The blue check fiasco
When Elon Musk bought Twitter, he introduced paid "blue checks."
Previously, blue checks served a clear purpose: distinguishing credible accounts from imposters, and elevating trustworthy voices.
Predictably, offering this badge to anyone with a few dollars completely destroyed the utility of the device.
As a double whammy, Twitter also chose to amplify the tweets of those willing to pay the monthly fee.1
Such a bad idea. 🫣
Paid attention boosting mechanisms have a name: "Advertising"2.
Imagine a television channel that is 90% commercial breaks and 10% content.
Now picture the ads:
- 😵💫 Written by untrained, semi-literate copywriters,
- 💩 plagued by terrible production quality, and
- 🖕 deliberately designed to provoke and offend.
Would you watch that? Because that's Twitter now. 🥳🎉
Solution?
Twitter can turn this around if they want to. It's not rocket science.
- Cultivate and reward content providers who bring value to the system.
- Disambiguate regular paid users from high-value content providers.
- Amplify/suppress content based on intrinsic merit, rather than creating a Dunning-Kruger honeypot.
That's a high level overview. The detail could run to pages.
But that's a job for a Twitter employee, not me. 🤷
🤕😳🥴
-
Note: I think it's fine to offer value adding perks for users that contribute. More characters. Better editing capabilities. Improved search tools. A status badge of some sort. Special forum access. There are non-destructive options.↩
-
It might not be a product a person is spruiking (although there is plenty of that). It can be any message they deem worthy, even if that message is ignorant, irrelevant, abusive, misleading, or annoying.↩