Comment on Angry, disappointed users react to Bluesky's upcoming blue check mark verification system
emb@lemmy.world 5 days ago
I do not see anything to be angry or disappointed about?
Verification badge was good, the dumb thing Twitter did was throw it away by letting anyone pay for it.
If the same authority is doing verification that is also doing moderation and both ultimately in a for profit setting, that has conflict of interest.
We dont know how reliable bluesky moderation will stay. We dont know how they will respond to political pressure. We dont know how they will monetize past the growth phase and then could also argue a “service fee” for verification.
In a perfect world none of these would happen, but then everybody could still be on twitter and be fine there.
They have already censored entire accounts at the request of governments.
This is just a web of trust model, aka a decentralized model of verification. This thread is mostly people that haven’t read the details that want to confirm that “Bluesky has been enshittified”.
Decentralized isn’t the right word to use for a system like this.
Even though BS is going to appoint multiple different volunteer moderators (aka “Trusted Verifiers”) for this system, ultimate authority and control are entirely centralized with BS.
drmoose@lemmy.world 4 days ago
Nah it was not good. Domain names already do that and are accessible to all at all times. Bluesky is literally regressing.
pupbiru@aussie.zone 4 days ago
domain names do that for people with well known domain names, and verification processes do that for people without
nickwitha_k@lemmy.sdf.org 4 days ago
Yup. Need something like EV certs to really verify… And that would only make sense if it’s a “no screennames” kind of thing.
pupbiru@aussie.zone 4 days ago
i think the .id.au domain licensing rules are a pretty reasonable middle-ground:
www.auda.org.au/…/id-au-domain-names/
you have to provide ID to register any .au, so you’re verified as a person, and though they don’t pre-check your nickname, AFAIK if there’s a complaint you do have to prove that you’re “known by” that name
emb@lemmy.world 4 days ago
Far from perfect, but I think it’s good to have a layer that very visibly shows ‘yes, this is the account you want’.
Domains are a worthwhile addition, but they run into almost the same problem as usernames and handles. Can be made misleading easily - sure, I could often go to the web address and verify it (if they don’t put up a convincing fake site), but that’s much lower visibilty.
Eg, you can probably register nintendo@nintendoamerico and get it by some folks just as easily as registering the Twitter handle. There’s a payment step to get the domain, but that’s about it.
The centralization problem you mention is a good point though. It was a fine system, if you felt like you could trust Twitter as a verifier. Today obviously, one could not. But Bsky seems to at least theoretically have a ‘choose your verification provider’ idea in mind, which would (again theoretically) resolve a lot of that issue.
merdaverse@lemmy.world 4 days ago
“Everyone should be able to setup their own domain and mess with DNS records to get a verified account”
Do you realize how utterly disconnected from reality this sounds?? Technical people that have absolutely not clue on how make good UX for end users is how we got Mastodon in the first place, and why its adoption is abysmal.
drmoose@lemmy.world 3 days ago
You can pay someone to do that for you tho it’s not any different form paying someone to verify you ina centralized way. Its really not that hard.
merdaverse@lemmy.world 3 days ago
This is not a “pay for verification” model. Have you even read the article or anything related to it? It is literally not centralized, it’s web of trust.