Meta announced they are testing Meta Verified, a new subscription bundle that includes account verification with impersonation protections and access to increased visibility and support. Personally, I think this decision was influenced by Twittter’s Twitter Blue subscription service.

The subscription is available for direct purchase on Instagram or Facebook in Australia and New Zealand starting later this week. People can purchase a monthly subscription (USD) $11.99 on the web and (USD) $14.99 on iOS and Android.

With Meta Verified, you’ll get:

• A verified badge, confirming you’re the real you and that your account has been authenticated by a government ID.
• More protection from impersonation with proactive account monitoring for impersonators who might target people with growing online audiences.
• Help when you need it with access to a real person for common account issues.
• Increased visibility and reach with prominence in some areas of the platform – like search, comments and recommendations.
• Exclusive features to express yourself in unique ways.

Meta stated: Its important to feel confident that your identity and accounts are safe and that the people you’re interacting with are who they say they are. That’s why we’re building a series of checks into Meta Verified before, during, and after someone applies.

• To be eligible, accounts must meet minimum activity requirements, such as prior posting history and be at least 18 years old.
• Applicants are then required to submit a government ID that matches the profile name and photo of the Facebook or Instagram account they’re applying for.
• Subscriptions will include proactive monitoring for account impersonation.

TechCrunch reported that Facebook-parent Meta has launched a subscription service called Meta Verified that will allow users to add the coveted blue check mark to their Instagram and Facebook accounts for up to a $15 a month by verifying their identity, its chief executive Mark Zuckerberg said on Sunday, tapping a revenue channel that has returned mixed success for its smaller rival Twitter.

According to TechCrunch, the revenues of Meta, which has opted not to charge its customers for most of its services in more than a decade and a half since its founding, have taken a hit in recent years following Apple’s decision to introduce stringent privacy change on iOS that curtails the social firm’s ability to track users’ internet activities.

The Zuckerberg-led firm, which makes nearly all of its money from advertising, said last year that Apple’s move would cost the company more than $10 billion in lost ads revenue in 2022.

TechCrunch also reported that Meta’s announcement follows Snap launching its own subscription service last year, through which it has converted over a million users into paid customers already.

I have an Instagram account, but I don’t use Facebook. The idea of giving Meta access to a government ID that matches the profile name on my Instagram is alarming. I don’t feel that giving that type of information to Meta is safe, especially since the company has a history of tracking people.

Meta Platforms Inc. has long given unfair deference to VIP users of its Facebook and Instagram services under a program called “cross check” and has misled the public about the program, the company’s oversight board concluded in a report issued Tuesday, The Wall Street Journal reported.

According to The Wall Street Journal, the report offers the most detailed review of cross check, which Meta has billed as a quality-control effort to prevent moderation errors on content of heightened public interest. The oversight board took up the issue more than a year ago in the wake of a Wall Street Journal article based on the internal documents that showed that cross check was plagued by favoritism, mismanagement and understaffing.

Meta’s Oversight Board posted information titled: “Oversight Board publishes policy advisory opinion on Meta’s cross-check program”. From the information:

Key Findings: The Board recognizes that the volume and complexity of content posted on Facebook and Instagram pose challenges for building systems that uphold Meta’s human rights commitments. However, in its current form, cross-check is flawed in key areas which the company must address:

Unequal treatment of users. Cross-check grants certain users greater protection than others. If a post from a user on Meta’s cross-check lists is identified as violating the company’s rules, it remains on the platform pending further review. Meta then applies its full range of policies, including exceptions and context-specific provisions, to the post, likely increasing its chances of remaining on the platform.

Ordinary users, by contrast, are much less likely to have their content reach reviewers who can apply the full range of Meta’s rules. This unequal treatment is particularly concerning given the lack of transparent criteria for Meta’s cross-check lists. While there are clear criteria for including business partners and government leaders, users whose content is likely to be important from a human rights perspective, such as journalists and civil society organizations, have less clear paths to access the program.

Lack of transparency around how cross-check works. The Board is also concerned about the limited information Meta has provided to the public and its users about cross-check. Currently, Meta does not inform users that they are on cross check lists and does not publicly share its procedures for creating and auditing these lists. It is unclear, for example, whether entities that continuously post violating content are kept on cross-check lists based on their profile. This lack of transparency impedes the Board and the public from understanding the full consequences of the program.

NPR reported that the board said Meta appeared to be more concerned with avoiding “provoking” VIPs and evading accusations of censorship than balancing tricky questions of free speech and safety. It called for the overhaul of the “flawed” program in a report on Tuesday that included wide-ranging recommendations to bring the program in line with international principles and Meta’s own stated values.

Personally, I don’t think it is fair for Meta to pick and choose which users are exempt from Meta’s rules about what people can, and can not, post. Hopefully, the Oversight Board’s review will require Meta to treat all users equally.