• emb@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    94
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    14 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
      18
      arrow-down
      8
      ·
      edit-2
      5 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
        22
        ·
        5 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
        7
        ·
        edit-2
        4 hours 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.