Elon Musk's plan for Twitter to purge "legacy blue checks" took an unexpected turn when the platform targeted only one high-profile account - The New York Times. Instead of removing verified badges from most users, Twitter added a new label to existing legacy accounts, leaving it unclear whether those accounts are notable individuals or simply paying subscribers.
Musk had previously announced that users would have to pay $8 per month for Twitter Blue subscription service in order to stay verified under the old system. However, after a user from The New York Times posted a meme about declining to pay for verification, Musk removed the account's blue check mark and proceeded to trash the outlet on social media.
This move highlights how Musk often makes decisions without clear policy or explanation, causing confusion among users. The new label added by Twitter also raises concerns that it could make impersonation easier and reduce the effectiveness of the platform's verification system.
The New York Times' main account lost its blue check mark over the weekend, while other accounts from the outlet remain verified. It remains unclear why the New York Times doesn't have a gold "organizations" check mark like other news outlets.
In November, Twitter launched an option for users to pay for blue checks under the new subscription service. The program was relaunched in December after being plagued by impersonators. Musk continues to insist that individual users will eventually have to pay for blue checks, despite claims from experts and prominent users that this approach may not reduce bots on the site.
Musk has argued that changes to Twitter's verification system are about treating everyone equally. However, critics argue that this approach could drive revenue and create new opportunities for scammers.
Musk had previously announced that users would have to pay $8 per month for Twitter Blue subscription service in order to stay verified under the old system. However, after a user from The New York Times posted a meme about declining to pay for verification, Musk removed the account's blue check mark and proceeded to trash the outlet on social media.
This move highlights how Musk often makes decisions without clear policy or explanation, causing confusion among users. The new label added by Twitter also raises concerns that it could make impersonation easier and reduce the effectiveness of the platform's verification system.
The New York Times' main account lost its blue check mark over the weekend, while other accounts from the outlet remain verified. It remains unclear why the New York Times doesn't have a gold "organizations" check mark like other news outlets.
In November, Twitter launched an option for users to pay for blue checks under the new subscription service. The program was relaunched in December after being plagued by impersonators. Musk continues to insist that individual users will eventually have to pay for blue checks, despite claims from experts and prominent users that this approach may not reduce bots on the site.
Musk has argued that changes to Twitter's verification system are about treating everyone equally. However, critics argue that this approach could drive revenue and create new opportunities for scammers.
... I mean, come on! First they add a new label to legacy accounts, then suddenly it's just a blue check mark away from being paid for? Like, what's the logic behind this? And now The New York Times is getting singled out like that? It's just weird. And don't even get me started on the whole $8 monthly fee thing... I don't think anyone wants to pay to have their account verified 
. This verification system just seems like a way for Musk to make money, and it's screwing up the whole user experience in the process 
.
" - They're trying to make money off users with verified badges, but honestly, who needs it? 
Can't even get it right on the main account 
. and now we have to wonder if this new label thing will make impersonation easier... no thanks 
. I just want Twitter to be a platform where people can actually trust the info they see without having to fact-check everything 
. It's not clear who's supposed to have that gold "organizations" check mark and how the algorithm is going to deal with it.
. The fact that users are having to pay $8/month just to stay verified under the old system seems like a lot of money - I don't blame anyone who can't or won't shell out that kind of cash 
I just want the system to be fair and transparent, you know?
It feels like Musk is trying to send a message, but it's not really clear what that message is. Is he trying to silence critics or something? 
. Now we're talking about one account getting a label instead of losing their badge? What's the dealio? 
I feel bad for The New York Times, they were just trying to poke some fun and now their account is getting the treatment 
. And what's up with not having a gold "organizations" check mark for The New York Times? Is that just some extra special sauce Musk has in store for them? 
Anyway, I'm keeping an eye on this situation and hoping we get more clarity soon 
.
. First, he says you gotta pay $8/month for blue checks, then he starts targeting the big outlets like The New York Times and adds a weird label to their accounts... it's like he's tryin' to confuse people on purpose