Bluesky may soon add blue check verification | TechCrunch

Comments

• Excel@beehaw.org ⁨5⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

  Moving even further away from decentralization

  source
• RobotZap10000@feddit.nl ⁨5⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

  Aaaand the whole circus starts once again!

  source
• henfredemars@infosec.pub ⁨5⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

  Twitter speed run.

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

  Isn’t owning the domain proof enough already?

  Nobody else could possibly use max-p.me as their handle, and proving control of the domain is plenty for security sensitive things like LetsEncrypt.

  Anyone you’d care to mark verified already brought their own domain.

  source

  • 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 ⁨3⁩ ⁨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

      • -> View More Comments
    • sqgl@beehaw.org ⁨3⁩ ⁨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