Opinion Twitter without blue ticks – end of digital feudalism or just more capitalism?

Despite this, the White House, the New York Times, and celebrities, like LeBron James, have publicly refused to pay for Twitter Blue. There is still a catch — government accounts like the White House will continue to operate with “grey ticks”, while businesses will be eligible for the “gold” ones, pursuant to paying a $1,000 premium. But in a sea of colourful ticks, would the unwary user really be able to tell them apart, or will the new “ticks” result in a flood of flashy adornments devoid of any real meaning?

The “blue tick” was, for many, a symbol of credibility, authenticity, fame, power, and glory. Something reserved exclusively for the crème de la crème of society, including the top crop of organisations, persons, and corporations. The criticism of this kind of “verification” was that it encouraged a sort of virtual encouraging “laal-batti” culture. In the name of authentification, it conferred an almost feudal status on some users. More often than not, it would leave the ones who applied and got rejected wondering why they couldn’t make this exclusive club. Was it their lack of followers or repute, recently published work, or something else altogether?

Since Twitter didn’t provide detailed reasons for rejecting one’s blue tick application, the system was mired in mystery and no one would ever know exactly what made them ineligible. In contrast, the new process of procuring blue ticks is undoubtedly a more transparent one, as the more optimistic of us would argue. However, the silver lining of Twitter’s newfound sense of transparency, peering through the dark clouds of its demise, comes at a price.

Last year, US-based insulin company, Eli Lilly And Co. reportedly lost billions as its share price sank 4.73 per cent because of a tweet from a blue-tick verified – and yet fake Eli Lilly account saying, “We are excited to announce insulin is free now.” Similarly, a fake OJ Simpson account purchased the blue tick, even before the real OJ cared to get one, confusing swarms of people in its wake as to what is real and what isn’t.

So, is authenticity up for sale? Although Musk’s quest for “free speech” and “power to the people” is being hampered by trolls and criminals finding new, innovative ways of impersonating and scamming people worldwide, we have also witnessed a rise of homegrown communal accounts, openly indulging in hate-speech while flaunting their store-bought blue ticks. Some of these accounts are rife with disinformation, but owing to Twitter’s new policy, their content could well be prioritised over others because of their willingness to shell out Rs 655. This new, seemingly level playing field offered by the great equaliser – money — brings with it new challenges of giving equal space and opportunity to all users; not just in terms of the colour of ticks, but also in terms of the word limits per tweet and the reach that initially everyone had the same access to.

Twitter has often been projected as a melting pot of sorts for politicians, celebrities, athletes, media persons, and other notable personalities to express their views. These public figures could directly interact with “the people”, without intermediaries. But gradually, it has also become a source of misinformation, bots and seemingly real fake accounts. The conspicuous absence of novelty and truth is one reason for Twitter users moving to Mastodon, Post, and HiveSocial.

Now, as those who did not have blue ticks celebrate the loss of others with a sense of schadenfreude my own blue tick’s impending departure, I cannot help but note something ironic. If I had a rupee for every time they expressed their views on the new-found “transparency” that can be purchased on Twitter, I might have been able to afford a blue tick.

khadija.khan@expressindia.com