Twitter Blue is now finalized, but checkmarks haven't changed much

Influencers on the platform were quick to admit if they’ve paid for the sub or not. Some of them did so out of fear of backlash, as they’d previously taken a stance against the subscription model, only for their followers to see that the blue checkmark is still there. But in reality, these people haven’t gone against their word: it's just that the terms were unclear, to say the least.

Furthermore, this impacted Golden checkmarks too — like the blue ones, but for official organizations — as some profiles seemingly retained theirs without having paid up either. The New York Times is an example, as its profile Tweeted out a jab, which pointed out the inconsistency.

And here is where it gets spicy: Elon pulled a “hold my beer” and outright removed the publication’s Gold checkmark seemingly manually. Which in turn spiraled into an argument in typical internet fashion.

And just for a bit of context, gold checkmarks are quite more costly when compared to their blue counterparts. Twitter requires each organization to pay $1,000 for its primary profile, and then an additional per-user fee for each “company” profile.

While all of this doesn’t mean that Twitter blue is outright or literally canceled, it does shift perspective. What happens to those who had legacy checkmarks but paid for blue anyway? What about owners of blue, who had it in them to earn legacy checkmarks? Would they have paid at all if they had the option to work for it?

Food for thought. And Twitter’s competition.