Yous are hyping it a basic verification system which can't be bought and is handed out for the sake of showing credibility is a good thing
this post was submitted on 19 Apr 2025
712 points (95.8% liked)
Technology
69041 readers
3898 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
The sake of credibility? What decides that though? Likes? Likes are a big problem imo. It doesn't really do anything except create echo chambers.
IMO it's not that blue check equals credibility, but rather it equals that you are who you say you are. This is a good thing particularly when it comes to public figures/officials — not for their sake, mind you, but for the sake of other people who may see a tweet from them. If the checkmark is there, then it's them. If not, then it's an impersonator. Right now it's difficult to tell.
Tl;dr: it doesn't make what they say real, it just makes them real.
So long as the checkmark isn't bought through some subscription service, I'm fine with this.
The whole reason why verification exists is because other will steal the name of someone famous and masquerade as them, with real world consequences. A verification system now means that certain platforms and people will get more attracted to be there, and thus Bluesky will grow.
It's not.
Not yet 😏
Unfortunately, the forecast isn't good for the integrity of what should be a simple system. Under Dorsey, the Twitter blue checkmark had already become a tool for showing content approval by Twitter. In various instances users had their status removed based on their content and not on a question of if they were who they claimed to be.
My default is to just assume that they aren't the same person unless corroborated by that person.
This shitshow sounds familiar.
This was always bait to keep people using corporate social media instead of decentralizing. I am not sorry for the users one bit.
To quote my well known journalist friend after switching from twitter "what's that? Oh, that open source stuff? Hahaha nah bruh, mastodon is silly"
load more comments
(4 replies)
Bluesky, the decentralized social network [...]
Were only one instance exist or did I miss something?
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.
load more comments
(10 replies)
load more comments
(14 replies)
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
Based on how verification was revoked for some users on Twitter based on their content rather than question of their identity, I'm cautious about this system turning into the status symbol it became on Twitter rather than the verification it claimed to be.
load more comments
(20 replies)
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.
This is just a web of trust model, aka a decentralized model of verification. This thread is mostly people that haven't read the details that want to confirm that "Bluesky has been enshittified".
load more comments
(1 replies)
If the same authority is doing verification that is also doing moderation and both ultimately in a for profit setting, that has conflict of interest.
We dont know how reliable bluesky moderation will stay. We dont know how they will respond to political pressure. We dont know how they will monetize past the growth phase and then could also argue a "service fee" for verification.
In a perfect world none of these would happen, but then everybody could still be on twitter and be fine there.
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(8 replies)
Any system built on anonymous accounts is going to have the exact same problems. Lemmy is not “less bad” than Reddit because it’s decentralized. Blue checks isn’t the problem with twitter, and neither is Elong
load more comments
(1 replies)