I have a few suggestions about the new feature that shows legacy verification status (which Twitter has now removed).
Screen names vs. IDs
The first problem is that the extension uses a list of screen names. Screen names are not unique to accounts over time in general, and this can lead to the extension giving incorrect and possibly harmful information to users. If an account that had legacy verification is deactivated by the operator or has its screen name changed, the old screen name may be taken over by an imposter's account, which would be shown by the extension as having had legacy verification.
In at least some cases Twitter seems to reserve screen names of legacy verified accounts, but I don't know of any guarantee that they do that for all legacy verifications, or that they won't stop doing it entirely in the future.
This issue also means that a legacy verified account that changes its screen name won't show up as having had legacy verification.
It would be better to use Twitter IDs, which are permanently attached to an account. This is what the Legacy Verified extension does, for example.
Mangled data
The second issue is that the list of screen names seems to have been run through some kind of spreadsheet software, resulting in some errors. For example, @00210803 was somehow changed to @210803. Both of these are existing Twitter accounts, but @00210803 had legacy verification (see for example this snapshot from July 2022 in the Wayback Machine), while @210803 was not verified. The extension gets both of these wrong, showing @210803 as legacy verified but not @00210803. Similarly @12am (previously legacy verified) was standardized to @12:00 AM, which isn't even a valid Twitter screen name. There are a few other mistakes like this.
Source and attribution
The third issue is that this feature seems to use data I posted, without attribution. With the exception of the 9 accounts that were mangled in processing, it includes exactly the same 407,520 accounts as a list from a thread I posted on April 4, with exactly the same screen names as a different version of that same list that I shared on April 20.
These 407,520 accounts were not just the accounts followed by @verified, which followed many thousands of unverified accounts, and did not follow at least hundreds of verified ones. I used several different methods to put the list together, and it's extremely unlikely that someone else would have come up with exactly the same accounts independently.
I don't really care that you're using this list without crediting me, but I think you have a responsibility to your users to indicate where it came from, so that they can decide for themselves whether I'm trustworthy or not.
I have a few suggestions about the new feature that shows legacy verification status (which Twitter has now removed).
Screen names vs. IDs
The first problem is that the extension uses a list of screen names. Screen names are not unique to accounts over time in general, and this can lead to the extension giving incorrect and possibly harmful information to users. If an account that had legacy verification is deactivated by the operator or has its screen name changed, the old screen name may be taken over by an imposter's account, which would be shown by the extension as having had legacy verification.
In at least some cases Twitter seems to reserve screen names of legacy verified accounts, but I don't know of any guarantee that they do that for all legacy verifications, or that they won't stop doing it entirely in the future.
This issue also means that a legacy verified account that changes its screen name won't show up as having had legacy verification.
It would be better to use Twitter IDs, which are permanently attached to an account. This is what the Legacy Verified extension does, for example.
Mangled data
The second issue is that the list of screen names seems to have been run through some kind of spreadsheet software, resulting in some errors. For example,
@00210803was somehow changed to@210803. Both of these are existing Twitter accounts, but@00210803had legacy verification (see for example this snapshot from July 2022 in the Wayback Machine), while@210803was not verified. The extension gets both of these wrong, showing@210803as legacy verified but not@00210803. Similarly@12am(previously legacy verified) was standardized to@12:00 AM, which isn't even a valid Twitter screen name. There are a few other mistakes like this.Source and attribution
The third issue is that this feature seems to use data I posted, without attribution. With the exception of the 9 accounts that were mangled in processing, it includes exactly the same 407,520 accounts as a list from a thread I posted on April 4, with exactly the same screen names as a different version of that same list that I shared on April 20.
These 407,520 accounts were not just the accounts followed by
@verified, which followed many thousands of unverified accounts, and did not follow at least hundreds of verified ones. I used several different methods to put the list together, and it's extremely unlikely that someone else would have come up with exactly the same accounts independently.I don't really care that you're using this list without crediting me, but I think you have a responsibility to your users to indicate where it came from, so that they can decide for themselves whether I'm trustworthy or not.