An Eight Dollar Tragedy

As I perused the latest developments on Twitter, I could not help but notice the commotion that has erupted over Elon Musk's stripping of legacy blue checkmarks from verified accounts. To the average Twitter user, this may seem like a non-issue, but to those who consider themselves part of the ‘anointed few’, this news has caused quite a stir.

One such individual is freelance journalist Julie Melner, who seems to believe that Musk's decision is not only dangerous but could even result in people losing their lives. Now, to the untrained eye, Ms Melner's remarks may come across as hysterical and even unhinged, but for those of us who are well-versed in the language of the Left, what she is really saying is that Elon Musk's actions are problematic. Just as the Left got rid of the word ‘offensive’ in favour of the word ‘problematic’, they are now getting rid of that word in favour of the word ‘dangerous’, or the phrase ‘the potential to cause harm’.

But what exactly is problematic or offensive about removing blue checkmarks from verified accounts? According to the likes of Ms Melner, it is the potential harm that could come to those who rely on these marks as a form of validation or credibility. To them, the blue checkmark is not just a symbol of verification, but it is a symbol of authority, influence, and status.

But let us be clear. While some argue that the blue checkmark is nothing more than a superficial badge that holds no real weight or significance in the grand scheme of things, it was, in fact, antithetical to the principles of free speech and open discourse.

The idea that one's opinions or thoughts are more valid or valuable simply because they are 'verified' by a social media platform is deeply problematic. It creates a hierarchy of voices and ideas, where those verified by Twitter—usually those in privileged positions or with contacts from elite institutions—are given far more authority than unverified users. This stifles free expression and reinforces the practice of 'cancel culture', where differing opinions are silenced or censored for purportedly 'protecting' certain groups or ideologies.

This is why individuals have previously been willing to pay Twitter up to $15,000 in order to acquire a verification badge, often the only viable way to attain one. People such as myself, who have been impersonated many times, were unable to gain the badge without resorting to bribery or having inside connections. This is why journalists are now hysterical. It is not due to their care for other people or to “save them from dying,” nor to show a genuine concern that Hassan Piker is being called a homosexual. It is because they have been stripped of their privilege and treated like everyone else.

Of course, the option to pay an exorbitant sum of $8 per month now exists, and if you genuinely think your life is in danger, you could take that route. On the other hand, you could just leave Twitter. Most of the aggrieved would never do such a thing, as without social media, they would be unable to continue their moral busybodying. The irony is that many of these same figures encouraged advertisers to withdraw from Twitter under the false narrative that there is more ‘hate speech’ on the platform under Elon. In response, Elon moved the business model to a subscription-based system to reduce its dependence on advertising, and now these fallen angels will reap what they sowed.