Twitter Strips the New York Times of Verification

The paper had said it won’t pay to keep its check mark.

Jonathan Raa/AP

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.

The New York Times boasts around 9.3 million global subscribers and 54.9 million followers on Twitter. But as of Sunday, America’s paper of record no longer has a verification check-mark on the increasingly tumultuous social media platform that Tesla-titan Elon Musk purchased in October 2022 for $44 billion.

In March, Twitter announced it would begin “removing legacy verified checkmarks” starting April 1 in order to finalize its pay-to-play overhaul, in which any individual can now pay $8 per month for a check mark, but a company, government entity, or nonprofit has to cough up $1,000 per month to verify its main account, and $50 extra for each affiliated account the entity wants to verify. 

After the announcement, major media players like the New York Times, Los Angeles Times, Washington Post, BuzzFeed, Politico, and Vox all said they would not be paying to retain their Twitter check marks. Axios reported the White House has also decided it will not pay to be verified, nor will it reimburse staff who want to pay $8 monthly for their individual accounts to be verified. 

Historically, being verified on Twitter meant the social media company had confirmed the user or organization’s identity and decided that they were notable. It meant that if you saw a verified White House account tweet about a national emergency, or a verified Tom Brady account tweet about a retirement update, you could believe it to be true. But now that anybody can pay to have a check mark next to their names, it’s much easier to impersonate notable accounts and fool the masses.

Pharmaceutical giant Eli Lilly saw precisely that play out when a Twitter account with a similar name that had paid for verification tweeted in November that it would be making insulin free. 

The account, it turns out, was fake. But the impact was very real. The company’s stock value fell from $368 a share to $346, with its market cap losing approximately $15 billion, according to Marketplace.

In the memo it sent to its staffers about opting not to pay Musk for verification, the Los Angeles Times reasoned that verification “no longer establishes authority or credibility” 

Amid announcements from major organizations that they would not be paying, the New York Times reported that Twitter had planned to waive the $1,000 monthly fee for its “500 largest advertising clients and for the 10,000 most-followed brands.” The most-followed companies on the site include accounts from CNN, the NBA, NASA, and yes, the New York Times. 

But early Sunday morning, Musk appeared to change his mind. After users noticed that most accounts with legacy verification still had their check marks after April 1, Musk reportedly said Twitter would give accounts a few more weeks before stripping them of their checks. “Unless they tell they won’t pay now,” he tweeted, “in which case we will remove it.”

Musk’s apparent tweet has since been deleted. But so has the New York Times’ check mark.

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We canā€™t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who wonā€™t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its futureā€”you.

And we need readers to show up for us big timeā€”again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We canā€™t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who wonā€™t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its futureā€”you.

And we need readers to show up for us big timeā€”again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate