Hacker News Reader

Comment by CamelCaseName | Hacker News Reader

How many people get scammed every day on X because the verification badge is a "Spend $1-5" badge?

This was especially plain to see in the crypto side of twitter.

Platforms cannot make statements on the legitimacy of a user without incurring some level of responsibility, regardless if it's "obvious" that a verified badge simply means that you've spent a couple dollars.

The average internet user is closer to your grandmother than you or me, and that is who these laws are meant to protect.

View on HN

>Platforms cannot make statements on the legitimacy of a user without incurring some level of responsibility, regardless if it's "obvious" that a verified badge simply means that you've spent a couple dollars.

So what's the right level of "responsibility"? Is letsencrypt issuing certificates to websites (which shows a lock icon in browsers) also fooling grandma into sending over her credit card details? What about EV certificates from a few years ago, where you paid ~$300/yr for a green lock? Should the EU get in the business of regulating what levels of verification are required to show lock/checkmark icons?

To continue this train of thought, what happens when the EU decides that unverified users must be hidden by default and can only be accessed by direct lookup?

X users would finally come to the realization that they own nothing and support an entirely unprincipled service?

It will end like Germany where to put anything on the Internet your physical address must be visible.

This is what they've been pushing for with app stores.

Not true. Personal and family matters do not need an impress.

You might want to read Rundfunkstaatsvertrag (RStV), (§ 55 Abs. 1): "Anbieter von Telemedien, die nicht ausschließlich persönlichen oder familiären Zwecken dienen, haben folgende Informationen leicht erkennbar, unmittelbar erreichbar und ständig verfügbar zu halten: Namen und Anschrift, bei juristischen Personen auch Namen und Anschrift des Vertretungsberechtigten."

Google translate: " Providers of telemedia services that are not exclusively for personal or family purposes must keep the following information easily recognizable, directly accessible and permanently available: name and address, and in the case of legal entities, also the name and address of the authorized representative. "

> Personal and family matters do not need an impress.

Does advocating for one political position or another count as a personal or family matter?

So as opposed to the old twitter method which was a vague “you know someone at twitter”, which led to random “journalists” and nobodies being verified. Paying money is just as arbitrary. Money at least means a credit card transaction happened.

An actual human employee at Twitter vouching for someone’s existence seems far more reputable than being able to purchase a Visa gift card in a convenience store.

Verification was “this account is who it says it is”. Not “this account has $10 to spare”.

I remember it being just a "good boy" badge.

People routinely had their checkmark removed when they said something controversial.

> People routinely had their checkmark removed when they said something controversial.

It was not indeed happening "routinely".

https://www.theverge.com/2017/11/15/16658600/twitter-verific...

Still something that defeats the purpose, no?

A verification badge should be something that says "this person indeed is who they claim to be" not "they can spend a couple of bucks a month" nor "we like him enough to give them a checkmark". Both are extremely unhelpful. The latter probably even more unhelpful since it is very subjective.

Verification came with moderation tweaks for high-profile accounts to combat things like brigading via mass abuse reports. That's why consistently bad behavior tended to lose the check.

Probably should've been two different flags, but it wasn't.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com