I guess if you're some sort of public figure it might be, but selling blue badges to anyone kinda destroyed any credibility it had as a platform for those people.
Twitter is about there for me. If someone took over my account, Meh. I'd just create a new one. It's not tied to a real email anyway. I actually think I'm on my 3rd one now. Because I forgot which email I used to sign up.
Previously you had only the login and the password. Now, you need a phone and likely probably an app on the phone.
This whole push for 2FA is actually a push against individual password managers where users generate long cryptographically secure passwords.
In my opinion, learning to use a password manager has effectively eliminated dozens if not hundreds of passwords and user names that I would have had to remember and all I need to remember is my one password manager password and everything gets copied and pasted in automatically. Even easier on my phone with FaceID unlocking the vault.
But it is still a complication and disruption to previous sign in flows that I had to adapt to and maintain.
Generating passwords properly gets rid of need of any password manager while each password keeps being unique. It is useful if most of my devices for internets don't have any password manager implemented (example - any Blackberry/Symbian/Opera Mini)
But they have a "Skip" button which so far works just fine. And I'm very happy it's there. So regardless of other merits, at least Ubisoft did that right with UPlay.
But the biggest security flaw, it turns out, is systemic, not individual: people simply don’t care about securing their one measly vote as much as they care about securing $100,000 in their bank.
So while people were motivated to secure large individual balances, they were not motivated to secure their votes.
Which is why we have to force people to confirm their votes on another device, so that Apple or Google couldn’t theoretically steal the election by lying to you about who you voted for, let alone some random website like stackoverflow (which people trust in their moderator elections etc.)
It turns out that this is also necessary for Web3 — the current state of security is dismal, the vast majority of people don’t actually check they are interfacing with the right contract or calling the right method or sending the right parameters before they hit “Submit” to sign the transaction. So even there, people have to be forced to double-check the details on another device, depending on the value of the transaction.
For more info see my article from 2020: https://www.coindesk.com/tech/2020/03/12/in-defense-of-block...
Polygon is probably going to be the winning provider of the space: https://community.intercoin.app/t/polygon-overtakes-ethereum... (although there are smaller ones, such as Arbitrum, Cardano)
I imagine that, in the future, we will simply have an "embarrassingly parallel" set of append-only logs, which is already possible with projects like Hypercore. And we will run consensus with those.
As for your question - the way you have secret voting is by using ring signatures. (Monero has ring signatures.) You just have to indicate that you're part of a group, and that you used your one vote, but it doesn't say who you are https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_signature
This was known since 2004, and doesn't require blockchains in fact: https://eprint.iacr.org/2004/281.pdf
A blockchain-based way would be to use a mixer (like Tornado Cash does) to mix up the tokens so each person still has exactly 1 but now it's harder to trace who has which one.