5 ms·

I don't see the point of having a "select" verification on social networks. It should be for everyone, like a bank where you verify using ID and a webcam... it

I don't see the point of having a "select" verification on social networks. It should be for everyone, like a bank where you verify using ID and a webcam... it could even be a paid service. Making them exclusive and intransparent is shady. Just like username colors on social platforms where people pay $15,000 to make them look special.

Edmond 9y ago
There is an even better approach to internet information verification at scale: https://www.cipheredtrust.com/doc/ https://www.cipheredtrust.com/doc/
- TheAceOfHearts 9y ago
  Interesting link. I hadn't seen that before. Do you know if anyone is actually using this? From glancing over the docs, my big complaint is that it's not a federated system. Why is trust anchor management centralized?
  - Edmond 9y ago
    It could be federated, basically the same API could be implemented or a common implementation can be used by a number of service providers...still not sure though what federation by itself adds to the core solution. I am the developer and have tried so far in vain to get the IRS to integrate. The IRS is the single largest data source for basic identity attributes in the US so integrating that would essentially allow almost every adult in the US to be able to leverage it. I have developed a Chrome extension to allow the use of IRS tax transcript information but obviously it is a very high bar considering the sensitivity of that information. ....still work in progress
CM30 9y ago
Agreed 100%. Why not do things like how Google Webmaster Tools does it, where you fill in a form, get a file to post on your website and have it auto verify based on that? Or for those who aren't website/service owners, a system where you verify your name or address? The current exclusive system on sites like Twitter, YouTube, Instagram and others is awkward and makes no real sense whatsoever. Same with the also awkward trend of 'deverifying' people that say something 'offensive' or 'brek the rules'. You don't stop being the same person when you upset someone. Really, sites and social networks need to just treat verification like anything else.
- colejohnson66 9y ago
  That’s because it’s not for verification; It’s a status symbol. Also, this is just speculation, but if saying certain things could get you unverified, and being unverified would lower your ranking some places and hurt your value, a website could censor what they deem “hate” speech simply with the threat of unverification. You can’t really cry censorship over a little icon.
  - CM30 9y ago
    Yeah, it's definitely a status symbol as it is now. But my question remains the same. Why treat it like a status symbol? I don't see a reason why this should be something fancy that only an elite few should have. Why not have a different system for marking elite users which is based on some sort of merit (or actual real world worth) rather than just a vague sense of name recognition? Just seems like they're misusing the concept, and that a system which does away with the 'prestige' aspect of verification would do equally well on a user level.
romanovcode 9y ago
> people pay $15,000 In 90% of the cases it's not the people who are paying. The companies that people are advertising are paying for the most part.
criddell 9y ago
I don't get it either. There's clearly value in the verification. Why don't they try to capture that?
- jessaustin 9y ago
  The firm attempts to use that value to make the platform itself more valuable. The employee captures it more directly, because fuck the platform. Many problems in business are principal-agent problems.
dawnerd 9y ago
Twitter opened theirs up but it's really just a queue for a denial email. You can meet all of their requirements and still be denied.
dilemma 9y ago
It wouldn't be valuable if everyone had it.
vbezhenar 9y ago
One interesting way for secure identification is using local government-issued certificates. In Kazakhstan every citizen can request a digital certificate which is signed by a central authority. Many other countries use similar technologies. Those certificates could be used for identification. But I believe that there are laws about storing people's information, so you might have to comply with that.
- hatsunearu 9y ago
  Korea has something like this too. Any citizen can pay a small fee to get a digital verification cert, which contains a private-public key pair and a digital authentication signature from a trusted authority, who has been vetted by a nationwide system. Alternatively, one can sign up for a bank account and get a cert for free. This is used to login to online banking stuff, government business (taxes etc) and online activity. Fun thing is that the trust tree terminates at the government or via a trust web made by the banks. The reason for this is that when they were making the system, the academics and government officials had a bit of a disagreement and made two systems. Korean crypto is pretty crazy. Read about XEED and the decade long battle with MS ActiveX.
  - hatsunearu 9y ago
    Few mistakes, its actually called SEED and the crypto committee were all academics and the split happened among them.

Edmond 9y ago

There is an even better approach to internet information verification at scale: https://www.cipheredtrust.com/doc/ https://www.cipheredtrust.com/doc/

TheAceOfHearts 9y ago
Interesting link. I hadn't seen that before. Do you know if anyone is actually using this? From glancing over the docs, my big complaint is that it's not a federated system. Why is trust anchor management centralized?
- Edmond 9y ago
  It could be federated, basically the same API could be implemented or a common implementation can be used by a number of service providers...still not sure though what federation by itself adds to the core solution. I am the developer and have tried so far in vain to get the IRS to integrate. The IRS is the single largest data source for basic identity attributes in the US so integrating that would essentially allow almost every adult in the US to be able to leverage it. I have developed a Chrome extension to allow the use of IRS tax transcript information but obviously it is a very high bar considering the sensitivity of that information. ....still work in progress

CM30 9y ago

Agreed 100%. Why not do things like how Google Webmaster Tools does it, where you fill in a form, get a file to post on your website and have it auto verify based on that? Or for those who aren't website/service owners, a system where you verify your name or address? The current exclusive system on sites like Twitter, YouTube, Instagram and others is awkward and makes no real sense whatsoever. Same with the also awkward trend of 'deverifying' people that say something 'offensive' or 'brek the rules'. You don't stop being the same person when you upset someone. Really, sites and social networks need to just treat verification like anything else.

colejohnson66 9y ago
That’s because it’s not for verification; It’s a status symbol. Also, this is just speculation, but if saying certain things could get you unverified, and being unverified would lower your ranking some places and hurt your value, a website could censor what they deem “hate” speech simply with the threat of unverification. You can’t really cry censorship over a little icon.
- CM30 9y ago
  Yeah, it's definitely a status symbol as it is now. But my question remains the same. Why treat it like a status symbol? I don't see a reason why this should be something fancy that only an elite few should have. Why not have a different system for marking elite users which is based on some sort of merit (or actual real world worth) rather than just a vague sense of name recognition? Just seems like they're misusing the concept, and that a system which does away with the 'prestige' aspect of verification would do equally well on a user level.

romanovcode 9y ago

> people pay $15,000 In 90% of the cases it's not the people who are paying. The companies that people are advertising are paying for the most part.

criddell 9y ago

I don't get it either. There's clearly value in the verification. Why don't they try to capture that?

jessaustin 9y ago
The firm attempts to use that value to make the platform itself more valuable. The employee captures it more directly, because fuck the platform. Many problems in business are principal-agent problems.

dawnerd 9y ago

Twitter opened theirs up but it's really just a queue for a denial email. You can meet all of their requirements and still be denied.

dilemma 9y ago

It wouldn't be valuable if everyone had it.

vbezhenar 9y ago

One interesting way for secure identification is using local government-issued certificates. In Kazakhstan every citizen can request a digital certificate which is signed by a central authority. Many other countries use similar technologies. Those certificates could be used for identification. But I believe that there are laws about storing people's information, so you might have to comply with that.

hatsunearu 9y ago
Korea has something like this too. Any citizen can pay a small fee to get a digital verification cert, which contains a private-public key pair and a digital authentication signature from a trusted authority, who has been vetted by a nationwide system. Alternatively, one can sign up for a bank account and get a cert for free. This is used to login to online banking stuff, government business (taxes etc) and online activity. Fun thing is that the trust tree terminates at the government or via a trust web made by the banks. The reason for this is that when they were making the system, the academics and government officials had a bit of a disagreement and made two systems. Korean crypto is pretty crazy. Read about XEED and the decade long battle with MS ActiveX.
- hatsunearu 9y ago
  Few mistakes, its actually called SEED and the crypto committee were all academics and the split happened among them.