Someone please answer me this: How is it that the person (yea, sure he's a billionaire, but this is hardly the point when considering that you only care about what he's up to because he's a billionaire, etc.) who is attempting to make available a service that is currently an elitist status symbol available to anyone willing to pay for it the enemy, while the ultra-leftist, progressive, liberal darling would rather maintain the status quo of that goddamn Blue Check meaning you're better (read: more important) than everyone else?
The reality of the situation is that the verification process, aka that little Blue Check, means that you cannot hide on Twitter. Sure, anyone can pay, now, for that check, but the bottom line is that that means you cannot be anonymous; YOU MUST REPRESENT YOURSELF.
What's the problem here? This will make Twitter a better place, theoretically (I've never really used the platform, so I, figuratively, have zero skin in the game). If you must interact with people on the platform AS YOURSELF, I imagine it becomes more difficult for the douchebags of the world to declare whatever they want on the rim of the toilet bowl that is Twitter, etc.
And so, when someone wants to create accountability by making available the option for everyone to verify who they actually are, afk, why is this a bad thing? If the internet is the great equalizer and a capitalist wants to open up a symbol that is perceived as somewhat of a status symbol, then he is creating equality, albeit a capitalist form of it.
When an opponent, a liberal aggressive leftist, attacks this equalizing opportunity in the name of maintaining an elitist hierarchy, that person is a hypocrite (or what I recently re-named for women who are hypocrites in the worst possible way, hypocunts).
Fucking lib-tard leftists are as equally confused as the dumb-fuck righties about what "equality" means when it comes to just about everything.
So, remember to VOTE for "freedom to" as opposed to "freedom from," because where "freedom from" takes us is nowhere.