magic_smoke@lemmy.blahaj.zone
on 22 Apr 03:39
nextcollapse
So they’re centralizing their ‘federated’ social media even more.
ShittyBeatlesFCPres@lemmy.world
on 22 Apr 05:41
nextcollapse
Probably but they’ve designated others to do it. Like a trusted organization (Wired or The NY Times) can verify people. Some of the developers seemed hostile.
But who gives a fuck about a blue check anyway? Even before Elon, it was a gag on Twitter when some fucking moron who interned at Reason or some shit got a big head about it and wrote as a clown to be laughed at. “Some personal news, I’m now the assistant associate dipshit at the newspaper they try to give you for free when you get on the subway.”
ShittyBeatlesFCPres@lemmy.world
on 22 Apr 05:52
collapse
I don’t want to know who any of you people are. None of us saw anything. And if so much as a squirrel asks, I’m asking for a lawyer.
Sort of. This is apparently done on-protocol so anyone can issue verifications, but they’re only shown in the official client if they’re from BlueSky or someone approved by BlueSky.
A better way to do this would be to let users subscribe to verifiers the way they can labelers. Better still would be for the label to indicate what the verifier has verified about the account, like “nytimes.com says this person is an employee of the New York Times”, which is something labelers can already do.
So I really think they should have just leaned into labelers.
Good point about that. However still someone has to actually purchase and own the thing and set up the verification all of which is independent from bluesky so it’s a start I suppose.
asudox@lemmy.asudox.dev
on 22 Apr 07:14
nextcollapse
threaded - newest
So they’re centralizing their ‘federated’ social media even more.
Probably but they’ve designated others to do it. Like a trusted organization (Wired or The NY Times) can verify people. Some of the developers seemed hostile.
But who gives a fuck about a blue check anyway? Even before Elon, it was a gag on Twitter when some fucking moron who interned at Reason or some shit got a big head about it and wrote as a clown to be laughed at. “Some personal news, I’m now the assistant associate dipshit at the newspaper they try to give you for free when you get on the subway.”
I don’t want to know who any of you people are. None of us saw anything. And if so much as a squirrel asks, I’m asking for a lawyer.
.
it’s decentralized somewhat. they’re allowing trusted organizations to give verification
…Until they suddenly don’t anymore
why would they care about this it’s not a monetized feature
Sort of. This is apparently done on-protocol so anyone can issue verifications, but they’re only shown in the official client if they’re from BlueSky or someone approved by BlueSky.
A better way to do this would be to let users subscribe to verifiers the way they can labelers. Better still would be for the label to indicate what the verifier has verified about the account, like “nytimes.com says this person is an employee of the New York Times”, which is something labelers can already do.
So I really think they should have just leaned into labelers.
✅ I have not said mean things about Erdoğan
Dystopia is coming to Turkey’s location
I don’t understand why they don’t just use the domain verification which is far more authoritative
They do.
Probably should give it a clearer visual cue now that they do blue ticks, but it's there.
They do. That said, now that it’s really easy to mask whois data, I would argue that’s a less than perfect solution.
Good point about that. However still someone has to actually purchase and own the thing and set up the verification all of which is independent from bluesky so it’s a start I suppose.
They’ll make it paid someday. Trust me guys.
Pretty pointless.