Comment on Bluesky may soon add blue check verification | TechCrunch

Max_P@lemmy.max-p.me ⁨5⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

• remington@beehaw.org ⁨5⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

  Copying a comment from Reddit:

  Yeah. This is good. E.g. an account claims to be a NYTimes journo, it can then be verified by the NYTimes account. Or an account claims to be an NBA player, that gets verified by the NBA / team account. And each of those verifications will show who granted it.

  Contrary to the predictable FUD in this thread, it decentralizes control. Makes it meritocratic - i.e. you earn the privilege to issue verification by proving to be a known and credible source.

  source

  • t3rmit3@beehaw.org ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

    This neither centralizes nor decentralizes. It’s exactly just as centralized as before (which, as they are one company, is total).

    Whether Bluesky issues a checkmark, or whether Bluesky tells someone else that they are trusted (by Bluesky), and thusthis can also issue them, Bluesky osis the one who is in control of checkmarks.

    Unless Bsky sets up some kind of decentralized council that they don’t control to manage this list, it’s just a form of deputization , and deputies are all subordinate to the ‘sheriff’.

    source
  • Jayjader@jlai.lu ⁨4⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

    I like the idea, but then who gets to decide who is and isn’t a credible source? Is it only intra-account verifying? Can anyone verify anyone else, or do you need to be authorized by bluesky to start verifying others?

    source
• hamsterkill@lemmy.sdf.org ⁨5⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

  Isn’t owning the domain proof enough already?

  It’s open to abuse and exploitation the same way domains are in general. An enterprising faker could register a domain that looks legit, but isn’t.

  source

  • jmcs@discuss.tchncs.de ⁨5⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

    And centralization solves this how? The other social networks are giving more checkmarks to grifters and scammers than they are giving them to honest people because, spoiler alert, con artists are very good at both building a following and paying bribes.

    source

    • hamsterkill@lemmy.sdf.org ⁨5⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

      I think their plan is for it to be like how website cert verification works. You have a set of trusted authorities that issue certs (or in this case verifications) and that can revoke them if needed.

      source

      • t3rmit3@beehaw.org ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

        set of trusted authorities

        Sounds like centralization to me. Who decides to vest authority in this group? Who selected the members of this group?

        Unless there is some method for each host to nominate members and it changes dynamically based on total votes at any given time, you’ve just entrenched centralized authority in your ‘decentralized’ app.

        source

        • -> View More Comments
  • sqgl@beehaw.org ⁨4⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

    Automation can verify that realdomain.com has much higher traffic/status/web-presence/google-ranking than raeldomain.com

    source
  • Max_P@lemmy.max-p.me ⁨5⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

    Yeah that’s a pretty good point. As a technical user that seems solid but for the average user that makes sense.

    source