They are not private individuals. They are individuals that are of public interest (much like celebrities) and hold significant sway over communities (much like public officials). This is pretty standard legal precedent.
Right to privacy is a human right. Do you agree? If so, are there classes of human rights that aren't applicable to some groups of individuals?
On the other, you have freedom of the press clearly outlined in the first amendment. There is no perfect answer and it will be subject to some debate. But in this particular instance, precedence has made it clear that people of significant stature (and that could mean a blue check is a signal of that in court!) have less of a right to privacy when weighed against the first amendment.
With regards to celebrity, there is absolutely a tradeoff. On paper celebrities have the same civil rights as anyone else, but e.g. have you heard of the paparazzi before?
I disagree. A right is a human right. Human rights are not granted by a country, they can only be violated. My right to free thought and expression doesn't cease being a right if I'm in an oppressive state. A state can violate my rights but human rights are universal. You can disagree that privacy is a human right, and that's fine if you do.
In regards to paparazzi, if you're in a public space, you don't have the same right. It's balance by the right of another person taking photos in that same public space. There is no expectation of privacy, so I'm free to snap your picture, same as I have a right to record a police interaction (despite what some legislation might have you believe). But that doesn't mean I have the right to break into your home and record you sleeping.
Do you seriously think the experience is the same in public between an average citizen and a celebrity? There is a huge trade off that a celebrity accepts when becoming a household name/face.
Yes, but right to extreme wealth isn't. I don't think people should be able to control this amount of wealth at all, but while they can I think public scrutiny over their finances is entirely reasonable.