Yeah, I don't think it works like that in this scenario. If everyone is verified, then you can tie an account to a real person... in finance this is called KYC, or Know Your Customer. In this case, it would be a huge benefit for everyone to be verified... it might cut out the bots, and clean up the bullshit a bit because now people can be held accountable for what they said. If you set it up so that you could have whatever online handle/name you want, but then verified that against a real world person via eKYC or some other mechanism, that would be pretty beneficial I think. Say all the shit you want, but if you cross the line, there are links to enforce real-world consequences. Let people learn first hand what "freedom of speech" really means.... it does not include "freedom from consequences".
I'm not sure if you're being sarcastic or not... I don't know of anyone who has premium, nor do I know how popular it actually is... do you have any stats on that? For me, I do all of my YT browsing on my laptop, and uBlock Origin handles the removal of all ads for me... no need for Premium.
Google doesn't seem to release much information on it, the closest I could get is this blog post from last year about Premium and their music service passing 50 million subscribers together. I was basing my statement on some of the youtubers I follow saying that they make quite a bit more from Premium viewers than they do from the normal ads.
Healthcare too. We don’t let any user have access to prescribing functions without tying their account to an NPI, SSN or other unique identifier.
Twitter merged the concepts of verification and noteworthiness. Syndrome's rant applies to noteworthiness, but not to verification. Not sure exactly where Twitter's new scheme will end up, but my guess is it kills the noteworthiness aspect while trying to keep the verification aspect, but ultimately shoots itself in the foot by accidentally creating a new aspect of "digital kick-me".
the “verified” users are supposed to be the trusted/official accounts. The ones you listen to. If there’s breaking news or a report or something, and it comes from a verified account, that’s supposed to be like hey, they got the credentials, we checked with them, they are who they say they are
This is where you're going sideways... I think you are conflating "verified" with "trusted". Not the same thing. Alex Jones and Jon Stewart can both have verified accounts... just because Alex's account is verified does not mean that you should take it as having trustworthy or correct content... you only know that he's the source. The Trust aspect is up to you. I believe there should be a "really is who they say they are" verification for celebrities, etc, so that you know if it's Trump, or Stephen King, who really has that account to help stop fraud. Basically 2 main use cases: If your username is that of a real person, celeb or not, then the KYC process should also verify that they are who they say they are. If you're using some bullshit made up name like ROTN, then verified would only be "we have KYC'd this person and can now tie it to a real person". That would be very hard to do, but I think that's part of the problem that needs to be solved. So again, if everyone is verified, that is a good thing.
I only listened to people who’s ideas confirmed my own. I pay no attention to blue check mark status. Am I doing it right? I think it is going to be a lot tougher to pull of some free speech zone and run a for profit business. Advertisers will flee in droves if it becomes a cess pit.
yeah, I get that. The idea behind verifying everyone for those purposes is solid. But we -- the collective "we" -- already have trouble trusting entities with just our phone number and email. Hell, just look at the covid thread for how people react when the best minds in the world tell them to get a little shot. So with that, I highly doubt people would feel confident in any way giving musk their confidential info. Further, isn't the point of twitter for a lot of people to stay anonymous? They enjoy being able to go on their and spew whatever shit and have it not impact them in a real way. But being able to connect that to a real person has the potential to have real consequences. Unless the goal is to get rid of the bots (almost, in a way, like the DRS movement with $GME), but doesn't twitter use bots to an extent to inflate their numbers for advertisers? I don't have any answers to any of this btw. I'm just here to throw fuel on the fire and watch twitter burn to the ground. I mean kudos for elon if he can pull this off, but I think the world would be better off without twitter -- and facebook -- in it.
Am I too late for the costume show? Some friends and I going as the original manosphere. Some strange looks, some honest questions, generally good humor about it.
Only the older folks. But among that group it wasn't 100%. My own wife who is 2 years older had never heard of the show. That is shocking to me.
Ahh... thanks. Was aware of Married With Children to the point that I watched a few episodes and was obviously aware of the characters, just didn't know about that particular part.
The fact you were not a regular fan of that show shocks me for some reason. I guess because the only person I knew who didn’t watch it was my mother, because she hated it so vehemently. Not that the show was ever close to perfect. When they introduced “Seven” to the cast…. Hoo boy.