Twitter's Blue Checkmark

$20 a month to keep my blue check? Fuck that, they should pay me. If that gets instituted, I’m gone like Enron.

I have stayed out of political and heated social discourse on Twitter as a rule, because I’m not on the platform to debate, shape, or change my worldview. I’m on Twitter to provide, enrich, and enjoy a literary community.

But the recent discussion about verification has impacted me and my future outlook on Twitter, and I want to share my thoughts on why I am so bothered by the plan Elon shared.

Celebrity Endorsements

The benefits of having a Stephen King speak out on the checkmark are his reach and his endorsement. He can express an opinion and generate many thousands of responses. Most of us can’t do that. When he shares his perspective a certain group of people who would otherwise say nothing, activate because his endorsement matters, and they act in defense of or loyalty to him.

Being that it is Stephen King, a known liberal-leaning, public figure who has 100% allied with the Democratic party, the downside of King speaking out is that the majority of people who know and disagree with his politics immediately dismiss his perspective on Twitter, because they fail to think critically, instead, sacrificing individuality for political identity and belonging.

Perhaps a bigger downside is that if—and I think this is the case with King and Twitter verification—if the big celebrity frames the argument with the wrong focus, the public discourse becomes distracted from what matters and why.

How My Beliefs Influence My Opinion

So you can fully appreciate my argument, I’m going to offer, for the first time ever, my personal beliefs in a public and documented fashion. Here they are:

1. I was excited when Elon bought Twitter because I believed the platform had suppressed free speech in troubling ways, and Elon was vocal about restoring free speech to the platform. I have admired Musk for being transparent and for creating companies that address serious global issues, so while I think he can act it ways I personally find unpleasant, I also think he acts in inspiring ways.

2. While Stephen King is my favorite living novelist and among my favorite writers living or dead, I have found his outspoken views on political matters often baffling. I tend to avoid his Tweets, because he spends so much time speaking politically, and I find it tiresome and emotionally unhealthy.

3. Musk’s suggestion that verification should be a paid privilege is deplorable and disappointing to me.

4. King’s rhetoric proves he is injured by his own political hate, and his failure to highlight the real problem with paying for verification harms the discourse.

   

Metaphors To Illustrate the Problem of Paying to Verify

(A) Being you is a fundamental human right. Suppose you go to the doctor and the doctor draws your blood and puts it in a container labeled For Cloning you’d be concerned. You’d ask what was going on.

The doctor would inform you that unless you paid $8 a month your DNA would be going to the cloning machines. You’d understand immediately why that was a problem.

(B) The government taxes the ever-living-hell out cigarettes. The lopsided majority of smokers are also the people on the cusp of poverty or living in poverty.

Paying more doesn’t do one thing to reduce the addiction for smokers. If you’re addicted, you can complain all you want, but you’re going to pony up for those smokes.

Paying taxes because there’s no alternative is a real bummer.

(C) Along the same vein—pun set up intentionally—a vampire who keeps a young child captive so he can feed off her blood periodically is the most deplorable vampire. Turn her or release her, you filthy vampire!

(D) If you had the chance to cancel a person you disliked, and it was as easy as mimicking that person in the digital world and creating deplorable, hateful claims as if you were that person, you’d do it.

If you disagree with me, imagine you could impersonate Vladimir Putin (and he had an active social media account that his supporters frequently interacted with). You would impersonate him and post something like “The Russian people are a bunch of cowards. I hate all Russians and I am only out to make as much money and grab as much power as I can by causing the Russian people suffering”.

And even if it was quickly shown to be a fake account, there would always be a contingent of people who would then question if Putin said those things. His credibility would be degraded.

In order to avoid that, he’d be forced to pay for account verification.

And sure, Putin has plenty of money. So does Stephen King. So does Elon Musk, but money isn’t the point. Certain inalienable rights are the point. We as people have the right to be ourselves and not suffer the slander of those who would impersonate us and destroy our identity in moments.

Set Politics Aside

Verification is a basic human right. I know you might think, Wow, Jody, don’t you think you’re taking that a bit too far?

I’m not taking it far enough, actually. I should use curse words and protest on street corners.

If you have a free platform where anyone can create a profile under any identity, and you have an avenue to verify your identity that avenue needs to be free, because you are allowing people one way to authentically speak to those who engage with them.

It’s an all or nothing proposition. The checkmark tells me everything you share is your authentic perspective, and any profile using your likeness exists to parody your perspective or have a fun time at your expense, but no one confuses those people for being you.

It’s Not About the Money

My first inclination when I stumbled on this discussion about paying for the checkmark was that I’d pay a one-time fee. I even replied to Stephen King’s tweet that a one-time charge seemed reasonable.

Upon further reflection, I’ve changed my mind. If you want my money, charge me for something I don’t have. I’m not paying to be myself, and this isn’t the mob. I won’t pay for protection against a threat you created. No thank you, Mr. Musk.