Introduction
Disclaimer: all content is based on research prior to the blog’s posting date (March 8, 2023).
Identity Verification is a critical part of social networking sites so users can trust each other by proving their identity. So, Twitter and Meta (parent company of Facebook and Instagram) have rolled out their own verification system. However, Meta and Twitter’s approaches to identity verification are wildly inaccurate, ineffective, and costly.
Twitter Verification
Shortly after Elon Musk purchased Twitter in October 2022, Twitter changed what its blue verification check marks indicated. It used to be reserved for certain notable users through an application process. However, Twitter Blue changed that by allowing anyone to verify themselves for $8/month.
This led many trolls to impersonate famous people and businesses by putting outlandish and false content. It even caused Eli Lilly to lose more than $15 billion in market cap after a fake Tweet said that “We are excited to announce insulin is free now.”
All these issues forced Twitter to cancel Twitter blue, then relaunch it in December 2022. While the new rollout doesn’t have the same horrendous issues as the initial rollout did, Twitter Blue verification system still has a lot of underlying issues.
Ineffective verification system that allows scammers to enter
According to Twitter as of March 7, 2023, the eligibility criteria for Twitter blue says your account must:
- Have a display name and profile photo
- Be active in the past 30 days
- Be older than 90 days
- Have a confirmed phone number
- Have no recent changes to photo, name, or username
- Have no signs of being misleading or deceptive
- Have no signs of engaging in platform manipulation and spam
Those following requirements (and paying $8/month) are the only criteria for getting a blue checkmark. However, those requirements aren’t robust enough to prove that users are who they say they are. It is missing a necessary element for a verification system, identity verification, which proves users’ identity by leveraging facial biometrics.
Twitter’s current approach just makes it slightly harder and more inconvenient for scammers to get the blue checkmark, but still very possible. For example, scammers could theoretically create hundreds of accounts today that fulfill the requirements and have all those accounts ready to scam people in 90 days, or even buy accounts that meet those requirements. The biggest hurdle is a confirmed phone number, but those are relatively easy for hackers to get, such as getting a free second phone number, using the Google Voice Verification Code scam, or hijacking people’s phone numbers.
By following those steps, scammers would be free to scam all they want, and Twitter’s users would likely be more susceptible to falling for them since they have the verified checkmark.
The last 2 criteria say you can’t be misleading/deceptive or spam, but bad actors can still get access to the verified checkmark as long as they don’t engage in that bad activity until they get the checkmark. Twitter does have measures in place to find scammers and block them, but they’re taking a reactive approach where they allow bad actors to get into the platform and get the checkmark, then rely on its content moderation team (which had major workforce cuts) and other users to report bad activity.
Even if bad actors are kicked off the platform, they can easily get back onto the platform by just making new accounts with verification checkmarks. Since there is no identity verification system, scammers are free to create countless accounts to infiltrate the platform.
Twitter may make it difficult for real users to get verified
There are multiple criteria that could make it difficult for real / legitimate users to verify themselves because of the ineffective railguards Twitter has on its verification system.
Be older than 90 days: what if someone just opened an account and wanted to verify themselves? They’d have to wait 3 months to become verified
Have no recent changes to photo, name, or username: It’s very common for real users to update their photo, and they shouldn’t have to wait to become verified just because they had a new profile photo. Real users also could change their name and username because of a new nickname or a preference change.
Twitter most likely implemented those requirements because they are common signs of scammers. However, those signs are just effects, not the true cause of the issue. This creates false positives where Twitter may disallow a real user from getting the checkmark, even though they aren’t engaging in malicious activity. Instead, Twitter should solve the source of the problem by verifying users’ identity.
High Cost & Low Execution
Twitter blue is $8 / month, a ridiculously high price for a subpar verification system. Additionally, Twitter’s verification system is only used by a small fraction of its users. Twitter is now a private company, so we don’t have official numbers on its user base, but estimates say Twitter has approximately 290,000 subscribers worldwide in February 2023, only about 0.2% of all monthly active users (which is understandable because of the high price and low effectiveness).
The main goal of a verification system is to increase trust in the platform so that each user trusts each other and there’s no spamming, frauds, bots, etc. However, with only 0.2% of the user base verified, the end goal of a trusted platform isn’t achieved.
Mismatch of Payment vs. Benefit
The main benefit of a platform with verified users is that users can confirm that what they are reading is from a verified user. However, the burden of payment falls onto the individual person who verifies themselves, which helps explain why the rate of adoption of Twitter blue is so low.
Meta Verification
Meta Verified is currently available in Australia and New Zealand (at the time of this writing) and is collecting a waitlist for other countries to become notified when it’s available. Unlike Twitter, Meta requires users to provide photo ID to confirm identity, which is a much more robust and effective verification system. However, there are many other issues with Meta Verified.
Verification Process Not User Friendly
According to Meta, the verification process can take up to 48 hours. This is egregiously below industry standard and adds a lot of friction / waiting on the end users. Identity verification almost always requires some friction, but up to 48 hours is way too much.
Additionally, if you purchase Meta Verified but they can’t verify you, they’ll automatically refund you. However, refunds may take up to 60 days and “refund requests are subject to approval and may take time to respond to”. While it appears Meta Verified is taking proper measures to refund people who aren’t verified, their flow is backwards: platforms and/or users should only pay after they’re verified, not before. Meta’s model creates a poor user experience for users to have to wait up to that long for a refund and potentially have to go through more steps for the refund process.
Verified Users have more reach
One of the features of Meta Verified is Increased visibility, which says it will “expand your reach with increased visibility and prominence in some parts of Instagram and Facebook like comments, search and recommendations.”
Social media algorithms for feeds should be based on the most relevant, interesting, and/or valuable content for end users, not whoever has the money to spend on a blue checkmark. This creates an unfair system for creators / users who don’t have the money or don’t want to pay for Meta Verified. Additionally, this is likely to create a worse user experience for readers / viewers, because they’ll be seeing more content pushed out by Meta Verified users instead of what’s best for their own enjoyment.
Costs Too Much
Meta Verified will cost almost double what Twitter charges, at $14.99/month (iOS/Android) or $11.99 USD/month on the web (Facebook only). Those prices in the range of streaming services like Netflix and Disney, a considerable amount for most users. It wouldn’t be surprising if Meta will have a similar issue as Twitter with a very low adoption rate of its verification system caused by the high price point.
How to Fix the Issues at Meta & Twitter
The solutions to Meta and Twitter verification processes are pretty straightforward:
| Problem | Solution |
| Low adoption rates | Instead of forcing users to pay for identity verification, it should be made free for all users at the time of registration. That way everyone on the platform could trust each other from the start. |
| Too Expensive | Their cost structure could be improved drastically by changing the following 3 things: Use Pay-Per-Use, not Subscription model: Identity verification should use a transaction-based pricing structure rather than a subscription model because the main costs are at the time of registration, when the user is initially verified. It’s understandable for verification systems to charge a small amount for services such as passwordless login through face verification, but that should only be cents per user per month. Reduce the Price Point: Even if Twitter and Meta only charged the first month to become verified, it would still be far too much. The price point makes it only available for more affluent people. Charge Businesses instead of Users: Many users would not pay individually for verification, so charging users would never yield a fully verified platform. Instead, identity verification platforms should charge the social networking platform. Even though it would cost the businesses, having a trusted platform would far exceed the minor costs because it’d be a safer platform that would attract and retain customers better. Plus, businesses would save money on content moderation from not having as many scammers and bad actors (likely more than the cost to verify users) |
| Ineffective & Faulty System | Platforms should take a proactive approach to not allow bad actors to the platform, rather than a reactive approach that attempts to remove bad actors once they’ve already entered the platforms |
| Poor User Experience | Slow Speed: Effective identity verification platforms must verify users quickly so as to create the highest conversion rate possible. Otherwise, many users would become frustrated with the process and not register with the platform. Identity verification platforms should be able to verify users in under a minute. Pay First, Verify Next: platforms / users should only have to pay if the verification process works and shouldn’t have to go through the wait and hassle of getting a refund if they’re unable to be verified. Making real users wait to be verified: new users shouldn’t have to wait 90 days to get verified like Twitter does; it should be done at time of registration |
| Focus on Increased Reach / Visibility, not Solely on Safety | Platforms shouldn’t offer additional incentives to be verified such as increased visibility / reach, since it creates a negative feed experience. Instead, identity verification should be solely focused on creating a safe platform. |
Authillo’s product solves all the problems listed with the industry-leading solutions above. Click here to learn more about Authillo’s product.