Even dating/hookup sites, who pioneered this mechanic, have backed away from it somewhat; Grindr allows people to pay for temporary boosts up the top of the grid, for instance, but it _rations_ this; there's a cooldown once a user does it.
That's why it's an anti-recommendation signal. If a user needs to spend $8 or $11 a month to look like they have a strong profile then they're confirming that they don't have a strong profile. If they did they wouldn't need to boost it.
Now if they don't have a blue checkmark, we can safely assume whatever is said by that profile is gospel!
Nope. If a user doesn't have a checkmark then there is no signal, not the opposite signal. You can't assume they're a strong poster or a weak poster; you have to actually read their posts and figure it out from their content.
Who gives a shit if they want to add some authenticity? It showing they are putting some money into their presence. That means the opposite of what op is trying to get across in 250 words or less.
Our civilization has gotten too far from reason. Too many people disregard viewpoints simply because of who makes them, which "side" they are on, and other frivolous things.
I can’t follow this line of thinking. I risk saying it’s juvenile.
I am not saying that all content from Twitter Blue accounts is bad (I am sure a lot of it is very good), but that I - on average - will get better content in my feed from not having any Twitter Blue accounts showing up.
Do you feel this is juvenile? If not, can you clearly differentiate? Just to be clear, we're talking about blocking people that artificially boost their reach. In my view, these boosted messages will at best bring you "worse" content (in the sense that it isn't visible due to the content of the message, but due to the wallet of the author), at worst you'll get content from malicious actors (state actors etc.) washed to look like grass-roots opinions.
I don't see how using tools to make a user experience better for myself is juvenile.
