First off, let’s get one thing straight: I don’t mind paying for things.

I don’t expect to get anything free in life, and I understand companies are there to make money. I happily hand my money to companies all the time for things I want or need: books delivered to my door, video streaming services, nifty computer gizmos…

But I am not going to pay for Twitter.

At least, not under the new terms set out by Twitter under Elon Musk.

The social media company has announced it will start winding down its legacy verification system starting tomorrow, April 1. For those less familiar with Twitter, this is all about the blue check mark, or tick, that appears next to some names on the platform.

The blue check used to mean something. Though not perfect, the system aspired to ensure the person “verified” was actually who they say they are. It was an important way for users to know who was saying what, and to avoid impersonation and misinformation.

From tomorrow, all this changes. Twitter will be requiring users to pay US$8 a month for their “Twitter Blue” service, to get a blue check – or just retain the one they have.

A blue tick goes from meaning, “I am who I say I am,” to simply, “someone – maybe me, maybe not me – paid 8 clams.”

Now, I would be willing to pay for a genuine verification service – but not for little status symbol that means nothing. Neither, at this point in time, will HRW, a position that many other NGOs seem to be taking as well. 

More importantly, the new system will be “pay to play.” Those who haven’t coughed up the monthly fee will be at a disadvantage in Twitter’s algorithm.

This will be awful for those who can’t afford the new fees. It will damage the effectiveness of local activists, including human rights activists, who have long used Twitter for grassroots organizing.

I am not naive. Twitter, like all social media platforms, has had a lot of flaws.

For example, they never properly tackled online abuse and harassment, which targeted some people more than others. I received the occasional death threat on Twitter, but as research by groups like Glitch UK and Hate Aid show, things are far worse for anyone who doesn’t look like me.

Still, at its best, Twitter at least gave us a glimpse of what a true “digital public square” could be, a place I could go to hear the voices of those I’m most interested in.

Now, it risks becoming more like a pennysaver circular of micro-advertisers and every crackpot who has a loopy opinion and 8 bucks to spare.

Nope, I’m not paying for that.

(written by Jan Kooy)

Justice can take a long time, but there’s now hope some survivors and victims’ families will see justice for crimes committed during and after the 1998-1999 Kosovo conflict.

On Monday, the Kosovo Specialist Chambers in The Hague will start the trial of former Kosovo president Hashim Thaçi and three other key figures suspected of war crimes and crimes against humanity.

The trial offers a welcome opportunity to learn the truth and pursue accountability.

It also highlights the glaring lack of justice that hangs over the Kosovo conflict, and indeed all the wars in the former Yugoslavia.

In Kosovo’s conflict, the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA) fought Serbian and Yugoslav forces until a NATO air campaign pushed Belgrade’s forces out of Kosovo. The vast majority of war crimes were committed by Serbian and Yugoslav forces, but only a handful of individuals have been held to account.

Thaçi and three other senior KLA members are accused of committing terrible crimes during and after the war, including against people from various ethnic groups, in Kosovo and northern Albania.

The Thaçi trial can help set Kosovo on a clearer path toward justice and rule of law after a history of oppression.

It also puts the spotlight on the Serbian government to hold its own forces, at all levels, to account.

(written by Emily Palomo)

The UN General Assembly has adopted a resolution seeking an International Court of Justice (ICJ) advisory opinion on climate change. 

It may sound a bit procedural, but it’s a milestone in defining the human rights obligations of governments.

The resolution was initiated by Vanuatu, a South Pacific island state whose very existence is at risk from climate change, and it’s part of an effort to have climate harm recognized in international law.

More than 1,700 civil society groups across 130 countries endorsed Vanuatu’s climate justice initiative. 

The resolution asks the ICJ to clarify states’ obligations regarding climate change, including their human rights obligations to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

It also asks the court for guidance on questions of accountability for “states that have caused significant harm to the climate,” including towards small island states and to people adversely affected by climate change. 

We all now await the court’s well-reasoned answers to these crucial questions.

(compiled by Emily Palomo)

• Russia’s Security Service Arrests American Reporter (HRW)
• Bangladesh should halt ‘pilot’ plan to return Rohingya (HRW) 
• Climate, coups risk African goal of silencing guns by 2030 (Reuters) 
• El Salvador: The Bukele model (El País International)

It’s time once again to see how closely you’ve been following this week’s human rights news. Aiza Rodrigues Akhtar and Emily Palomo have prepared:

Our 5-question quiz! 

In yesterday’s story on Burkina Faso, I said the country’s transitional military government had suspended international news channel France24 after broadcasting an interview with the self-proclaimed leader of Al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb. I should have specified, they only aired 19 seconds of that interview.

I wrote that the authorities’ suspension of France24 was unjustifiable and that it violates the right to a free and independent media – and national law. That’s all still true. In fact, the suspension is even more ridiculous if it’s based on a 19-second clip.

Thanks to the reader who pointed it out. We’ve corrected the story online.

Today is sadly Emily Palomo’s last day at Human Rights Watch.

As a trainee here in Brussels, Emily has been instrumental in producing this newsletter every weekday for the past six months. She’s been a key member of the team that created and regularized all the processes behind our new format. She’s also been the driving force behind our weekly quiz from its inception.

Thanks, Emily, for helping to make the Daily Brief what it is today!