This time it's for real.
Many of Twitter鈥檚 high-profile users are losing the that helped verify their identity and distinguish them from impostors on the Elon Musk-owned social media platform.
After several , Twitter began making good on its promise Thursday to remove the blue checks from accounts that don't pay a monthly fee to keep them. Twitter had about 300,000 verified users under the original blue-check system 鈥 many of them journalists, athletes and public figures. The checks 鈥 which used to mean the account was verified by Twitter to be who it says it is 鈥 began disappearing from these users' profiles late morning Pacific Time.
High-profile users who lost their blue checks Thursday included Beyonc茅, Pope Francis, Oprah Winfrey and former President Donald Trump.
The costs of keeping the marks range from $8 a month for individual web users to a starting price of $1,000 monthly to verify an organization, plus $50 monthly for each affiliate or employee account. Twitter does not verify the individual accounts, as was the case with the previous blue check doled out during the platform鈥檚 pre-Musk administration.
, from basketball star LeBron James to author Stephen King and Star Trek鈥檚 William Shatner, have balked at joining 鈥 although on Thursday, all three had blue checks indicating that the account paid for verification.
King, for one, said he hadn't paid.
鈥淢y Twitter account says I鈥檝e subscribed to Twitter Blue. I haven鈥檛. My Twitter account says I鈥檝e given a phone number. I haven鈥檛,鈥 King tweeted Thursday. 鈥淛ust so you know.鈥
In a reply to King's tweet, Musk said 鈥淵ou鈥檙e welcome namaste" and in another tweet he said he's 鈥減aying for a few personally.鈥 He later tweeted he was just paying for King, Shatner and James.
Singer Dionne Warwick tweeted earlier in the week that the site's verification system 鈥渋s an absolute mess.鈥
鈥淭he way Twitter is going anyone could be me now," Warwick said. She had earlier vowed not to pay for Twitter Blue, saying the monthly fee 鈥渃ould (and will) be going toward my extra hot lattes.鈥
On Thursday, Warwick lost her blue check (which is actually a white check mark in a blue background).
For users who still had a blue check Thursday, a popup message indicated that the account 鈥渋s verified because they are subscribed to Twitter Blue and verified their phone number.鈥 Verifying a phone number simply means that the person has a phone number and they verified that they have access to it 鈥 it does not confirm the person's identity.
It wasn't just celebrities and journalists who lost their blue checks Thursday. Many government agencies, nonprofits and public-service accounts around the world found themselves no longer verified, raising concerns that Twitter could lose its status as a platform for getting accurate, up-to-date information from authentic sources, including in emergencies.
While Twitter offers gold checks for 鈥渧erified organizations鈥 and gray checks for government organizations and their affiliates, it's not clear how the platform doles these out and they were not seen Thursday on many previously verified agency and public service accounts.
The official Twitter account of the New York City government, which earlier had a blue check, tweeted on Thursday that "This is an authentic Twitter account representing the New York City Government This is the only account for @NYCGov run by New York City government" in an attempt to clear up confusion.
A newly created spoof account with 36 followers (also without a blue check), disagreed: 鈥淣o, you鈥檙e not. THIS account is the only authentic Twitter account representing and run by the New York City Government.鈥
Soon, another spoof account 鈥 purporting to be Pope Francis 鈥 weighed in too: "By the authority vested in me, Pope Francis, I declare @NYC_GOVERNMENT the official New York City Government. Peace be with you."
Fewer than 5% of legacy verified accounts appear to have paid to join Twitter Blue as of Thursday, according to an analysis by Travis Brown, a Berlin-based developer of software for tracking social media.
Musk鈥檚 move has riled up some high-profile users and pleased some right-wing figures and Musk fans who thought the marks were unfair. But it is not an obvious money-maker for the social media platform that has long relied on advertising for most of its revenue.
Digital intelligence platform Similarweb analyzed how many people signed up for Twitter Blue on their desktop computers and only detected 116,000 confirmed sign-ups last month, which at $8 or $11 per month does not represent a major revenue stream. The analysis did not count accounts bought via mobile apps.
After buying San Francisco-based Twitter for $44 billion in October, Musk has been trying to boost the struggling platform鈥檚 revenue by pushing more people to pay for a premium subscription. But his move also reflects his assertion that the blue verification marks have become an undeserved or 鈥渃orrupt鈥 status symbol for elite personalities, news reporters and others granted verification for free by Twitter鈥檚 previous leadership.
Twitter began tagging profiles with a blue check mark starting about 14 years ago. Along with shielding celebrities from impersonators, one of the main reasons was to provide an extra tool to curb misinformation coming from accounts impersonating people. Most 鈥渓egacy blue checks,鈥 including the accounts of politicians, activists and people who suddenly find themselves in the news, as well as little-known journalists at small publications around the globe, are not household names.
One of Musk鈥檚 first product moves after taking over Twitter was to launch a service granting blue checks to anyone willing to pay $8 a month. But it was including those impersonating Nintendo, pharmaceutical company Eli Lilly and Musk鈥檚 businesses Tesla and SpaceX, so Twitter had to temporarily suspend the service days after its launch.
The relaunched service costs $8 a month for web users and $11 a month for users of its iPhone or Android apps. Subscribers are supposed to see fewer ads, be able to post longer videos and have their tweets featured more prominently.
___
AP Technology Writer Matt O'Brien contributed to this report.
