For what it’s worth, being verified isn’t a random factor: it’s the result of a conscious decision to pay X $8 a month. (Maybe a few exceptions.)
Your call as to whether that’s a reasonable evaluation but it’s not random.
Blocking people based on choices they make is a perfectly valid reason and a far cry from a random factor in what they share.
Lumping political opinions and choices with sexual orientation, race or otherwise is irrational at best and disingenuous at worst.
What? Twitter replies used to be ranked by merit. More likes get you higher up in replies, much like hackernews. Now you pay money to get higher.
Or just stop using twitter?
Contesting with others for domination of virtual territory is an equally valid approach.
By buying Blue you are expressing the opinion that buying Blue and putting the checkmark on your profile is worth your money. That is a reasonable thing to use to judge people, isn't it?
No, by buying Blue you are buying Blue, nothing else. This may be because you like the checkmark, or for political reasons, or for other reasons, but those are not clear.
You're voting with your wallet. Other people are allowed to vote to block you based on your vote. It's not a big deal.
I mean blocking me because I'm a bad speller and like having the edit function seems silly.
Sucks. That's just how Bayes' theorem is sometimes.