Shropshire Star

X’s blue ticks deceptive and transparency falls short of requirements, EU says

The European Commission outlined the preliminary findings from its investigation into X, formerly Twitter.

Published
Last updated

The European Union has said blue ticks on Elon Musk’s X are deceptive and the online platform falls short on transparency and accountability requirements, in the first charges against a tech company since the bloc’s new social media regulations took effect.

The European Commission outlined the preliminary findings from its investigation into X, formerly known as Twitter, under the 27-nation bloc’s Digital Services Act (DSA).

The DSA is a sweeping set of regulations that requires platforms to take more responsibility for protecting users and cleaning up their sites.

Regulators took aim at X’s blue ticks, saying they constitute “dark patterns” that are not in line with industry best practice, and can be used by malicious actors to deceive users.

After Elon Musk bought the site in 2022, it started issuing the verification marks to anyone who paid eight dollars per month (£6.20) for one.

Before Mr Musk’s acquisition, the ticks mirrored verification badges common on social media and were largely reserved for celebrities, politicians and other influential accounts.

European Commissioner Thierry Breton said: “Back in the day, BlueChecks used to mean trustworthy sources of information.

 The Twitter logo is seen on the awning of the building that houses the Twitter office in New York,
The commission said blue ticks on Elon Musk’s X are deceptive and that the online platform falls short on transparency and accountability requirements (AP)

“Now with X, our preliminary view is that they deceive users and infringe the DSA.”

The commission also charged X with failing to comply with requirements on ad transparency.

Under the DSA, platforms must publish a database of all digital advertisements they have carried, with details including who paid for them and their intended audience.

But X’s ad database has “design features and access barriers” that make it “unfit for its transparency purpose”, the commission said.

The company also falls short when it comes to giving researchers access to public data, as required by the DSA, the commission said.

Sorry, we are not accepting comments on this article.