Twitter’s paid subscription service was rolled out on November 5, only to be rolled back in and out multiple times over the span of a week.
With the purchase of Twitter by billionaire Elon Musk, the social media giant has experienced pushback from advertisers. In response, Musk worked quickly to create a paid premium subscription service, but chaos, confusion, and frustration have thus far defined its launch.
Entitled “Twitter Blue,” the monthly paid subscription co-opted the social media company’s iconic blue check mark, which used to indicate “an active, notable, and authentic accounts of public interest that Twitter had independently verified based on certain requirements.”
Now, however, the blue check mark means “two different things.”
“[E]ither that an account was verified under the previous verification criteria (active, notable, and authentic), or that the account has an active subscription to Twitter Blue,” reads an explanation on Twitter’s official Help Center page.
In a tweet at the time of the launch of Twitter Blue, Musk criticized the original blue checkmark system, decrying it as digital feudalism.
“Twitter’s current lords & peasants system for who has or doesn’t have a blue checkmark is bullshit. Power to the people! Blue for $8/month,” he announced.
The decision to utilize the blue check mark, which has for so long represented authenticity on a social media platform dominated by bots and other fake accounts, for the new paid service has created a number of controversies and embarrassments for users, brands, and Twitter itself.
According to reports, fake accounts stamped with the blue check mark have been created for everything from major brands like PepsiCo and Nintendo to powerful politicians and sports stars like President Joe Biden and LeBron James.
A fake account, embossed with the blue check mark from a Twitter Blue subscription, impersonated pharmaceutical giant Eli Lilly and Co., tweeting out, “We are excited to announce insulin is free now.”
The tweet stayed up for hours and the next day Eli Lilly and Co. experienced a 4.45% drop in its stock price.
In response, the Indianapolis-based corporation halted its current advertising on Twitter, which represented millions of dollars in desperately-needed revenue for the now privately-held social media company.
The unfortunate incident with Eli Lilly underscores the precarious position Musk is in with his acquisition of Twitter.
After the purchase of the advertising-dependent social media platform by Musk, an advertiser revolt began. Companies across the economic spectrum announced a halt or suspension of Twitter advertising, including Pfizer, Audi, General Motors, and General Mills.
The companies’ decision is reportedly related to Musk’s plans for changes to content moderation on Twitter, or more plainly, what is and is not allowed to be said by users of the platform.
Musk and U.S. Senator Ed Markey of Massachusetts engaged in a Twitter spat after Markey learned that a Washington Post reporter created a fake account with Twitter Blue impersonating him.
“A [Washington Post] reporter was able to create a verified account impersonating me — I’m asking for answers from [Musk] who is putting profits over people and his debt over stopping disinformation. Twitter must explain how this happened and how to prevent it from happening again,” Markey tweeted.
“Perhaps it is because your real account sounds like a parody?” Musk responded curtly.
As of now, new Twitter Blue signups have been paused and Twitter has not responded to requests for comment as to why, but Musk was clear that the platform would be experimental in the early phases of his ownership.
On November 9, Musk tweeted, “Please note that Twitter will do lots of dumb things in coming months. We will keep what works & change what doesn’t.”
