Editing Talk:1914: Twitter Verification

Jump to: navigation, search
Ambox notice.png Please sign your posts with ~~~~

Warning: You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you log in or create an account, your edits will be attributed to your username, along with other benefits.

The edit can be undone. Please check the comparison below to verify that this is what you want to do, and then save the changes below to finish undoing the edit.
Latest revision Your text
Line 1: Line 1:
 
<!--Please sign your posts with ~~~~ and don't delete this text. New comments should be added at the bottom.-->
 
<!--Please sign your posts with ~~~~ and don't delete this text. New comments should be added at the bottom.-->
 +
 +
Isn't it obvious? Twitter verified Kessler's account as a way of marking a public enemy, and distinguishing him from fake troll accounts. Now the internet is gonna fuck his shit up.[[Special:Contributions/162.158.74.135|162.158.74.135]] 07:01, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
  
 
https://twitter.com/jack/status/928658511311097856 Comic may relate to twitter's usage of the verification symbol. Randall might be mocking Twitter for not realizing how the verification symbol would be thought of as a symbol of importance. Character shown may be Jack Dorsey, Twitter CEO. --[[User:Videblu|Videblu]] ([[User talk:Videblu|talk]]) 05:54, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
 
https://twitter.com/jack/status/928658511311097856 Comic may relate to twitter's usage of the verification symbol. Randall might be mocking Twitter for not realizing how the verification symbol would be thought of as a symbol of importance. Character shown may be Jack Dorsey, Twitter CEO. --[[User:Videblu|Videblu]] ([[User talk:Videblu|talk]]) 05:54, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
Line 25: Line 27:
 
:As someone who has literally never been on Twitter, this doesn't seem hard. Why doesn't Twitter just give verified status to people who can verify who they are? User sends Twitter proof of their identity, if Twitter finds the proof satisfactory they make that account verified.[[User:HisHighestMinion|HisHighestMinion]] ([[User talk:HisHighestMinion|talk]]) 17:53, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
 
:As someone who has literally never been on Twitter, this doesn't seem hard. Why doesn't Twitter just give verified status to people who can verify who they are? User sends Twitter proof of their identity, if Twitter finds the proof satisfactory they make that account verified.[[User:HisHighestMinion|HisHighestMinion]] ([[User talk:HisHighestMinion|talk]]) 17:53, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
 
::Because a lot of actual people do have the same names. There are numerous people with the name William Gibson on Twitter, but when you search William Gibson, the handle @GreatDismal comes up, with his name listed as William Gibson, & a check-mark to indicate that the account belongs to the (most) famous William Gibson, not some random guy with that name.
 
::Because a lot of actual people do have the same names. There are numerous people with the name William Gibson on Twitter, but when you search William Gibson, the handle @GreatDismal comes up, with his name listed as William Gibson, & a check-mark to indicate that the account belongs to the (most) famous William Gibson, not some random guy with that name.
:::'Some random guy' named William Gibson is no more random than the (most) famous William Gibson. It's certainly no guarantee that it's the person you want to follow. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.105.18|141.101.105.18]] 12:15, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
 
  
 
Since there are so often multiple people with the same name, & even people who (gasp!) don't use their name as their Twitter handle, I think the verification should be relative to a particular association; People could even attain multiple verifications, such as "Verified author of Neuromancer", "Verified Ford certified mechanic", "Verified resident of Zyzzyx", "Verified president of the United States", etc. (Not that someone as important as the US president would have time to waste writing Tweets.) Just make a list of anything you can verify about them, & let people see that on their profile. Just because she wasn't in Terminator doesn't mean Sarah O'Connor is insignificant; often it can be difficult to tell which profile belongs to someone you know, versus a stranger with that name. They should just verify stated facts about the person, avoiding any judgement of the notability of those facts.
 
Since there are so often multiple people with the same name, & even people who (gasp!) don't use their name as their Twitter handle, I think the verification should be relative to a particular association; People could even attain multiple verifications, such as "Verified author of Neuromancer", "Verified Ford certified mechanic", "Verified resident of Zyzzyx", "Verified president of the United States", etc. (Not that someone as important as the US president would have time to waste writing Tweets.) Just make a list of anything you can verify about them, & let people see that on their profile. Just because she wasn't in Terminator doesn't mean Sarah O'Connor is insignificant; often it can be difficult to tell which profile belongs to someone you know, versus a stranger with that name. They should just verify stated facts about the person, avoiding any judgement of the notability of those facts.
 
(By the way, "Marina Appaloosa" may potentially be the coolest fictional name I've seen generated by these captchas so far.)
 
(By the way, "Marina Appaloosa" may potentially be the coolest fictional name I've seen generated by these captchas so far.)
 
[[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.4|108.162.216.4]] 22:56, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
 
[[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.4|108.162.216.4]] 22:56, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
 
 
"As the internet is populated by various large and strongly opinionated groups [citation not needed]" I strongly disagree with the "citation not needed" tag.  Please cite a source! [[Special:Contributions/162.158.63.202|162.158.63.202]] 14:30, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
 
:I'm honestly having a bit of difficulty figuring out whether that edit was made by someone who didn't understand the inherent sarcasm in {{Citation needed}}, or by someone who ''did'' understand and was trying to make a point.  —[[User:CsBlastoise|CsBlastoise]] ([[User talk:CsBlastoise|talk]]) 19:59, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
 
 
Twitter also provides additional behind-the-scenes functionality to users with blue ticks which isn't available to regular users. It's not just about marking their profiles with a signifier. It's about allowing them to use the service in a way which hides the contributions of anybody without a tick.
 
 
There is no twitter account @realDonaldTrump anymore. --[[Special:Contributions/141.101.99.19|141.101.99.19]] 04:19, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 
 
This didn't age well. lol [[Special:Contributions/172.70.210.242|172.70.210.242]] 05:22, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
 
:This *really* didn't age well [[Special:Contributions/162.158.166.172|162.158.166.172]] 00:27, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
 
 
Agree. This… aged… terribly. [[User:SilverTheTerribleMathematician|SilverTheTerribleMathematician]] ([[User talk:SilverTheTerribleMathematician|talk]]) 08:25, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
 

Please note that all contributions to explain xkcd may be edited, altered, or removed by other contributors. If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly, then do not submit it here.
You are also promising us that you wrote this yourself, or copied it from a public domain or similar free resource (see explain xkcd:Copyrights for details). Do not submit copyrighted work without permission!

To protect the wiki against automated edit spam, we kindly ask you to solve the following CAPTCHA:

Cancel | Editing help (opens in new window)

Template used on this page: