Oh boy he real mad now. Amazing that simply changing a name and picture is considered impersonation.
Don't be verified and pretend to be someone else. Or just don't pretend to be someone else regardless. Seems pretty straightforward...
I was referring to the fact that the US Library of Congress has archived every tweet since 2006.
What difference does this make?
Maybe someday they'll leverage deep fakes to achieve something that is indistinguishable from the real person if you miss the minor details, at which point there will no doubt be calls to end what they are doing, but until that day comes...
I find it stunning that anyone would suggest that the @id isn't a core and obvious part of someone's Twitter identity.
You can find it if you're looking for it, but it is not something someone scrolling through casually is going to take notice of, especially since the first three components observed have been considered enough to verify identity until now.
Which, indeed, is Griffin's implicit statement – that the blue badge is becoming meaningless when anyone can buy it for $8 – but that's also why there are holdover efforts to maintain the badge as a form of identity through banning of those trying to impersonate others.
Maybe you think the @id should be the most visible piece of information so that this isn't an issue, and maybe you're right, but it most certainly is not. Reality doesn't care about your feelings towards things, it only deals with what is.
I would understand your argument if it was in any way not obvious and centered alongside the posters name.
Sure, maybe some non Twitter users won't understand, I'll grant you that, but impersonation and parody are so common everyone looks at the @.
Just like I said. Proof right here that readers shortcut over content that doesn't seem necessary.
> You'd have to stop reading mid-line to not see it.
Which the average user would being that there is only so much time in the day and you've already identified the poster leaving it to be a waste of time reading further during casual use.
> but impersonation and parody are so common everyone looks at the @.
The blue badge used to indicate that the account was a legitimate person using their legitimate real-world identity, and anyone who violated that was at risk of being banned, so impersonation has never been expected. And since the badge comes first...
This was Twitter's policy long before Musk got involved.
https://web.archive.org/web/20220108193314/https://help.twit...
Are these people trying to impersonate Elon Musk, or are they parodying Elon Musk on their clearly-marked "not elon musk" (due to the handle) accounts?
I'm inclined towards the latter.