But isn’t the domain already doing that?
Comment on Angry, disappointed users react to Bluesky's upcoming blue check mark verification system
Mars2k21@sh.itjust.works 1 day ago
idk man I haven’t seen anyone complaining about it on Bluesky
This is a net positive, nice to have a social media where verification checks are…actually used for verifying the person behind an account
cyrano@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 day ago
nekusoul@lemmy.nekusoul.de 22 hours ago
The problem with domains is that regular people would need to know what a domain is and what verified ownership says about the account in question.
Even then, reading domains is quite difficult, even for people who know about the topic: Humans are Bad at URLs and Fonts Don’t Matter
01189998819991197253@infosec.pub 17 hours ago
That link was a super interesting read!
Natanael@infosec.pub 12 hours ago
Domains only help you verify organizations and individuals you recognize directly.
This verification system also allows 3rd parties (it’s NOT just bluesky themselves!) to issue attestations that s given account belongs to who they say they are, which would help people like independent journalists, etc.
Saleh@feddit.org 7 hours ago
Idk. Celebrities and Politicians usually have other vetted channels such as their own website or a website of their ogranization representing them. It should be basic journalistic work to see if their social media links link to the account in question or not.
thekerker@lemmy.world 22 hours ago
I saw some small talk about it, and it really just boiled down to domain verification is great for more tech savvy folks, but trying to get larger accounts (think politicians, celebrities, etc) is a lot harder. Having a visual check, using tools within the app or site, is a lot easier.
And personally I like the idea of verification checks as long as it remains a simple means to do just that: verify the owner of the account. Morons like Musk and his ilk always thought it was a clout thing, and for a small minority that was probably the case, but by and large before he ruined it, it was great.
spongebue@lemmy.world 1 day ago
If they are, and there isn’t anything to display it, how are were to know what’s been vetted and what’s slipped through the cracks? Especially on a new account?
MangoPenguin@lemmy.blahaj.zone 22 hours ago
It was the username so already quite visible.
For example someone at say, NPR, could use a name like @bob.npr.org which is only possible by verifying ownership of the npr.org domain name, so there is no need to vet anything.
spongebue@lemmy.world 22 hours ago
That’s great for an organization like NPR which may have the resources to tie its own domain name into Bluesky. For some freelance reporter or otherwise verifiable person, I’m not sure it’s quite so practical.
BackwardsUntoDawn@lemm.ee 18 hours ago
I feel like domain usernames are still inherently susceptible to phishing, you can get a typo or similar character to try and trick someone that your username is an official one
airportline@lemm.ee 22 hours ago
Most of the complaints I’ve seen were about Bluesky’s lack of a formal verification system.
They could never figure out how the current system of checking the username.
setsneedtofeed@lemmy.world 11 hours ago
Based on how verification was revoked for some users on Twitter based on their content rather than question of their identity, I’m cautious about this system turning into the status symbol it became on Twitter rather than the verification it claimed to be.