Nov 6: In an update for Apple devices, the company said the feature would be open to users in certain countries who sign up to its Twitter Blue service for $7.99 (£7) per month.
The policy change is controversial, amid concerns that the platform could be swamped with fake accounts.
It follows Twitter's takeover by Elon Musk, who on Friday laid off around half of the company's workforce.
The sought-after blue tick was previously only available to high-profile or influential individuals and organisations - who were asked to prove their identity.
It has been used as a sign that a profile is authentic, and is a key tool to help users identify reliable information on the platform.
The policy change may fuel worries that government figures, celebrities, journalists and brands could be impersonated by any user willing to pay a monthly fee.
Mr Musk, the world's richest person, appears to be looking to diversify Twitter's income, following his acquisition of the firm late last month in a $44bn (£39bn) deal.
On Friday, the billionaire said Twitter was losing more than $4m (£3.5m) per day, insisting that this gave him "no choice" over culling around half the company's 7,500-strong workforce.
The cuts - as well as Mr Musk's fierce advocacy of free speech - have caused speculation that Twitter could water down its efforts on content moderation.
However, Mr Musk has insisted that the firm's stance towards harmful material remains "absolutely unchanged".
On Saturday a top United Nations official, Human Rights Commissioner Volker Türk, urged Mr Musk to "ensure that human rights are central to the management of Twitter".
The unusual UN intervention pointed to the sacking of Twitter's whole human rights team, saying this was "not an encouraging start" under Mr Musk's ownership.
There was no immediate response from Twitter.
Few details were publicised relating to the change in verification policy, and a Twitter Blue subscription reportedly remained at its old price of £4.99 in the UK following Saturday's announcement.
Twitter's update said the changes would apply only in the UK, US, Canada, Australia and New Zealand at first.
A flurry of tweets from Mr Musk himself suggested the changes would be rolled out worldwide after they were observed in the initial handful of countries.
It was not clear what would happen to those profiles which already had a blue tick - or if Twitter still planned to "verify" a user other than by charging them a subscription.
Responding to one user who asked what would happen to existing verified profiles, Mr Musk said the timeline for changes to be implemented was a "couple [of] months".
Answering another question about the risk of users pretending to be notable figures, he said Twitter would "suspend the account attempting impersonation and keep the money".
Previewing other upcoming changes, Mr Musk said Twitter would soon allow users to attach long-form text to tweets, "ending [the] absurdity of notepad screenshots".
Earlier on Saturday, Twitter co-founder and ex-CEO Jack Dorsey addressed the mass sackings, saying sorry to employees for what had unfolded at his former firm.
Mr Dorsey - who quit as CEO in November and left the board of directors in May - said he was aware Twitter staff were "angry with me".
His statement continued: "I own the responsibility for why everyone is in this situation: I grew the company size too quickly. I apologise for that."
Mr Dorsey appeared to endorse the need for dismissals. Earlier this year, he expressed support for Mr Musk's takeover.
A host of major brands have halted advertising spending with Twitter in recent days amid the company's upheaval.
Mr Musk has been looking to decrease the platform's reliance on adverts - and Saturday's update also promised "half the ads". (With inputs from BBC)
Oct 29: "To be super clear, we have not yet made any changes to Twitter's content moderation policies," he tweeted.
Earlier he announced the creation of a new council to moderate posts.
He also tweeted that "anyone suspended for minor & dubious reasons" would be "freed from Twitter jail".
"Comedy is now legal on Twitter," he said.
Senior figures at Twitter have announced their exits since Mr Musk took over after long delays to the deal.
Questions are focused on Mr Musk's future plans for the site.
The potential changes have drawn scrutiny from regulators and divided Twitter's own users, some of whom are worried Mr Musk will loosen regulations governing hate speech and misinformation, and some of whom feel the previous management curtailed free speech with overly rigorous rules.
Mr Musk said Twitter would be forming a council with "widely diverse viewpoints".
"No major content decisions or account reinstatements will happen before that council convenes," he said, shortly before confirming that Twitter had ended artist Kanye West's suspension from the platform before his acquisition.
Rapper Kanye West, known as Ye, had been suspended from the platform for anti-Semitic comments.
Finance chief Ned Segal was among the senior leaders to announce his exit from the company after Musk's takeover. Chairman of the board Bret Taylor has also left and it was widely reported that Twitter's chief executive Parag Agrawal - a target of Mr Musk's criticism - was among the people fired, although Mr Agrawal still has "ceo @twitter" on his Twitter profile.
General Motors - the largest US carmaker and a rival to Mr Musk's Tesla - says it has temporarily halted paid advertising on Twitter. GM said it was "engaging with Twitter to understand the direction of the platform under their new ownership".
"The bird is free," Mr Musk wrote on the platform late on Thursday, while assuring advertisers in a public note that he did not want Twitter to become a "free-for-all hellscape".
He has signalled he wants widespread change at Twitter. A self-styled "free speech absolutist", he has said he sees the platform as a forum for public debate and is willing to reverse bans on controversial users, including former President Donald Trump.
Ex-finance chief Segal tweeted that his time at the company was the "most fulfilling of my career" and reflected on the strain caused by the uncertainty of the last six months.
"You learn so much when times are challenging and unpredictable, when we are tired or feel our integrity questioned," Mr Segal said, alluding to Mr Musk's public criticism of the company's leadership.
"I have great hope for Twitter," he added.
In Europe, the commissioner in charge of overseeing the EU's digital market, Thierry Breton, tweeted: "In Europe, the bird will fly by our EU rules" - suggesting regulators will take a tough stance against any relaxation of Twitter's policies.
In the US, Stop the Deal, a coalition of left-wing activist groups including Fair Vote UK and Media Matters for America, said Mr Musk had a "thirst for chaos" and his potential plans would make Twitter "an even more hate-filled cesspool, leading to irreparable real-world harm".
Mr Trump, who was banned from Twitter last year following the Capitol riot in January 2021, said he was happy Twitter was now in "sane hands" while stating his "love" for his own Twitter-like service, Truth Social.
Dmitry Medvedev, Russia's former president and current deputy head of the Security Council, also welcomed the new ownership.
"Good luck @elonmusk in overcoming political bias and ideological dictatorship on Twitter," tweeted Mr Medvedev.
Oct 6: Members of Opec+ - a group that includes Saudi Arabia and Russia - said they would slash production by two million barrels per day.
The group said it wanted to stabilise prices, which have fallen in recent months as the world economy slows.
But the decision raised fears that prices for motorists will climb.
Expectations that countries were planning to pump less had already pushed oil prices higher this week. The price of a barrel of Brent crude jumped another almost 2% to more than $93 a barrel on Wednesday.
A spokesman for the RAC motoring group said the reduction announced Wednesday would "inevitably" lead to higher oil prices, forcing up the wholesale cost of fuel.
"The question is when, and to what extent, retailers choose to pass these increased costs on at their forecourts," spokesman Simon Williams said.
The cut announced by the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (Opec) and allies marks the biggest reduction by the group since the height of the pandemic in 2020.
It comes despite pleas from the US and others to pump more, after oil prices spiked this spring when the war in Ukraine disrupted supplies.
In a statement, the White House said US President Joe Biden was "disappointed by the short-sighted decision".
The US pledged to continue to release oil from national stockpiles "as appropriate" and look at other ways to try to rein in prices at the pump, which are a key issue for American voters in midterm elections scheduled for November.
The move is also likely to disrupt US-led efforts to set a price cap for oil from Russia, a plan the US had suggested as a way to limit money flowing into the country and being put toward military use.
Opec members defended their decision as a response to significant "uncertainty" about future demand for oil, amid fears that the global economy is headed to a recession.
"The decision is technical, not political," United Arab Emirates Energy Minister Suhail al-Mazroui told reporters as Opec+ members gathered in Vienna to discuss the plans.
Oil politics
The latest decision by OPEC+ is not just significant for oil markets, but for geopolitics as well.
The fact that the Saudi-led cartel has taken this decision just three months after President Joe Biden's controversial trip to Saudi Arabia to convince the kingdom's de facto ruler, Crown Prince Mohammed Bin Salman to pump more barrels to cool down prices is a huge blow for the White House.
The move not only carries the risk of pushing up oil prices but will also damage efforts by the West to restrict the Russian oil income used to sustain its war in Ukraine.
Many countries will see this as a clear indication of major oil producers, especially Saudi Arabia siding with Russia in the name of protective oil market management.
It appears that the decision had support across the group as the OPEC+ energy ministers approved the proposal in a meeting that lasted 30 minutes.
As far as oil markets go, even though this is a substantial reduction, the actual impact on global supplies on the ground would be smaller because several members of OPEC+ are already pumping far below their official quotas.
But that may not be enough to calm the sentiments of the oil markets in the coming days.
Higher oil prices were a major driver of the run-up in consumer prices that hit countries around the world earlier this year, pushing inflation rates to levels not seen in decades and raising political tensions.
The more recent drop had provided some relief to consumers, even as prices of many other staples, including food, continue to rise.
A barrel of Brent Crude oil was trading at $84.06 in late September - down from highs of around $130 this spring.
Despite falling oil prices and concerns about the global economy, Caroline Bain, chief commodities economist for research firm Capital Economics, said it was unusual timing to slash supply.
"Global oil stocks are historically low and, so far, high prices have failed to materially dent demand," she added.
Analysts said that the impact of the cuts is likely to be less significant than its size might suggest, since some countries were already producing less than they had said they would, with Capital predicting a 1% drop in global supplies as a result.
Kathleen Brooks, director at Minerva Analysis, said the output cut was the "worst case scenario people were looking for" - one that would weigh on UK financial markets and raise fears that prices across the economy would continue to rise.
It "changes the narrative in terms of peak inflation - we might not be there yet," she said.
AUG 3: At the heart of the divide is that the Chinese government sees Taiwan as a breakaway province that will, eventually, be part of the country.
But many Taiwanese people consider their self-ruled island to be a separate nation - whether or not independence is ever officially declared.
What is the history between China and Taiwan?
The first known settlers in Taiwan were Austronesian tribal people, who are thought to have come from modern day southern China.
The island seems to have first appeared in Chinese records in AD239, when an emperor sent an expeditionary force to explore the area - a fact Beijing uses to back its territorial claim.
After a relatively brief spell as a Dutch colony (1624-1661), Taiwan was administered by China's Qing dynasty from 1683 to 1895.
From the 17th Century, significant numbers of migrants started arriving from China, often fleeing turmoil or hardship. Most were Hoklo Chinese from Fujian (Fukien) province or Hakka Chinese, largely from Guangdong. Their descendants are now by far the largest demographic groups on the island.
In 1895, Japan won the First Sino-Japanese War, and the Qing government had to cede Taiwan to Japan. After World War Two, Japan surrendered and relinquished control of territory it had taken from China. The Republic of China (ROC) - one of the victors in the war - began ruling Taiwan with the consent of its allies, the US and UK.
But in the next few years a civil war broke out in China, and the then-leader Chiang Kai-shek's troops were defeated by Mao Zedong's Communist army.
Chiang, the remnants of his Kuomintang (KMT) government and their supporters - about 1.5m people - fled to Taiwan in 1949.
This group, referred to as Mainland Chinese, dominated Taiwan's politics for many years though they only account for 14% of the population. Chiang established a government in exile in Taiwan which he led for the next 25 years.
Chiang's son, Chiang Ching-kuo, allowed more democratisation after coming to power. He faced resistance from local people resentful of authoritarian rule and was under pressure from a growing democracy movement.
President Lee Teng-hui, known as Taiwan's "father of democracy", led constitutional changes towards, which eventually made way for the election of the island's first non-KMT president, Chen Shui-bian, in 2000.
So who recognises Taiwan?
There is disagreement and confusion about what Taiwan is.
It has its own constitution, democratically-elected leaders, and about 300,000 active troops in its armed forces.
Chiang's ROC government-in-exile at first claimed to represent the whole of China, which it intended to re-occupy. It held China's seat on the United Nations Security Council and was recognised by many Western nations as the only Chinese government.
But by the 1970s some countries began to argue that the Taipei government could no longer be considered a genuine representative of the hundreds of millions of people living in mainland China.
Then in 1971, the UN switched diplomatic recognition to Beijing and the ROC government was forced out. In 1978, China also began opening up its economy. Recognising opportunities for trade and the need to develop relations, the US formally established diplomatic ties with Beijing in 1979.
Since then the number of countries that recognise the ROC government diplomatically has fallen drastically to about 15.
Now, despite having all the characteristic of an independent state and a political system that is distinct from China, Taiwan's legal status remains unclear.
How are relations between Taiwan and China?
Relations started improving in the 1980s as Taiwan relaxed rules on visits to and investment in China. In 1991, it proclaimed that the war with the People's Republic of China was over.
China proposed the so-called "one country, two systems" option, which it said would allow Taiwan significant autonomy if it agreed to come under Beijing's control. This system underpinned Hong Kong's return to China in 1997 and the manner in which it was governed until recently, when Beijing has sought to increase its influence.
Taiwan rejected the offer and Beijing's insisted that Taiwan's ROC government is illegitimate - but unofficial representatives from China and Taiwan still held limited talks.
Then in 2000, Taiwan elected Chen Shui-bian as president, much to Beijing's alarm. Mr Chen and his party, the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), had openly backed "independence".
A year after Mr Chen was re-elected in 2004, China passed a so-called anti-secession law, stating China's right to use "non-peaceful means" against Taiwan if it tried to "secede" from China.
Mr Chen was succeeded by the KMT's Ma Ying-jeou in 2008 who tried improving relations through economic agreements.
Eight years later, in 2016, Taiwan's current president Tsai Ing-wen, who now leads the independence-leaning DPP, was elected.
The rhetoric sharpened further in 2018 as Beijing stepped up pressure on international companies - if they failed to list Taiwan as a part of China on their websites, it threatened to block them from doing business in China.
Ms Tsai won a second term in 2020 with a record-breaking 8.2 million votes in what was widely seen as a snub to Beijing. By then Hong Kong had seen months of unrest, with huge protesters against the mainland's growing influence - and many in Taiwan were watching closely.
Later that year, China's implemented a national security law in Hong Kong that is considered to be yet another sign of Beijing's assertion.
How much of an issue is independence in Taiwan?
While political progress has been slow, links between Beijing and Taipei, and the two economies have grown. Between 1991 and the end of May 2021, Taiwanese investment in China totalled $193.5bn (£157.9bn), Taiwanese official figures show.
Some Taiwanese people worry their economy is now dependent on China. Others believe that closer business ties make Chinese military action less likely, because of the cost to China's own economy.
A controversial trade agreement sparked the "Sunflower Movement" in 2014, where students and activists occupied Taiwan's parliament protesting against what they called China's growing influence over Taiwan.
Officially, the ruling DPP still favours formal independence for Taiwan, while the KMT favours eventual unification with China.
But most Taiwanese people seem to fall somewhere in between. A June 2022 survey found that only 5.2% of Taiwanese supported independence as soon as possible, while 1.3% were in favour of unification with mainland China at the earliest possibility.
The rest supported some form of maintaining the status quo, with the largest group wanting to maintain it indefinitely with no move towards either independence or unification.
What does the US have to do with the China-Taiwan divide?
Washington's long-standing policy has been one of "strategic ambiguity" to the extent that it would intervene militarily if China were to invade Taiwan.
Officially, it sticks to the "One-China" policy, which recognises only one Chinese government - in Beijing - and has formal ties with Beijing rather than Taipei.
But it has also pledged to supply Taiwan with defensive weapons and stressed that any attack by China would cause "grave concern".
In May 2022, President Joe Biden replied in the affirmative when asked whether the US would defend Taiwan militarily. Soon after, the White House quickly clarified that the US position on Taiwan had not changed and reiterated its commitment to the "One-China" policy. It has similarly contradicted previous statements by Mr Biden on military support for Taiwan.
The issue of Taiwan has also strained relations between the US and China. Beijing has condemned any perceived support from Washington for Taipei - and has responded by stepping up incursions of military jets into Taiwan's air defence zone since Mr Biden's election.
With inputs from BBC
FEB 22; Russia said the troops would engage in "peacekeeping" in the self-declared Donetsk and Luhansk people's republics.
But the US said calling them peacekeepers was "nonsense", and that Russia was creating a pretext for war.
The two regions are home to Russian-backed rebels who have been fighting Ukrainian forces since 2014.
Ukraine's president accused Russia of wilfully violating its sovereignty.
In a late-night televised address to the nation, President Volodymyr Zelensky said Ukraine wanted peace, but declared: "We are not afraid" and "will not give anything away to anyone". Kyiv needed "clear and effective actions of support" from its international partners, he said.
"It is very important to see now who our real friend and partner is, and who will continue to scare the Russian Federation with words only," he added.
At an emergency meeting of the UN Security Council, US Ambassador Linda Thomas-Greenfield dismissed Russia's claims that troops would be taking on a "peacekeeping" role, saying: "We know what they really are".
Recognising Luhansk and Donetsk as independent was part of Russia's bid to create a reason to invade Ukraine, she said.
Meanwhile, Russia's UN Ambassador Vasily Nebenzya argued for the need to defend the rebel-held areas in eastern Ukraine's Donbas region from what he called Ukrainian aggression. "Allowing a new bloodbath in the Donbas is something we do not intend to do," he said.
In recent years, Russian passports have been given out to large numbers of people in Donetsk and Luhansk, and Western allies fear Russia will now move military units in under the guise of protecting its citizens.
In an hour-long address on Monday, Mr Putin said modern Ukraine had been "created" by Soviet Russia, referring to the country as "ancient Russian lands".
He referred to Russia having been "robbed" during the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, accused Ukraine of being a "US colony" run by a puppet government, and alleged that people were suffering under its current leadership. He painted the 2014 protests which toppled Ukraine's pro-Russia leader as a coup.
'It's unacceptable and unprovoked'
The US swiftly condemned Mr Putin's move, and President Joe Biden signed an executive order that prohibits new investment, trade and financing by Americans in the breakaway regions. The White House said the measures were separate to wider Western sanctions which are ready to go "should Russia further invade Ukraine".
UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson said Russia's actions amounted to "a flagrant violation of the sovereignty and integrity of Ukraine" that breaks international law. He said it was "a very ill omen and a very dark sign". He is set to chair a meeting of the government's emergency committee on Tuesday to agree a significant package of sanctions against Russia.
The European Union pledged to "react with unity, firmness and with determination in solidarity with Ukraine".
Australia's Prime Minister Scott Morrison rejected the suggestion that Russian troops would have a peacekeeping brief, telling reporters: "It's unacceptable, it's unprovoked, it's unwarranted... some suggestion that they are peacekeeping is nonsense."
The move by Vladimir Putin deepens the ongoing crisis in Ukraine, which is surrounded by more than 150,000 Russian troops on its borders. Russia has denied planning to invade, but the US believes an attack is imminent.
Both Germany's Chancellor Olaf Scholz and French President Emmanuel Macron spoke with the Russian leader ahead of his announcement. Western powers have rallied behind Ukraine, promising harsh sanctions against Russia if it invades - though it is not yet clear how far the response to this move will go.
Putin builds to a showdown
This speech was Putin the angry, impatient and directly threatening. It felt like Russia's president was getting 20-odd years of hurt off his chest and hitting back.
"You didn't want us to be friends," was how he put it to the West, "but you didn't have to make an enemy of us."
There was a lot we've heard before, repackaged for this moment when he knows he has maximum attention.
He's clearly ceding no ground on his key security demands: Nato expansion must be rolled back, and Ukrainian membership is a red line. He complained that Russia's concerns had been ignored as irrelevant for years and accused the West of trying to "contain" Russia as a resurgent global force.
Mr Putin's focus on Ukraine felt obsessive, like a man who thinks about little else. At times it sounded like a bid to run for president there, it was so detailed.
And, of course, there was his re-writing of Ukrainian history, to claim it has never really been a state. In today's context, that had deeply ominous overtones.
Recognising the two breakaway regions of Ukraine could mean Russian troops go in openly, very soon - invited as "peacemakers". Or there could be a pause, as Putin waits to see his opponent's next move.
In all this, Ukraine is the battleground. But it's also a game of brinkmanship between Russia and the West, rapidly building to a showdown.
Groundwork for the controversial decision was laid earlier on Monday, when Mr Putin convened Russia's security council to discuss recognising the self-declared republics as independent.
Mr Putin's top officials were called to a podium to deliver their views, each speaking in favour of the move. Monday's televised meeting was not entirely smooth, however.
Two officials, during their exchanges with Mr Putin, appeared to reference the possibility to "incorporate" the regions into Russia. On both occasions, Mr Putin corrected them.
"We are not talking about that, we are not discussing that," he said, shaking his head in response to one official's use of the phrase. "We are talking about whether to recognise their independence or not."
New Dilli, Oct 2. All UK nationals arriving in India from Monday will have to undergo 10-day mandatory quarantine, irrespective of their vaccination status, sources told India News Network. India has decided to undertake this reciprocal measure following the UK’s controversial rules on mandatory 10-day quarantine for the Indian nationals arriving in Britain. “From October […]
The post India slaps tit-for-tat curbs on travel by UK nationals appeared first on Aarthiknews:: A leading business & economic news portal from Nepal.
Ever since nuclear weapons were manufactured in 1945, the countries possessing them have their own motivation to retain them despite their pledges to get rid of them as part of their obligations as required by the 1968 Treaty on the Non-proliferation of the Nuclear Weapons (NPT). The number of countries having nuclear weapons has now reached nine. The international community recognises only five nations – the US, Russia, the UK, France and China – as the sole possessors of nuclear weapons. Nuclear powers value them for deterrence.
Deterrence has been a controversial principle
