ARE WE LEARNING HOW “SOCIAL MEDIA” WORKS YET HUMANITY?
Seriously. How many more fucking times do we need to go around this goddamn merry go round until we just start calling each other on the phone and meeting face to face again. You know, where the only enshittification is the one you bring with you. It’s fucking boring me now, how many of these stupid ass things I didn’t join because I’ve already, apparently, gotten the memo and how, inevitably, something like this happens, and everyone acts surprised and disappointed , as though inevitability was a concept they felt they’d been given a sabbatical from or something.
This. Shit. Ain’t. Free. There is an inherent cost, an “effort” required to communicate with others. You pay it with money, time or privacy. The overwhelming choice lately has been “privacy”, but it’s obviously something that not everyone is comfortable with, because we didn’t have the term “enshittification” before we started this flavor of our collective idiocy.
ARE WE LEARNING HOW “SOCIAL MEDIA” WORKS YET HUMANITY?
Apparently not, because people keep feeling surprised and offended when the Networking Effect happens.
Seriously. How many more fucking times do we need to go around this goddamn merry go round until we just start calling each other on the phone and meeting face to face again
Idk, when are we going to get low-cost public transit and VoIP that’s not like talking over two tin cans connected with string?
What is this networking effect you mentioned? I tried searching online but I think I’m missing the context needed to find the right info.
Networking Effect
Thanks for the link. That’s what I found, so I’m certain I’m missing something. Can you clue me in on why people are getting surprised and offended by it?
Something like this unavoidable.
Example, ted cruz the car mechanic in marfa Texas has just has much right to use blusky as
professional shit bagsenator ted cruz. But hiw do tell the real one from the racid sack of weasels.It’s easy: cryptographic signatures. If you want to prove your identify, post a public key on something that you need to prove identity for (personal website or something) and sign your posts with the same key. That way everyone can tell the that the same key listed on the website is used for SM posts. Clients can check this automatically and flag anything on your “official” account that’s signed with a different key.
This is much better than a checkmark system, because accounts get hacked and whatnot. It’s really easy to check a cryptographic signature, and it’s really hard to fake. If the website gets hacked, the signature won’t match previous posts.
The main concern here is losing the key. If someone steals your key, generate a new one, and sign it with the old key and the new one. Boom, now everyone can tell you control both keys, while the attacker only controls the old one.
That’s only easy for nerds, and it doesn’t help if the private key is on a device that gets compromised.
Regular people wouldn’t need identity verification, and the keys can be something the user never sees, just like with Signal. The UX can be pretty good here.
But how would a user see that this poat was made with the right crypto key. Maybe some check mark on the Post or some sign.
Ideally, they wouldn’t see anything if everything is good. If there’s an anomaly, flag it with a warning.
But yeah, you could put a checkmark on it, but then it actually means something more than “this person spent money.” Ideally, the checkmark would only show if it’s a publicly verifiable key outside the platform.
Yeah that’s a better system then. We need something that shows the user then post or user is verified. How it works doesn’t matrer to them. Amd the key system would be betterment
People use usernames like they always have, and rely on reputation to distinguish themselves from the fakes? Senator ted ceuz makes an account called ‘senatortedcruz’ or if thats taken ‘therealsenatortedcruz’, and the mechanic makes one called ‘tedcruzcars’ or whatever. I dont see how your example is even relevant, because under a checkmark verification system both the mechanic ted cruz, and the senator ted cruz would be valid and deserving of a check mark, so there has to be some other way of distinguishing them anyway.
Its whay the original lawsuit that created checkmarks was about.
What is? How does a checkmark help distinguish between two people that have the same name? The checkmark just shows that the person is who they say they are.
you don’t kill a cow for a scratch on her leg (I hope the saying is understandable for everybody since it doesn’t come from English).
I’m on mastodon and bluesky: the first is even less populated than here and a big part of the interesting content comes from bot reposting popular accounts from x or reddit, while the second is far from being THE solution but it’s nowadays a -not wildly populated- compromise. I don’t condone (while I understand) the Turkish bans and I’m not interested in a verification system: if I’d like one, I’d use https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EIDAS.
I hope bluesky will correct its approach for what they can (the “good old” twitterin the golden era was banned in Turkey)I believe the equivalent saying would be “don’t let perfect be the enemy of good”.
I couldn’t give a single shit about these twitter alternatives, because the whole concept is stupid.
the whole concept is stupid.
+1
Being that algorithmic just makes any Twitter-like design too easy to abuse.
Again, Lemmy (and Reddit) is far from perfect, but fundamentally, grouping posts and feeds by niche is way better. It incentivizes little communities that are concerned about their own health, while users have zero control over that shouting into the Twitter maw.
yea lemmy/reddit definitely seems like more of a sweet spot. with twitter/mastodon or anything that has a “say something” text box right in your face on every page, you are going to end up with a lot of noise, because most people just dont have interesting things to say most of the time
I don’t understand - do you think mastodon (or the fediverse in general) is sparsely populated? That’s not my impression at all!
That’s exactly what I meant: very few people, only on main niches, and some political and lifestyle ideas are common to 90% of the userbase (ie: anti-Trump, pro-Palestine, pro-Foss, etc).
I’m not complaining, just reporting what I seeIt seems that you don’t curate your followers much and/or don’t follow many people. The timeline is what you make it to be by following a variety of people as there isn’t an algoritm to curate it for you. There’s plenty of interesting content circling around and it’s wholly up to you wether it makes it to your timeline or not.
I get it, but I don’t want to curate my followers, I’m not a news media, I just follow users I totally like, I usually look for content I don’t see in my timeline, do a lot of surfing, but in the end it’s not that big as today
I don’t see anything controversial in the article. Did I miss something? Just looks like a way to make sure the public figures and companies you are communicating with are who they say they are.
deleted by creator
It already has domain verification which is better IMO. Its more reliable and safer as you have to own the domain to use it.
I think the existing domain-based verification system is a better way of doing that. Something like Mastodon’s verified links might be a nice addition. This more centralized system is… not what I hoped for.
I didn’t sound like a centralized system from the article. More like they want a third party like Verisign or something.
Something will have to be done as these platforms become more popular to cut down on fraud and disinformation. You don’t want people impersonating other people or organizations, or companies. Even if Bluesky starts federating to other platforms, just knowing that they have a blue sky blue check would be an improvement if you could display that check on other clients like mastodon posts.
ICANN has already made a mess of domain names so I don’t know if relying on the domain is enough. People are using non-Roman characters to trick people into thinking a website domain is the real thing. Others are buying up all these random domains so you get things like medicare.net and medicare.org and medicare.com etc etc.
I dunno what the answer is. Just rambling out loud in frustration.
I didn’t sound like a centralized system from the article. More like they want a third party like Verisign or something.
It’s going to be both. Bluesky will verify users, but they’re also going to have other authorized verification entities.
From what I’ve seen, there will be two distinct types of blue check- users verified by Bluesky will have one mark, and users verified by a trusted authority will have a different mark.
Now who will those third-party verifiers be, and how will they be selected, hasn’t been announced yet.
What are you talking about? This is a web of trust model, literally a decentralized model. Not everyone on social media needs to have technical skills to verify via DNS records, verified links etc. If you want a community that gatekeeps for for computer engineers only, you already have Mastodon.
It appears to depend on Bluesky designating entities to do the verification.
Verification wise there is already domain. But ultimately, it is too soon for the twitter exodus to get the blue check. All in all, this type of outrage is doomed to repeat with that type of central entity.
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
Most of the complaints I’ve seen were about Bluesky’s lack of a formal verification system.
They could never figure out how the current system of checking the username.
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.
But isn’t the domain already doing that?
Domains only help you verify organizations and individuals you recognize directly.
This verification system also allows 3rd parties (it’s NOT just bluesky themselves!) to issue attestations that s given account belongs to who they say they are, which would help people like independent journalists, etc.
Idk. Celebrities and Politicians usually have other vetted channels such as their own website or a website of their ogranization representing them. It should be basic journalistic work to see if their social media links link to the account in question or not.
I’m not seeing the advantage of everyone having to do the same vetting process repeatedly.
I feel like domain usernames are still inherently susceptible to phishing, you can get a typo or similar character to try and trick someone that your username is an official one
The problem with domains is that regular people would need to know what a domain is and what verified ownership says about the account in question.
Even then, reading domains is quite difficult, even for people who know about the topic: Humans are Bad at URLs and Fonts Don’t Matter
That link was a super interesting read!
Excellent post as usual from Troy, but use Bitwarden, not 1Password
Personally I use KeePassXC + Syncthing, but Bitwarden/Vaultwarden is also a great.
What’s somewhat amusing, for lack of a better word, is that even that advice doesn’t fully resolve the issue, as Troy himself recently was the victim of a phising attack, where one part of the issue was that even legitimate sites changes their sign-in domains frequently enough that you kind of become numb to when the auto-fill stops working and just “correct” the issue without the necessary due diligence.
If they are, and there isn’t anything to display it, how are we to know what’s been vetted and what’s slipped through the cracks? Especially on a new account?
It’s the username so already quite visible.
For example someone at say, NPR, could use a name like @bob.npr.org which is only possible by verifying ownership of the npr.org domain name, so there is no need to vet anything.
That’s great for an organization like NPR which may have the resources to tie its own domain name into Bluesky. For some freelance reporter or otherwise verifiable person, I’m not sure it’s quite so practical.
Domains are dirt cheap.
And tying it to the Bluesky system? Not sure the cost of that (I swear I saw it was a potential monetization they were looking into) but also the time to figure it out isn’t practical for everyone.
free (or at least it was when I did it)
I just bought a domain for $2
I saw some small talk about it, and it really just boiled down to domain verification is great for more tech savvy folks, but trying to get larger accounts (think politicians, celebrities, etc) is a lot harder. Having a visual check, using tools within the app or site, is a lot easier.
And personally I like the idea of verification checks as long as it remains a simple means to do just that: verify the owner of the account. Morons like Musk and his ilk always thought it was a clout thing, and for a small minority that was probably the case, but by and large before he ruined it, it was great.
Decentralized, yeah sure!
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
Not sure where you’re going with that, but it’s a perverse incentive, just like the engagement algorithm.
Elon is a problem because he can literally force himself into everyone’s feeds, but also because he always posts polarizing/enraging things these days.
Healthy social media design/UI is all about incentivizing good, healthy communities and posts. Lemmy is not perfect, but simply not designing for engagement/profit because Lemmy is “self hosted” instead of commercial is massive.
I don’t see how even the way Twitter does it is any worse than not having such system at all.
Yeah I deleted my Bluesky. All public companies eventually turn to shit because of the shareholders unending greed.
Bluesky is the new X. After canceling the accounts of Turkish protesters this is the next step for the big money behind Bluesky. That’s why I deleted my account a few days ago.
What’s the story with the Turkish protesters?
The way the article describes Turkey and the press is the same thing that’s been happening in the US with the legacy (state funded) media. Hopefully, that’s changing now though.
Bluesky has basically bowed to the Turkish regime: https://www.turkishminute.com/2025/04/17/bluesky-restrict-access-72-account-turk-amid-government-pressure/
Same. Deleted my account when they started to censor the Turkish protestors. Not that I used the account really but still.
Exactly, Bluesky has been shitty for a while for lots of reasons. I’m not understanding why this is the line in the sand.
How does bluesky make money?
Right now, venture capital investments - same as all tech starts out.
How it’ll monetize to become self-sufficient remains to be seen.
Then come over to Mastodon…
You eeediots!
Ren from Ren and Stimpy?
😎
Preaching to the choir
But anyway anyone who thinks bluesky is actually decentralised will learn sooner rather than later that that’s not the case
Lots of “how dare they solve a real problem with the only method yet invented” in these replies. Gtfo losers, clutch your pearls harder. If you don’t like Bluesky don’t use it. Don’t be a whiny little bitch about it.
