Sorry Elon, No One Cares About Losing Their Blue Check Mark on Twitter

On the eve of Elon Musk’s plan to phase out existing verified accounts and install a new order—in which anyone can pay a monthly fee in order to get a blue check mark next to their name, as well as a series of other privileges—it seems most users are simply … not interested.

Everyone, from professional athletes to elected officials to journalists, is opting out of Twitter’s attempt to fill the financial hole left gaping wide after Musk took over the social media website.

The cost for Musk’s Twitter Blue scheme is $8 (or $11 through Apple’s iOS) per month for individuals, while businesses and organizations in the United States would be charged $1,000 per month, plus a $50 fee for each affiliated subaccount (employees, other organizational divisions, etc.).

Musk’s Twitter has tried to mitigate the slow-motion car crash. An internal document revealed Twitter is considering waiving fees for the top 500 advertisers and 10,000 most-followed organizations that were previously verified. Unfortunately, it just doesn’t matter.

CNN’s Oliver Darcy reported that The New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, BuzzFeed, Politico, Vox Media, The Washington Post, and CNN will all not pay for Twitter Blue services for their journalists. Most confirmed their organizations will not pay for the institutional account either.

And on Friday, Axios reported that the White House also will not pay for Twitter Blue for its staffers or for the official White House account. “It is our understanding that Twitter Blue does not provide person-level verification as a service. Thus, a blue checkmark will now simply serve as a verification that the account is a paid user,” White House director of digital strategy Rob Flaherty wrote to staffers in an email.

Even star athletes like Lebron James and Patrick Mahomes have said they will not be paying for Musk’s last-ditch Hail Mary.

It’s all fun and games watching yet another Musk endeavor fall flat, but of course the stakes are indeed very high. One example of many came just this week, as a verified account tweeted a screenshot falsely depicting a news outlet sharing a fake quote from the father of a victim in the Nashville school shooting calling for “the end of the trans evil.” And that is just a drop in the bucket of all the moderation problems Twitter has already been dealing with; Musk’s overhaul of verification will escalate an ongoing disaster.

It’s confirmed: Twitter is forcing Elon Musk onto your timelines.

On Friday, Twitter announced the public release of the source code for various parts of the website, including their recommendations algorithm, which drives the much-assailed new “innovation,” the “For You” timeline.

The company described the release as an effort to make “Twitter 2.0” transparent, while also claiming they took additional steps to ensure no released code would compromise user security and privacy (something already under threat).

After the release, one part of the code stuck out more than others, a breakdown of tweet authors into four categories: Elon Musk, “Power User,” Democrat, or Republican. The code suggested the “For You” recommendations have specific directives for these four categories of tweet authors—and something particularly distinct for Musk’s own account.

“It shouldn’t be there,” Musk said on the code, during a Twitter Spaces live conversation after the release. “There’s a ton of stupid and embarrassing things being shown by making the code open source.”

Twitter’s release initially sounded almost egalitarian. Calling itself the “town square of the internet,” the company said in a statement that it is “doing this to foster transparency and build trust with our users, customers, and the general public.”

We invite the community to submit GitHub issues and pull requests for suggestions on improving the recommendations algorithm. We are working on tools to manage these suggestions and sync changes to our internal repository. Any security concerns or issues should be routed to our official bug bounty program through HackerOne. We hope to benefit from the collective intelligence and expertise of the global community in helping us identify issues and suggest improvements, ultimately leading to a better Twitter.

In reality, the move seems less like a positive and constructive action and more like a meager P.R.-laced attempt to soften the forthcoming overhaul of verified users—and a way to enlist free labor to do their job for them. The “community” is invited to dig through the code and report security concerns or issues themselves. Twitter wants to “benefit from the collective intelligence and expertise” of people they very well could hire (and perhaps previously did). But how can you hire them, when ad revenue is down almost 90 percent and your own CEO estimates the company’s value to have dropped in half since he took over?

And the best part? If things go wrong (which they know they will), it’s not Twitter’s fault—it’s our fault.

A judge on Friday ordered a jury trial in Dominions Voting System’s historic $1.6 billion defamation lawsuit against Fox News, over claims the news corporation spread false information about the firm after the 2020 election.

Superior Court Judge Eric Davis also delivered a major victory to Dominion, ruling that Fox’s statements about Dominion were categorically false. Fox News had attempted to get the defamation case thrown out of court.

“Fox failed to meet its burden.” Davis wrote in his ruling. “The evidence developed in this civil proceeding demonstrates that [it] is CRYSTAL clear that none of the Statements relating to Dominion about the 2020 election are true.”

“[T]he evidence does not support that [Fox News] conducted good-faith, disinterested reporting.”

The court ruled that Fox News did make false claims about Dominion but left open the question of whether Fox Corporation (its parent company) is responsible for that misinformation. A jury will now hear the defamation case beginning April 17.

The case thus far has led to landmark revelations about how Fox News hosts and executives knew they were lying about the 2020 election to their viewers, even while privately dismissing Trump and his conspiracy theories about a stolen election.

This post has been updated.

Republicans are using the tried-and-true antisemitic trope of blaming billionaire George Soros for everything, this time for Donald Trump being indicted.

Trump became the first president ever to be criminally charged Thursday, when a Manhattan grand jury voted to indict him for his role in paying hush money to porn star Stormy Daniels. Republicans rushed to his defense, with many trotting out an antisemitic conspiracy theory that Jewish people control the world.

Both Trump and his son Donald Jr. were quick to jump on the bandwagon, with the former president claiming that Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg was “hand-picked and funded by George Soros.” Don Jr. also said Bragg was “Soros-backed.”

Florida Governor Ron DeSantis, who is reportedly gearing up for a presidential run, accused the “Soros-backed Manhattan district attorney” of “stretching the law to target a political opponent.”

Senator Rick Scott similarly alleged that “Democrats and the corrupt Soros-funded NY attorney” were politically motivated in indicting Trump.

Representative Matt Gaetz said the indictment was the result of the “Sorosification of the criminal justice system.”

Republicans blaming Soros is nothing new. The Jewish billionaire has long been a bogeyman for the right, and has been blamed for everything from antifa to Covid-19 and creating a “shadow government” in the United States. The conspiracy theories have a real-world impact. Cesar Sayoc, the Trump supporter who mailed pipe bombs to Soros and Trump’s political enemies in 2018, railed against Soros regularly on Twitter. Sayoc even claimed Soros had paid off a victim of the Parkland school shooting.

For what it’s worth, Soros told Semafor’s Steve Clemons that he has never met Bragg and did not donate to his campaign. “I think some on the right would rather focus on far-fetched conspiracy theories than on the serious charges against the former president,” Soros said.

But the point is not whether Soros backs Bragg. The point of blaming Soros is that it’s a reliable Republican dog whistle. It’s a good tool for whipping Trump supporters up into a frenzy, by telling them that the global elite are out to get them.

As reporter Emily Tamkin pointed out, “It’s genuinely important to see this not as something new, but a continuation, a playing of the hits, a doubling down on the same old.”

“You can be against billionaire money in policy, politics, but that is different from collapsing the distinction between financing a campaign or initiative—as Soros has done for more progressive drug policy for over 25 years—and claiming or implying that all agency in a criminal case can be put at the feet of one (yes, Jewish) billionaire,” she said.

If you’re running for president, and your opponent gets criminally indicted for using a shell company to buy a porn actress’s silence about an alleged affair he had right after his wife gave birth, you’d probably pounce on that—right? Or, at least, express some neutral statement about the importance of the rule of law? Well, if so, you aren’t running for the 2024 Republican primary nomination!

After the news of Donald Trump’s indictment on Thursday, not a single one of his Republican rivals—announced or rumored—dared criticize the twice-impeached and now formally criminally indicted former president.

Former South Carolina Governor and Trump’s Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley appeared on Fox to complain that the indictment is just a matter of “revenge” and “political points” rather than justice. “I think the country would be better off talking about things that the American public cares about,” she continued, as if the public does not care about the powerful being held even somewhat accountable for their misdeeds.

Multimillionaire Vivek Ramaswamy, almost immediately after the indictment announcement, released a presumably prerecorded video calling it a “dark moment in American history” and warning that “we may be heading on our way to a national divorce.” Ramaswamy suggested that an alleged criminal being indicted for some reason resembles a “banana republic.”

As far as rumored candidates, the prospects were no better.

Former Vice President Mike Pence—whose life was directly threatened on January 6, 2021, by rioters whipped up by Trump himself—called the indictment an “outrage” and “political prosecution.” When CNN’s Wolf Blitzer pushed back, saying that a grand jury of 23 people voted to advance the indictment, Pence dismissed the notion. “Been a long time since I was in law school, Wolf, but I remember the old saying, ‘You can indict a ham sandwich,’ right?”

Florida Governor Ron DeSantis, Trump’s toughest competition thus far (despite not having announced yet), peddled an ongoing antisemitic conspiracy that Jewish philanthropist George Soros is directing the entire indictment. He went on to say he would refuse to assist in extraditing Trump to New York, which is unconstitutional. (Given his authoritarian record, it’s unsurprising that DeSantis would be so eager to flout basic principles on justice.)

Former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo echoed DeSantis’s gross claims, falsely calling Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg a “Soros-funded prosecutor.”

South Carolina Senator Tim Scott called the indictment a “travesty” that “should not be happening in the greatest country on Earth.”

Virginia Governor Glenn Youngkin said the indictment was delivered “on a manufactured basis.”

Former Arkansas Governor Asa Hutchinson had perhaps the best statement out of the pack, and still it amounted to hedging on all accounts. “While the grand jury found credible facts to support the charges, it is important that the presumption of innocence follows Trump,” he said, adding that Trump’s case ought to be approached in the same way the justice system works “for thousands of Americans every day.” But then he went on to add that though “Donald Trump should not be the next President,” that decision should “be made at the ballot box and not in the court system.”

Hutchinson’s statement represents a broader realization that he and other Republicans are not internalizing: You’re damned if you do, damned if you don’t! As things stand now, Trump is leading the primary field. The candidates could continue to refuse to criticize Trump. Or they could decide to not go down in history as embarrassingly submissive, and go on the record saying he simply shouldn’t be president. They are running against him, after all, which means they want him to lose, right? Trump may win the primary anyhow—but by failing to make the case at all, they almost guarantee he will.

For a party that purports to care about the “battleground of ideas,” not a single Republican candidate is trying to make a case for a different path forward—to voters, or really even to themselves.