Users React To Bluesky's Upcoming Blue Check Mark Verification System (neowin.net) 36
Bluesky is testing a new verification system featuring blue checks issued by "Trusted Verifiers" like news organizations, rather than a centralized authority or pay-to-play model like X (formerly Twitter). "Looking at the comments on the pull request, it's clear this idea has sparked a lot of discussion and a lot of concern among the community who follow the platform's development closely," reports Neowin. "Many users voiced strong opposition to the change, arguing that the existing domain name verification is sufficient and more aligned with the decentralized ethos that Bluesky aims for." From the report: There's a general worry that adding a visual badge, especially one controlled in part by Bluesky, feels too much like the centralized systems they were trying to escape from by joining Bluesky: "Do not want. BSky is not Twitter 2.0. Do not become like Elon Musk. We came here to get AWAY from that bs." Several commenters also expressed that the current domain name system, while not perfect, is an elegant and decentralized way to build trust, and that adding this new layer feels redundant and gives too much power to centralized entities, including Bluesky itself: "Let's please not do this. Domain names as user IDs is an elegant solution as a system of trust that builds off the infrastructure of an open web."
While the majority of the initial reaction seems negative, focusing on concerns about centralization and the value of the existing domain verification, there was some support for the idea of a visual badge, making it easier to quickly identify genuine accounts. One user commented: "I support this change. I like someone to verify that the account is indeed genuine and the username field showing the domain isn't helpful that much... A badge makes it easier to just tick it off that it's genuine." The PR author, estrattonbailey, later added a description to the pull request explaining that the goal is a "stronger visual signal" for notable accounts and clarifying it's not a paid service.
While the majority of the initial reaction seems negative, focusing on concerns about centralization and the value of the existing domain verification, there was some support for the idea of a visual badge, making it easier to quickly identify genuine accounts. One user commented: "I support this change. I like someone to verify that the account is indeed genuine and the username field showing the domain isn't helpful that much... A badge makes it easier to just tick it off that it's genuine." The PR author, estrattonbailey, later added a description to the pull request explaining that the goal is a "stronger visual signal" for notable accounts and clarifying it's not a paid service.
I don't know how much I care either way (Score:3)
However, from the comments, it seems some people don't realize Twitter offered blue checks long before to Musk bought it. All he did was make the blue checks useless.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I didn't read any of it but I think OP meant comments on the PR: https://github.com/bluesky-soc... [github.com]
Yup, exactly - and those comments were referred to in TFS.
Although, given Slashdot itself is comment-centric, I now see I should have explained to what I was referring.
Re: I don't know how much I care either way (Score:1)
You can only coddle people who won't read even TFS so much...
Re: (Score:2)
Psst! OP is actually a well known time traveller. Tune in tomorrow when he'll be announcing the winner of the upcoming Rumble In the Jungle fight between Ali and Foreman.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
But sure, continue to imagine problems with your "enemies" . That's not deranged at all.
Re: (Score:2)
Either way, the stated reason of getting "away" from that smells of BS, as is the argument that BS is decentralized. From the typical person I've seen on there, it looks far more likely that they came there looking for a like-minded echo chamber.
This. The average Twithead values “decentralization” about as much as “interoperability”.
NEWS AT ELEVEN! (Score:2, Funny)
Toxic asshats hate new system!!!!
Shocking really.
if BlueSky wanted to do something useful (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Treat check marks like cert authorities. (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
As the subject says... Let anyone offer check marks based on certificates, and display the certifying entity next to it. "This person verified by Reuters" or whatever. And let users choose which certifying entity to display if there is more than one. The idea being that an endorsement from Reuters would carry more weight than "Billybobs discount blue marks"
You act as if those selling the “news” today somehow don’t have a blatantly obvious profit motive for bias.
And who gives a shit if a post is certified? If the post is received badly enough, the original poster will simply say “oh that wasn’t me” or “my account got hacked” or “my phone was stolen”. Zero accountability.
All checks are pointless. This is the entire reason social media is NOT a valid source of news and fact. Never was. Never will b
Re: Treat check marks like cert authorities. (Score:2)
I was going to say handle it like the various food certification groups.
They come up with some sort of mark, copyright it (so you can't use it without their permission), then do whatever checks are required for their certification.
There's multiple Kosher and Halal certification groups, rainforest alliance, etc.
Handling it like certs means that they could be checked and revokable, so that might be the better option... but having easy to identify marks would be useful, too.
What we need is.. (Score:3)
Ha ha.. the dream dies so quickly, doesn't it? But it would be a good idea. Banking is thinking along those lines. That is liability off your shoulders, to outsource the trust anchor. They could form an unholy alliance of ever blaming each other while controlling the agenda for the industry. They want to be able to control the brand, but be open at the same time... you get Ubuntu
Re:What we need is.. (Score:4, Informative)
It actually worked pretty well on Twitter, back when blue check marks were given out based on verifying the identity of accounts. There were occasional mistakes, but for the most part you could be fairly confident that the AP/Reuters account you were looking at was the real one, not some scam or parody.
Maybe you think those organizations print lies, but at least you can be sure it's them. Frankly the fact that Trump hates them adds greatly to their credibility.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
As I remember it, blue checks were always free until Musk decided to turn them into a revenue stream. Quality took a sudden nose-dive because all the paid blue checks were at the top of replies, with their inane crap that they paid to force you to look at.
Autonomy has limits (Score:1)
If anything (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Narratives are often more valuable than facts. Why did you marry X rather than Y? Why buy brand A rather than B? Why vote for J rather than K? Etc. Most of our lives are a continuous need to make meaning. That's why we're so easy to manipulate.
Re: (Score:2)
Narratives are often more valuable than facts. Why did you marry X rather than Y?.
Why the FUCK would you value a “narrative” when choosing a soulmate?
”Even though the facts told me she’s a divorced porn star with 3 baby daddies, the narrative told me she’s the one for me,” said No One. Ever.
Gullible narcissists are easy to manipulate. For everyone else, there’s a brain.
Re: (Score:2)
That's an extreme example. How about an ordinary example? She seems great, and I feel in love (factually I don't know her whole life story, nor whether she has the genes which make her prone to addiction, nor what psychological damage is lurking in her sub personalities, nor whether she will have fertility problems etc.)
My point is we rely on narratives far more maybe than we realise. Which is why everyone who wants to manipulate, can just focus on using narratives. Hence more "valuable".
Re: If anything (Score:2)
Bluesky already has verification (Score:4, Informative)
Bluesky already has verification - you can change your handle from @whatever.bsky.social to anything you want, as long as you own the domain name for it.
So, cnn.com has the handle @cnn.com – and unless an attacker was able to take over the cnn.com domain name to verify their handle, this is a pretty iron-clad guarantee that the @cnn.com account is run by whoever owns the domain name.
This can be further used to verify individuals - e.g. a company could run @example.com and then their staff could have their own subdomain handle – I could be @PhunkySchtuff.example.com if I worked for them and needed to post under my own name.
deleted comments (Score:3)
Sounds like a really great collaboration with users.
Keep pushing, guys (Score:3)
I'm sure there's going to be lots of bumps along the way to establishing the kind of social network Facebook or Twitter could have been. I hope Bluesky persists. It has the potential to become the kind of place decent people want to visit.
Re: (Score:1)
I'm sure there's going to be lots of bumps along the way to establishing the kind of social network Facebook or Twitter could have been. I hope Bluesky persists. It has the potential to become the kind of place decent people want to visit.
Replace “social media” with “communism” and see how realistic your hopes and dreams are.
You act like it’s the technology that’s the problem.
tldr; Subscribe to verifier of your choice? (Score:2)
There are different aspects of "verification". You wouldn't trust the existing method with your bank account. Posting from a domain name is not proof against spoofing or other kinds of betrayal. Way back when (mid 90s) where I am, to get a corporate domain name you had to pay a lot of money to one of a few trusted security companies and supply paper documentation they would review. Because the verification authority's name was on the line. Might still be that way for some. Though I don't use bluesky yet I'd