Verification on the social networks: a sign of the times?
A recent article in Engadget, The perks of being ‘somebody’ online, discusses the supposed privileges associated with identify verification on the social networks, exploring the absurd idea of an internet of classes, where the verification brand establishes some kind of category along the lines of either you have it or you don’t.
The idea makes no sense. Verification on the social networks is a process shrouded in a certain mystery: generally speaking, it cannot be requested, and on Twitter, Google+ or Facebook, is instead conceded. When a brand or individual wants verification, they must contact the social network in ways that are not specifically defined, and request it on the basis of criteria such as popularity, interest, convenience, or potential problems derived from current or possible impersonation.
Twitter was the first to award verification: this is a network where anybody can open a profile using the name they like, and with no further requirements than providing an email, managing an identity was a problem from the get go. When Twitter began to orient itself toward public figures, many discovered that their names were already being used for accounts, and that they had to get them back. Aside from this issue, which the network addressed fast and discretely, there was also the need to assure people that the account they were following really was that of the person they believed it to be and not somebody posing as them for whatever reason, be it malicious or to satirize them.
Verification began to be assigned to these kinds of asymmetrical profiles, and played a big role in popularizing use of the social networks. After a trial run in 2008, a unilateral concession mechanism was adopted using a process that has been described by Anil Dash. As a result of the verification process, the account gets followed by @verified, which means that at this moment there are something like 102,000 verified accounts on the network. The process is not perfect: there are really famous people out there who have not had their account verified, and there have been a number of notable errors.
The next social network to offer identify verification was Google+. This is a network that requires the use of real names, this made less sense, but began to be offered shortly after it was launched as it became clear that certain accounts were attracting a lot of attention and being included in a high number of circles. Once again this was an asymmetrical process that was not transparent and was difficult to trace, a way of assuring people who wanted to follow a particular account that they were doing so.
Facebook only began using verification indicators recently, and that is offered via an unsolicited email. Again, this is a procedure designed for “celebrities, journalists, politicians, or brands that are popular and well-known,” and cannot be requested, only conceded by Facebook.
I have had my identity verified on all three social networks without asking for it, but it has never seemed to me to be a privilege, and much less a badge of status. Instead, the networks concerned have decided to offer me this as a service on the basis that they can attract more users. Obviously, I am not famous, and never get stopped in the street by strangers, unless it is by a student or somebody who has seen me at a conference.
I simply do not get the idea that a verified account is some kind of privilege: if anything, the privilege belongs to the person who might be interested in following what I have to say, and who can be sure that I am who I say I am. There is no sense in discussing whether this person or that person “deserves” to be followed, as Engadget’s article does. Verification takes place when whoever is managing the network decides, that’s it.
In the case of Twitter, it is possible to access potentially interesting analytics relating to asymmetrical situations, but in the case of Facebook and Google+ I haven’t seen anything special. On the other hand, not many people know what the little sign associated with my profile means; similarly I have met people at conferences who have decided to follow me, and who mistakenly follow some old parody account or an impersonator. Verification has never affected me for better or worse, and has had no impact on the number of people who follow me on any of the three networks, as I can clearly see from the analytics.
In all honesty, I really don’t think that a verification sign is the preserve of elites, or is a privilege. If somebody really believes that a small symbol after their name somehow makes them special, then I can only feel sorry for them. If you have been assigned one, it is because the network you write on or contribute to in whatever way simply wants to make it easier for other people to find you. The network knows, it has the analytics and makes the decision. Aside from this, there is the relatively interesting aspect of how asymmetry is handled in the context of the social networks, and which is perhaps a more relevant sign of the times.
(En español, aquí)
