• Pirata@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    30
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    2 hours ago

    This was always bait to keep people using corporate social media instead of decentralizing. I am not sorry for the users one bit.

  • Mars2k21@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    60
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    10 hours 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

    • Airportline@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 hour 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.

      • Nick@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        2 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
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        17
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 hour ago

        If they are, and there isn’t anything to display it, how are we to know what’s been vetted and what’s slipped through the cracks? Especially on a new account?

        • MangoPenguin@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          2 hours ago

          It’s 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
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            2 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.

  • emb@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    79
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    11 hours 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.

    • Dr. Moose@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      2 hours ago

      Nah it was not good. Domain names already do that and are accessible to all at all times with full transparency and decentralization. Bluesky is literally regressing.

      Even mastodon’s verification system is better than checkmarks.

      • Pup Biru@aussie.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        12
        ·
        2 hours ago

        domain names do that for people with well known domain names, and verification processes do that for people without

      • emb@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        1 hour 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 [email protected] or similar 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.

  • einkorn@feddit.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    153
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    15 hours ago

    Bluesky, the decentralized social network […]

    Were only one instance exist or did I miss something?

    • Pirata@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      2 hours ago

      I think their initial selling point was that Eventually©®™ Bluesky would federate with the rest of the Fediverse.

      Is anybody really surprised that a social media corporation didn’t make it their utmost priority to allow their userbase to connect out of their proprietary platform?

    • InfiniteHench@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      109
      ·
      edit-2
      15 hours ago

      As I understand it, the protocol has the ability to decentralize built in. But the technical requirements are prohibitively high to the point only large businesses or corps could afford to do it. I also believe (someone correct me) the company hasn’t switched on the functionality yet.

      • noodlejetski@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        19
        ·
        9 hours ago

        my mom has always told me that I had the potential to work at NASA. but the requirements are prohibitively high

      • Drunemeton@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        38
        ·
        14 hours ago

        Last heard (a few months ago) the cost is in storage. The protocol isn’t too complicated now, but it generates a shit ton of data, and IIRC you need a minimum of 3 copies.

        • mac@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          12
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          11 hours ago

          Storage is cheap whwn it comes to webhosting and 3 replicas is honestly not much when it comes to enterprise standards. I think cloud storage providers like backblaze keep something like 9 copies of data across different mediums

        • sem@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 hour ago

          The “ability” to decentralize has costs that scale quadratically. So in every practical sense, it cannot be decentralized. At best it could have a few servers that participate.

      • Victor@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        10 hours ago

        This is a little bit more black and white compared with the other responses. 🙈

  • aeronmelon@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    94
    arrow-down
    10
    ·
    15 hours ago

    Anyone who is surprised that BlueSky is going down the same path as Twitter (X, not withstanding) belongs on BlueSky.

  • Opinionhaver@feddit.uk
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    6 hours ago

    I don’t see how even the way Twitter does it is any worse than not having such system at all.

    • Billiam@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      21
      ·
      12 hours ago

      Right now, venture capital investments - same as all tech starts out.

      How it’ll monetize to become self-sufficient remains to be seen.

      • Dr. Moose@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 hours ago

        Not same as “all tech starts out”. You’re literally typing on tech stack that didn’t start out like that. Then there’s Masotodon, fediverse, gnome, kde, linux etc. Etc. - literally almost no good software comes out of VC world statically speaking.

      • MagicShel@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        9 hours ago

        I just saw a group is going to start doing custom feeds with ads inserted. I blocked the account and every single sucker who comes in to say congrats and how excited they are about it. Fuck the lot of them. That said, that’s a third party, but also an example of what they could do.

    • Jay@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      30
      ·
      14 hours ago

      There’s been a lot of impersonated accounts popping up lately, so it doesn’t surprise me they’ve opted to do something like this.

      • TommySoda@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        14
        ·
        13 hours ago

        Oh yeah, they are literally everywhere. And a lot of them are impersonating people that haven’t switched from Twitter yet to take advantage of it specifically.

    • MangoPenguin@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      13 hours ago

      How come they don’t use the already built in domain verification? It’s basically fool proof to certify that an account is owned by a specific entity.

      • Rachel@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        10 hours ago

        It’s what Twitter had and most people on blueksy just want Twitter before Elon. It sucks but that is really what the majority of people even want. They don’t care about the decentralized stuff.

  • reddig33@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    57
    ·
    15 hours ago

    I don’t see anything controversial in the article. Did I miss something? Just looks like a way to make sure the public figures and companies you are communicating with are who they say they are.

    • Zak@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      25
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      15 hours ago

      I think the existing domain-based verification system is a better way of doing that. Something like Mastodon’s verified links might be a nice addition. This more centralized system is… not what I hoped for.

      • reddig33@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        20
        ·
        15 hours ago

        I didn’t sound like a centralized system from the article. More like they want a third party like Verisign or something.

        Something will have to be done as these platforms become more popular to cut down on fraud and disinformation. You don’t want people impersonating other people or organizations, or companies. Even if Bluesky starts federating to other platforms, just knowing that they have a blue sky blue check would be an improvement if you could display that check on other clients like mastodon posts.

        ICANN has already made a mess of domain names so I don’t know if relying on the domain is enough. People are using non-Roman characters to trick people into thinking a website domain is the real thing. Others are buying up all these random domains so you get things like medicare.net and medicare.org and medicare.com etc etc.

        I dunno what the answer is. Just rambling out loud in frustration.

        • Billiam@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          12 hours ago

          I didn’t sound like a centralized system from the article. More like they want a third party like Verisign or something.

          It’s going to be both. Bluesky will verify users, but they’re also going to have other authorized verification entities.

          From what I’ve seen, there will be two distinct types of blue check- users verified by Bluesky will have one mark, and users verified by a trusted authority will have a different mark.

          Now who will those third-party verifiers be, and how will they be selected, hasn’t been announced yet.

    • cyrano@lemmy.dbzer0.comOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      15
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      15 hours ago

      Verification wise there is already domain. But ultimately, it is too soon for the twitter exodus to get the blue check. All in all, this type of outrage is doomed to repeat with that type of central entity.

    • MangoPenguin@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      15 hours ago

      It already has domain verification which is better IMO. Its more reliable and safer as you have to own the domain to use it.