the removal of notability as a requirement for verification, and then you continue to explain how the removal of authentication for notables would cause confusion in comments. And my response is still the same. Notable people should have verification. Of course! That is if they prove that they are who they claim to be. Just like anyone else. But what it really sounds like you're saying is that famous people should have some sort of "famous" badge, so that people can tell that they are famous at a glance. And look, that's perfectly fine. But that is not what authentication is for. Authentication is for identity.
@@chmtech no I said the lack of it not removal as in if the mark never existed
@@chmtech I don't give a fuck about famous people but alot more can be done with a notable persons account than with the average therefore it is more important to mark a notable person
fyi swearing is part of my normal vocab I'm not being emotional there
When we needed him most he returns
Love your stuff, particularly your hot takes, would love to see you talk more about social media.
They make plenty from ad revenue, investments, and business partnerships to not make such a shameless cash grab. This looks like the internet equivalent of a protection racket.
New Twitter failed the many staff, devs, and users who were essential in helping their platform thrive. It's time to get some new social media platforms off the ground to compete with these ones.
I think it’s safe to say if you’re gullible to buy a blue checkmark on a platform you can use for free, then you’re just asking to get mocked at that point.
Eyy, CHM is back!
The issue is your neighbor probably isnt a large public target.
Doesn’t have to be. He should be able to verify his identity.
@@chmtechDoes matter. The "everyone should be able to be verified" sounds good on paper, and effectively no where else.
He may not be a large target to the _public,_ but that doesn't mean he can't be a target at all. His ex might impersonate him to make him look bad to get custody of their kid or an angry neighbor (on the other side, not CHM 😀) might do something to get him in trouble with the cops or lose his job. Preventing identity-theft isn't only for the rich and famous. Your bank doesn't give PINs to only celebrities does it? 🤨
Exactly!
@@I.____.....__...__ This is such a paper thin argument and you've made it twice. Really makes me wonder if you believe it
Thr deverification process proved it was a joke long before Musk got there.
You’re not considering the costs and labor that would go into verifying hundreds of millions of people. That’s the main reason why companies only do for the smaller group of “notable” accounts.
It was a sign of elitism. Blue checks always lorded over everyone else. Whether they intended to or not.
a less notable person being impersonated will be seen by less people and those that do see it will not need convincing as they should believe the person contacting them directly saying that it's not them, though I will say if everyone could be verified it would make it easier to prevent people getting scammed by others pretending to be friend/family and asking for money, then again at the same time the need for it to be a unique account poses an issue as a less notable person is more likely to lose access to their original account and it is often easier to create a new one (that would no longer be unique therefore invalid for certification) atleast while passwords are a thing I don't think it makes enough sense for the average person to have verification.
Sorry, I just don't subscribe to the argument of smaller people having smaller problems. I live in the real world. Also, I'm not trying to be condescending. I apologize if sounds like that.
@@chmtech my argument is that is easy to solve for the average person whereas for a person of note it becomes a whole drama and many people never learn the truth, you are very stubborn person, I tried to be clear in my reasoning yet twice you have missed the point
@@chmtech also I too hate the argument of "others have bigger problems therefore yours isn't actually a problem" but as I said in my other reply it has NOTHING to do with what I said
I guess if my small apartment got burnt down, it would be more manageable than if someone's mansion did. Yeah, sorry, my response is still the same.
@@chmtech that isn't even remotely comparable, alot more comparable wpuld be why doesn't a house with a family have a sepcial fire escape route/plan appartment complexes do? the answer being because it is unneeded as leaving a house is easier to do and far fewer people are affected
If you ever do another Google secrets video I just found one, if you search Mandalorian there will be Grogu on the bottom of your phone and if you click on him he will use the force to destroy the site 😂
Fun Google Secrets are dead
@@chmtech 😭
how many brain cells that take to figure out?
here before 1k views
The is was informative
When you are a verified user they have your identity. You are not using a free/cheep product. YOU ARE THE PRODUCT.
Lol people always paid for their little checkmark. Aka bluechecks were NEVER NOTABLE! Lol that's why there's the bluechecks having the tism
twitter got a gold one now lmao
Untitled
cool
good
The main problem in your argumentation for me is, that with your argumentation you can only get verified, if you have your real name and Profil picture up on social media. Why this maybe works for a Plattform like Facebook, on many other platforms, users are just a nickname with a fantasy profile picture. So for example your account, if you wouldn‘t be notable, nobody would have a idea who you are.
HELLO
While I was pestered with p*rn bots on Tumblr, which I left until they get off their butts and do something about that...
The sheer amount of celebrity impersonators that try to follow me on Instagram is bonkers! 🙄
Double check that title bud
Yeah 😅
ngl this is not a hot take this is the most lukewarm take
It takes a brave man to stand up and admit that Elon Musk is bad, actually
I’m not that brave. And I don’t think he’s bad. I just think his idea of account verification is bad.
@@chmtech oh no
Twitter be like:
*lEts mAkE pEoPLe PaY fOr A cHEckmaRK*
Power to the people lol
Untitled