• hamsterkill@lemmy.sdf.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    6 days ago

    Isn’t owning the domain proof enough already?

    It’s open to abuse and exploitation the same way domains are in general. An enterprising faker could register a domain that looks legit, but isn’t.

    • jmcs@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      6 days ago

      And centralization solves this how? The other social networks are giving more checkmarks to grifters and scammers than they are giving them to honest people because, spoiler alert, con artists are very good at both building a following and paying bribes.

      • hamsterkill@lemmy.sdf.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        6 days ago

        I think their plan is for it to be like how website cert verification works. You have a set of trusted authorities that issue certs (or in this case verifications) and that can revoke them if needed.

        • t3rmit3@beehaw.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          4 days ago

          set of trusted authorities

          Sounds like centralization to me. Who decides whether to vest authority in this group? Who selects the members of this group?

          Unless there is some method for each host/ user to nominate members and it changes dynamically based on total votes at any given time, you’ve just permanently entrenched centralized authority in your (supposedly moving to) ‘decentralized’ app.

          • hamsterkill@lemmy.sdf.org
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            4 days ago

            I expect the trusted authorities would be selected by the server where the user account resides. I.e. if a server’s admin does not recognize a certain authority, it would not show their verifications to users logged in to their server.

            It’s possible that it could extend to user selections of trusted verifiers as well, but I think implementing that level of granularity would be more of pain than it’s worth to Bluesky. Still, I could be surprised.

            • t3rmit3@beehaw.org
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              4 days ago

              That’s not what the current PR lays out, and I’m not going to give them preemptive credit for future maybes. Right now they’re just X v2.

              Once they actually release the server software for self-hosting, i.e. once the app is actually at all even a little decentralized, and not just selling themselves on a feature that doesn’t exist, we can see how much decentralization the trusted reviewers have.

    • Max-P@lemmy.max-p.me
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      6 days ago

      Yeah that’s a pretty good point. As a technical user that seems solid but for the average user that makes sense.