But that's what worries me, short term, here - the company behind Bluesky is small, has few resources. They're not going to do verification. So the domain name route is the only option for now, however imperfect.
Comments
Log in with your Bluesky account to leave a comment
They don't seem especially interested in building a platform at all, their focus seems to be more on selling the technology behind it and 'enabling' others to do these kind of things
on 2), I guess you mean the official accounts? I joined Mastodon before there was a Commission instance, plus I prefer being on there as all of me, not just work.
Yes. But there is another method more practical for organisations which want to register a lot of employees/members with a simple script to answer a http request on the domain. And Bluesky is working on the possibility to revoke authentification with this method for people leaving the organisation.
You are right. But how do you distinguish accounts that would need a domain name route and the other ones, for generic citizens with no major official role?
This is not a disagreement but I am rather curious and interested in your view!
Comments
If there's an EU server, we'd know that those accounts are legitimate.
Same thing would work on Mastodon, and I believe the EU established a server there.
Interoperability would be nice.
1) Running a separate Bluesky instance is not possible yet, but is coming - I have written more on that here https://euroblog.jonworth.eu/from-the-who-to-the-rolling-stones-or-why-i-will-not-trust-bluesky-just-yet/
2) There is a Commission instance on Mastodon, but not all Commission people are using it, oddly
Theoretically in the future the Commission could also run its own instance, but that is not possible yet
It's the last part in this page: https://blueskyweb.xyz/blog/4-28-2023-domain-handle-tutorial
This is not a disagreement but I am rather curious and interested in your view!
Medium term Bluesky and any other network has to develop easy systems to fix this sort of issue.