(Last updated: 2025-07-26)
This article is a memo by me, Shohei KIMURA, representative of the bitBuyer Project, documenting “rare events on the Meta platform that are either unverified or difficult to verify.” The explanations of observed facts herein are based solely on my records and recollections, and no independent evidence such as screenshots has been preserved (i.e., absence of evidence is the premise). Furthermore, all opinions, analyses, and inferences in this article are based 100% on insights derived from dialogues with ChatGPT (a conversational AI) and are not intended as definitive statements of fact. They are unrelated to any official information published by Meta and do not represent Meta’s official position.
Observed Facts: Summaries of events as I understood them at the time (no guarantee of reproducibility or verifiability)
Opinions (ChatGPT-derived): Hypotheses, inferences, and evaluations obtained through dialogue with ChatGPT (including multiple interpretations and limitations)
Correction and Update Policy: Should Meta or relevant parties provide reasonable and specific explanations, log disclosures, or objections, corrections and updates will be promptly made.
For any Meta-related articles on this site, if Meta (or its representatives) requests “deletion/correction,” such requests must be specific and comply with the following conditions for disclosure of reasons. Broad or abstract deletion/correction requests without disclosure of reasons may be considered as evidence of a lack of corporate fairness, transparency, and accountability.
Conditions for Disclosure of Reasons (Key Points):
- Identification of the relevant section (URL, paragraph number, quoted portion, etc.)
- Legal or contractual grounds (e.g., defamation, damage to reputation, violation of Article 2(1)(14) of the Unfair Competition Prevention Act, privacy, copyright, relevant Terms of Service clauses, etc.)
- Claim as to whether the relevant statement constitutes “factual assertion” or “opinion/commentary” (including assertions of truth, reasonable belief, or appropriateness of commentary)
- Explanation of why measures short of deletion (e.g., annotations, corrections) are insufficient
- A response deadline (providing a reasonable period for our review and response)
For more details, as well as the fundamental policies applicable to all Meta-related articles on this site (including correction/update policies, handling of publication/non-publication, and methods of evidence preservation), please refer to the following hub article:
【Account Permanent Suspension Incident Article (Basic Policies, Disclosure Requirements, and Correction/Update Policy)】
As the lead developer behind the open-source bitBuyer Project, I was granted Meta verification on Facebook on April 12, 2025 — and just two months later, the “New & Rising Creator” badge quietly appeared on my profile.
To a casual observer, this may seem like a lucky streak of platform flukes. But for those familiar with the broader context of the project, it may well suggest that the algorithm saw… something.
This post is an attempt to document that sequence — the conditions that preceded it, and the implications that followed — in the clearest possible terms.
For context, see the previous article: “How Facebook’s Algorithm Responded to Meta Verification: The Moment It Recognized Me as an Open-Source Developer”
Meta Verification Was, Surprisingly, Instant
On April 12, 2025, as part of my efforts to promote and develop the bitBuyer Project in parallel, I applied for Meta verification on Facebook — the well-known blue checkmark.
Traditionally reserved for influencers, media figures, or public personalities, the badge has recently begun appearing on profiles of individual professionals and small-scale creators, provided they demonstrate a high level of contribution and distinctiveness in their respective fields.
In preparation for the review, I ensured every relevant element was in place: my real name, a fully built-out public profile, a record of ongoing activity, a well-structured official site (bitbuyer.dev), and publicly documented GitHub contributions. I also made sure my profile photo matched all other identity markers to maximize verifiability. From an open-source development perspective, it was a clean submission — and, I thought, a long shot.
And yet, within minutes of submitting the application, I was approved.
Meta’s official guidance suggests the review can take up to 48 hours — which made the speed of this result rather extraordinary.
According to ChatGPT, “instant approval in verification processes — especially for solo OSS developers — is exceedingly rare”. It goes without saying that technical accuracy and identity consistency are prerequisites. But the implication here is that Meta’s systems, algorithmic or human, may have recognized something more — something about the project’s uniqueness, transparency, and credibility.
This event suggests that open-source development — an often anonymous and abstract kind of labor — is increasingly being acknowledged, even by global platforms like Facebook, as something that merits social trust and visibility.
Recognized by Meta: What the Badges Really Signify for an OSS Developer
Exactly two months after receiving instant Meta verification, on June 17, 2025, a second badge appeared on my profile — this time, labeled “New & Rising Creator”. While the name sounds almost whimsical, its appearance was anything but random. In my view, it reflected an unmistakable judgment by the platform: one based on growth, consistency, and perceived credibility.
Several factors likely converged to trigger this designation. As the OSS developer behind the bitBuyer Project — and also a novelist and private investor — I had presented myself consistently as a self-employed creator with multiple specializations. My profile said so; so did my publishing history. And on the Facebook side, I had met several quiet thresholds the algorithm seems to favor: a daily rise in followers, a steady posting cadence, and dense, highly specific content across every post.
Taken together, this pattern seemed to suggest that Meta’s system had begun to recognize OSS developers — not just entertainers or public figures — as a legitimate species of creator.
The New & Rising Creator badge, which Meta began distributing in select regions in 2023, has never had its selection criteria publicly disclosed. But based on ChatGPT’s synthesis of observed trends, recipients tend to match one or more of the following:
- A clear thematic identity, with consistent focus on a specialized field (e.g., OSS development, fraud prevention, legal strategy)
- A documented increase in followers over the previous 30 days
- Full adherence to Meta’s content moderation standards
- Verified account status (strongly correlated, though not confirmed)
In my case, the badge appeared just after my follower count crossed into the 2,200s — a respectable number, but far from the norm for creators typically associated with Meta features. I’m not a video producer. I don’t run ads regularly. I did, during that period, run a five-day test campaign for follower acquisition, but no paid promotion was sustained. So if a signal was detected, it likely came not from volume — but from structure.
Moreover, my content wasn’t limited to OSS development. It branched into scam prevention, legal system critique, and literary expression through fictional characters from Western dramas — all of which added dimension to the feed and, perhaps, helped categorize me as a multi-domain creator.
ChatGPT notes that this badge tends to favor creators who are either rapidly emerging in a specific niche, or operating across multiple languages and domains simultaneously. I happen to do both — publishing consistently in Japanese, English, Spanish, and even Arabic — while anchoring most of that output around the central thread of OSS development.
Given that, it’s not hard to imagine why the badge appeared when it did. Meta may have seen a blend of frequency, consistency, and structural contribution — the kind that doesn’t just say “this person posts a lot”, but “this person has a system”.
In that sense, this might mark a subtle shift in what Facebook, as a platform, is beginning to recognize — not just visual polish, but conceptual clarity. Not just engagement, but contribution.
A Rare Signal: What This Means for OSS Developers and Meta’s Algorithmic Shift
The Meta verification badge and the “New & Rising Creator” designation were never just cosmetic. At least in my case, they seemed directly tied to the posture I had adopted from the start: showing my real name, my real face, and publishing my thoughts without hiding behind abstraction. I became — visibly and consistently — an OSS developer with a face.
According to ChatGPT, “Meta’s algorithm places extraordinary emphasis on contextual integrity”. In my case, that meant technical transparency paired with a steady rhythm of posts across several disciplines — OSS development, financial ethics, scam awareness, even multilingual literary experiments using characters from international dramas. Together, these formed a pattern Meta may have found label-worthy.
This may indicate a subtle but important shift: OSS developers — long peripheral to social media’s spotlight — are beginning to register as socially legible, algorithmically visible creators.
For years, visibility on social platforms skewed toward entertainment, lifestyle, commerce, and sports. The inclusion of nonprofit technical work — especially the kind grounded in open-source values — represents a broader recognition of what contribution can look like.
Meta appears to be positioning the New & Rising Creator badge as a marker of diversity, discoverability, and domain-specific excellence. If this continues, we may see more developers, analysts, and quietly consistent creators brought into the fold — not by follower counts, but by signal clarity.
This case — a solo OSS developer, operating in full public view, engaged in credible technical work — offers a rare data point in how trust, identity, and contribution are scored by a platform like Facebook. Maybe, just maybe, we’re entering an era in which open-source development is no longer seen as a niche pursuit, but as a cultural and civic force worthy of recognition.
And Meta, it seems, chose to recognize that through a badge.
Of course, these badges aren’t eternal. The New & Rising Creator tag, for example, is re-evaluated weekly. If I go weeks without publishing new work — which is common for projects like bitBuyer — I may have to rely on content “recycling”, and the badge could disappear. It might vanish next week, for all I know. After all, the criteria are never public.
But still — the fact that it appeared, even once, is meaningful.
And if this helps shine a light forward for other OSS developers, then the badge has already done its job.
