this post was submitted on 22 Apr 2025
40 points (100.0% liked)
Technology
38569 readers
408 users here now
A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.
Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.
Subcommunities on Beehaw:
This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Come on Bluesky, try to hold it together long enough to finish taking out Twitter before you go for complete enshittification.
What? I prefer knowing if someone I interact with is genuine. As opposed to Twitter, where I just know they have a recurring monthly payment.
Who runs the verification service? How is that paid for? How do you know the verification service is trustworthy? What happens if they have a blue checkmark and it turns out it's not accurate?
First rule of the Internet
Big part of it is entirely automated - setting your username to instead of the generic "@bsky.social" to use your own domain registrar will get you a check, as that proves that e.g. the Wendys account would actually be run by Wendys.com.
The other is bluesky manually giving certain (auto-verified?) accounts the ability to verify others. The example given is New York Times being able to verify all their own journalists.
But in both cases it's different from the way Twitter used to do it (managing a manual database of all verified accounts) or does it now (lol pay $8 for a useless checkmark)
perhaps instead use critical thinking to determine genuinity. the alternative is not xitter's version, and twitters old version was criticized too.
Instead of having some form of verifiable indication, people are just supposed to "think hard"? Have you looked around lately?
The problem only gets worse with AI creeping closer.
critical thinking does not simply mean "think hard", it means research this person and account for maybe two, even three, seconds, before assuming everything they say is truth.
Why think hard when you can have somebody think for you?
"Every facet, every department of your mind, is to be programmed by you. And unless you assume your rightful responsibility, and begin to program your own mind, the world will program it for you." — Jack Kornfield
I don't have the ability to easily verify users. A user verification service would be great. I think it could work decentralized, but maybe have a separate service for it. Servers independently authenticate, and federate with each other. If one starts authenticating poorly, defederate.
I don't think it's a good fit within Lemmy or Mastodon, or .... Because I don't think someone who runs a server wants to bother with it. It needs to be it's own service that integrates with other services.
As I heard about it — mostly from people who migrated to mastodon — the "verified" nonsense on old Twitter was the cause of many problems. But I was never there myself, so all I really know is that I'd want no part of it.