? Did you read what the article? The change here is pretty minor and just reserving the @name.bsk.social if they verify with a domain to something like @domain.tld
Now, users that verify their account by linking their domain name get to automatically keep the default @username.bsky.social username
there are a lot of kneejerk, tinfoil hat individuals on lemmy that seem to get rather dramatic over bluesky.
bluesky adds new fonts in webapp
“THIS IS WHAT THE CORPORATE OVERLORDS WANT. THESE FONTS ARE JUST LIKE TWITTER. WAKE UP SHEEPLE! IF YOU DON’T USE MASTODON, YOURE GOING TO GET MEASLES AND YOUR CHILDREN WILL PERISH!”
There’s a lot of tlds. Do they explain the policy when two people have the same domain on different tlds? I mean oldest registered makes sense to me. But not without problems.
How I read it, they want to use a domain to validate the use of a handle. With the huge variety of tlds the same domain part could be registered many many times.
If I did misunderstand, then sorry. It’s how I read it.
Using a domain for your handle means it entirely replaces the original bsky handle you signed up with.
I could go from being mentaledge.bsky.social to mentaledge.com, for example. (And they don’t need to be the same “username” so to speak, I could have registered therealmental.bsky.social, but then become mentaledge.com, provided I own the domain.)
The main difference is that the orignal handle is a subdomain of bsky, while you can be the root domain if you use your own.
Before, you’d lose your original handle, meaning someone else could grab it once you did this, and then pretend to be you. Now they can’t.
Do you expext them not to pull the rug out of joke accounts that got to the bsky.social name first once the corporate website is used to verify their .com. address?
I’m also going be real that this is also the least of my concerns for a platform. If they make some people change their handle that don’t need to, it really isn’t a massive deal in the grand scheme of things. Especially since when handles are changed on Bluesky, all the references to that handle also change because they have a constant ID for all accounts. Impersonations leading people to scams is a much larger issue
I am not saying ghey are doing it now. I am saying they are heading down that path by initially justifying it based on scammers (an actual concern), but that is generally how it starts and if they don’t say they will limit it to scammers and other criminal activity then they are most likely not going to limit it to that.
They are also focusing on ‘squatters’, which shows they care more about famous people and companies than whoever registered first.
This change is tiny. Bluesky currently allows people who own domains to use those domains for their handle. (Anyone can buy domains, not just companies, I own two) Before, doing so would “release” the default name.bsky.social handle, allowing someone else to use it.
This literally doesn’t take away any handles from anyone, except people who grabbed handles that were “released” by their original owners. It DOES NOT allow someone who shows up with a new spechul domain to take away the handle of a user that already exists.
They should address actual concerns, but make it clear they won’t overstep afterwards like all of the other social media apps before them.
That is what I wrote.
You say they are only acting on ones where the company switched away from bsky.social, but squatters and scammers are not limited to only the ones they switched away from. To address squatters and scammers they will need to address those how got there first too. That is a necessity, but also the start of a slippery slope that they need to put the brakes on before they go down the familiar path to taking joke accounts.
Company doing good thing without simultaneously promising it won’t do bad thing doesnt automatically mean BAD THING WILL ABSOLUTELY SUPER DUPER CERTAINLY HAPPEN NEXT.
The opposite, actually.
When corpos are specific about bad thing definitely not being planned, that’s when it is DEFINITELY the next step.
? Did you read what the article? The change here is pretty minor and just reserving the @name.bsk.social if they verify with a domain to something like @domain.tld
there are a lot of kneejerk, tinfoil hat individuals on lemmy that seem to get rather dramatic over bluesky.
bluesky adds new fonts in webapp
“THIS IS WHAT THE CORPORATE OVERLORDS WANT. THESE FONTS ARE JUST LIKE TWITTER. WAKE UP SHEEPLE! IF YOU DON’T USE MASTODON, YOURE GOING TO GET MEASLES AND YOUR CHILDREN WILL PERISH!”
(/s but you get what I mean)
If you don’t use foss everything you ARE the problem /s
There’s a lot of tlds. Do they explain the policy when two people have the same domain on different tlds? I mean oldest registered makes sense to me. But not without problems.
I don’t think the name part of the bsky handle comes from the domain you use.
You just no longer lose the handle you picked when you registered, when you switch to using your own domain as your handle.
Before, once you switched, someone else could grab that original handle you registered with and pretend to be you.
How I read it, they want to use a domain to validate the use of a handle. With the huge variety of tlds the same domain part could be registered many many times.
If I did misunderstand, then sorry. It’s how I read it.
Using a domain for your handle means it entirely replaces the original bsky handle you signed up with.
I could go from being
mentaledge.bsky.socialtomentaledge.com, for example. (And they don’t need to be the same “username” so to speak, I could have registeredtherealmental.bsky.social, but then becomementaledge.com, provided I own the domain.)The main difference is that the orignal handle is a subdomain of bsky, while you can be the root domain if you use your own.
Before, you’d lose your original handle, meaning someone else could grab it once you did this, and then pretend to be you. Now they can’t.
Aha OK. Then yeah I misread it. That makes a lot more sense.
Do you expext them not to pull the rug out of joke accounts that got to the bsky.social name first once the corporate website is used to verify their .com. address?
I fully expect them to use that as justification.
That’s not what they are doing right now
I’m also going be real that this is also the least of my concerns for a platform. If they make some people change their handle that don’t need to, it really isn’t a massive deal in the grand scheme of things. Especially since when handles are changed on Bluesky, all the references to that handle also change because they have a constant ID for all accounts. Impersonations leading people to scams is a much larger issue
I am not saying ghey are doing it now. I am saying they are heading down that path by initially justifying it based on scammers (an actual concern), but that is generally how it starts and if they don’t say they will limit it to scammers and other criminal activity then they are most likely not going to limit it to that.
They are also focusing on ‘squatters’, which shows they care more about famous people and companies than whoever registered first.
So they shouldn’t address actual concerns?
This change is tiny. Bluesky currently allows people who own domains to use those domains for their handle. (Anyone can buy domains, not just companies, I own two) Before, doing so would “release” the default
name.bsky.socialhandle, allowing someone else to use it.This literally doesn’t take away any handles from anyone, except people who grabbed handles that were “released” by their original owners. It DOES NOT allow someone who shows up with a new spechul domain to take away the handle of a user that already exists.
They should address actual concerns, but make it clear they won’t overstep afterwards like all of the other social media apps before them.
That is what I wrote.
You say they are only acting on ones where the company switched away from bsky.social, but squatters and scammers are not limited to only the ones they switched away from. To address squatters and scammers they will need to address those how got there first too. That is a necessity, but also the start of a slippery slope that they need to put the brakes on before they go down the familiar path to taking joke accounts.
Ok. But again, this isn’t that.
No part of this particular change, is even step one of what you’re talking about.
This is literally only stopping new users from registering accounts under handles someone used before, but switched away from.
It’s straight up a "correct " solution.
Yes, this one step is correct. They need to be clear it will be limited to this one step.
I don’t share your view.
Company doing good thing without simultaneously promising it won’t do bad thing doesnt automatically mean BAD THING WILL ABSOLUTELY SUPER DUPER CERTAINLY HAPPEN NEXT.
The opposite, actually.
When corpos are specific about bad thing definitely not being planned, that’s when it is DEFINITELY the next step.
Maybe, but this isn’t about that.
Not YET.