Many Twitter users are angry and confused as it is now impossible to tell who has paid for their blue checkmark on the social media platform.
Last month, Twitter announced it would remove legacy verified checkmarks and end its legacy verified programme – in favour of charging people for a coveted blue tick.
For users who wanted to keep their checkmark, the Elon Musk-owned company advised them to subscribe to Twitter Blue – which costs $8 (£6.51) a month for individual web users.
Back in February, Musk tweeted: “Twitter’s legacy Blue Verified is unfortunately deeply corrupted, so will sunset in a few months.”
The change was due to take effect on 1 April, but legacy verified users have noticed their checkmarks are still intact.
Image: Legacy verified accounts and Twitter Blue subscribers have been lumped together
While some were questioning if Musk was pulling an April Fools prank, it was later discovered that Twitter had changed the description on legacy verified accounts.
Now, when users click on a blue checkmark, the new description reads, “This account is verified because it’s subscribed to Twitter Blue or is a legacy verified account” – lumping legacy verified accounts with Twitter Blue subscribers.
More on Elon Musk
Related Topics:
Before, it read: “This is a legacy verified account. It may or may not be notable.”
So it is now impossible to tell the difference between people who were verified before the legacy verified programme was implemented and those who forked out for a blue checkmark.
Advertisement
New York Times gets checkmark removed
While many of Twitter’s high-profile users brace for the loss of the blue checkmarks that helped verify and distinguish them from imposters on the social media platform – Musk has taken the liberty to remove it from one news organisation in particular.
The New York Times has had its verification tick on its main account removed, with the publication happening to be one of Musk’s most despised news publications.
It comes after the paper claimed in a story on Thursday that it would not pay Twitter for verification of its institutional accounts.
Image: The New York Times has had its checkmark removed
The Twitter CEO tweeted early on Sunday that the Times’ checkmark would be removed before posting disparaging remarks about the newspaper.
Other Times accounts such as its business news and opinion pages still had either blue or gold check marks on Sunday, as did multiple reporters for the news organisation.
“We aren’t planning to pay the monthly fee for check mark status for our institutional Twitter accounts,” the Times said in a statement on Sunday.
“We also will not reimburse reporters for Twitter Blue for personal accounts, except in rare instances where this status would be essential for reporting purposes.”
Meanwhile, the Associated Press, which has also said it will not pay for the checkmarks, still had them on its accounts at midday on Sunday.
‘Stop this mess’
Many legacy verified Twitter users have expressed their anger at the idea of being mistaken for a Twitter Blue subscriber.
One person tweeted: “This is misleading B*******. I’ve NOT subscribed to Twitter Blue and have no intention to. I have a legacy verified account. Stop this mess”.
Another wrote: “Elon’s trying to protect the Twitter Blue folks from mockery by making legacy verified accounts ambiguous instead of taking the blue tick off? What on earth is this @TwitterBlue? I have not paid for the blue tick”.
While a third suggested it was too complex for Musk to mass delete legacy blue checkmarks, writing: “Okay so he found out it was too hard (and embarrassing) to disable legacy checks, and now he has just changed the description of all the legacy verified people to suggest we might be paying for Twitter Blue… This is a new world record of Not Mad.”
And YouTuber Eddy Buback seemed mortified at the thought of being mistaken for a Twitter Blue subscriber, writing: “Oh god, this is way worse than taking the checkmark. I did not pay Elon. I would rather die.”
In the long Gaza war, this is a significant moment.
For the people of Gaza, for the hostages and their families – this could be the moment it ends. But we have been here before, so many times.
The key question – will Hamas accept what Israel has agreed to: a 60-day ceasefire?
At the weekend, a source at the heart of the negotiations told me: “Both Hamas and Israel are refusing to budge from their position – Hamas wants the ceasefire to last until a permanent agreement is reached. Israel is opposed to this. At this point only President Trump can break this deadlock.”
The source added: “Unless Trump pushes, we are in a stalemate.”
The problem is that the announcement made now by Donald Trump – which is his social-media-summarised version of whatever Israel has actually agreed to – may just amount to Israel’s already-established position.
We don’t know the details and conditions attached to Israel’s proposals.
Would Israeli troops withdraw from Gaza? Totally? Or partially? How many Palestinian prisoners would they agree to release from Israel’s jails? And why only 60 days? Why not a total ceasefire? What are they asking of Hamas in return? We just don’t know the answers to any of these questions, except one.
We do know why Israel wants a 60-day ceasefire, not a permanent one. It’s all about domestic politics.
If Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was to agree now to a permanent ceasefire, the extreme right-wingers in his coalition would collapse his government.
Itamar Ben-Gvir and Bezalel Smotrich have both been clear about their desire for the war to continue. They hold the balance of power in Mr Netanyahu’s coalition.
If Mr Netanyahu instead agrees to just 60 days – which domestically he can sell as just a pause – then that may placate the extreme right-wingers for a few weeks until the Israeli parliament, the Knesset, is adjourned for the summer.
It is also no coincidence that the US president has called for Mr Netanyahu’s corruption trial to be scrapped.
Without the prospect of jail, Mr Netanyahu might be more willing to quit the war safe in the knowledge that focus will not shift immediately to his own political and legal vulnerability.
The Women’s Euros begin in Switzerland today – with extreme heat warnings in place.
Security measures have had to be relaxed by UEFA for the opening matches so fans can bring in water bottles.
Temperatures could be about 30C (86F) when the Swiss hosts open their campaign against Norway in Basel this evening.
Players have already seen the impact of heatwaves this summer at the men’s Club World Cup in the US.
Image: The Spain squad pauses for refreshments during a training session. Pic: AP
It is raising new concerns in the global players’ union about whether the stars of the sport are being protected in hot and humid conditions.
FIFPRO has asked FIFA to allow cooling breaks every 15 minutes rather than just in the 30th minute of each half.
There’s also a request for half-time to be extended from 15 to 20 minutes to help lower the core temperature of players.
More on Football
Related Topics:
FIFPRO’s medical director, Dr Vincent Gouttebarge, said: “There are some very challenging weather conditions that we anticipated a couple of weeks ago already, that was already communicated to FIFA.
“And I think the past few weeks were confirmation of all worries that the heat conditions will play a negative role for the performance and the health of the players.”
Football has seemed focused on players and fans baking in the Middle East – but scorching summers in Europe and the US are becoming increasingly problematic for sport.
Image: England are the tournament’s defending champions. Pic: AP
While climate change is a factor, the issue is not new and at the 1994 World Cup, players were steaming as temperatures rose in the US.
There is now more awareness of the need for mitigation measures among players and their international union.
FIFPRO feels football officials weren’t responsive when it asked for kick-off times to be moved from the fierce afternoon heat in the US for the first 32-team Club World Cup.
FIFA has to balance the needs of fans and broadcasters with welfare, with no desire to load all the matches in the same evening time slots.
Electric storms have also seen six games stopped, including a two-hour pause during a Chelsea game at the weekend.
This is the dress rehearsal for the World Cup next summer, which is mostly in the US.
Image: Players are also feeling the heat at the Club World Cup. Pic: AP
The use of more indoor, air conditioned stadiums should help.
There is no prospect of moving the World Cup to winter, as Qatar had to do in 2022.
And looking further ahead to this time in 2030, there will be World Cup matches in Spain, Portugal and Morocco. The temperatures this week have been hitting 40C (104F) in some host cities.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
1:08
Wildfires erupt in Italy and France amid heatwave
FIFA said in a statement to Sky News: “Heat conditions are a serious topic that affect football globally.
“At the FCWC some significant and progressive measures are being taken to protect the players from the heat. For instance, cooling breaks were implemented in 31 out of 54 matches so far.
“Discussions on how to deal with heat conditions need to take place collectively and FIFA stands ready to facilitate this dialogue, including through the Task Force on Player Welfare, and to receive constructive input from all stakeholders on how to further enhance heat management.
“In all of this, the protection of players must be at the centre.”
Around 14 million people could die across the world over the next five years because of cuts to the US Agency for International Development (USAID), researchers have warned.
Children under five are expected to make up around a third (4.5 million) of the mortalities, according to a study published in The Lancet medical journal.
Estimates showed that “unless the abrupt funding cuts announced and implemented in the first half of 2025 are reversed, a staggering number of avoidable deaths could occur by 2030”.
“Beyond causing millions of avoidable deaths – particularly among the most vulnerable – these cuts risk reversing decades of progress in health and socioeconomic development in LMICs [low and middle-income countries],” the report said.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
2:21
March: ‘We are going to lose children’: Fears over USAID cuts in Kenya
USAID programmes have prevented the deaths of more than 91 million people, around a third of them among children, the study suggests.
The agency’s work has been linked to a 65% fall in deaths from HIV/AIDS, or 25.5 million people.
Eight million deaths from malaria, more than half the total, around 11 million from diarrheal diseases and nearly five million from tuberculosis (TB), have also been prevented.
USAID has been vital in improving global health, “especially in LMICs, particularly African nations,” according to the report.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
2:24
Queer HIV activist on Trump and Musk’s USAID cuts
Established in 1961, the agency was tasked with providing humanitarian assistance and helping economic growth in developing countries, especially those deemed strategic to Washington.
But the Trump administration has made little secret of its antipathy towards the agency, which became an early victim of cuts carried out by the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) – formerly led by Elon Musk – in what the US government said was part of a broader plan to remove wasteful spending.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
3:35
What is USAID?
In March, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio said more than 80% of USAID schemes had been closed following a six-week review, leaving around 1,000 active.
The US is the world’s largest humanitarian aid donor, providing around $61bn (£44bn) in foreign assistance last year, according to government data, or at least 38% of the total, and USAID is the world’s leading donor for humanitarian and development aid, the report said.
Between 2017 and 2020, the agency responded to more than 240 natural disasters and crises worldwide – and in 2016 it sent food assistance to more than 53 million people across 47 countries.
The study assessed all-age and all-cause mortality rates in 133 countries and territories, including all those classified as low and middle-income, supported by USAID from 2001 to 2021.