4 ms·

This is the consequence of lack of self-sovereignty, along with the lack of an agreed universal naming system. That said, I’m not sure that first-come-first-wi

This is the consequence of lack of self-sovereignty, along with the lack of an agreed universal naming system. That said, I’m not sure that first-come-first-wins is simultaneously fair, in such a universal environment. Nor, really, do I want it to be a “whoever can pay most gets the desirable names”, like DNS works. I don’t have a better solution right now, but acknowledge that there’s a problem with the combination/intersection of “rarity” and “ownership” and such. Are there any solutions that are even close to … some kind of fairness, or even approximation of a system that respects… anything?

fluoridation 3y ago
>Are there any solutions that are even close to … some kind of fairness, or even approximation of a system that respects… anything? One way could be have names mean nothing in terms of identification. You can call yourself "music" if you like, but so can anyone else. You're better off calling yourself something unique and then building a following, so that future potential followers can distinguish you from copycats.
- andrepd 3y ago
  Discord kinda had that with username#1234 (4 digits). But that's being phase out.
  - tagamma 3y ago
    Is there an explanation anywhere of their reason for doing the phase out? Very curious!
    - rurounijones 3y ago
      User confusion.basically
    - Ekaros 3y ago
      Because absolutely everyone employed there. Or at least those having any power were incapable of coming up with alternative solution for adding friends... As 4 numbers was too hard to remember. And only possible way was to use exact name... Not to generate link or email or something...
verve_rat 3y ago
Better search? Authors of books don't call themselves Scifi P. BestAuthor, they market themselves and their books. First come first served for @music or @movies or @whatever shouldn't really matter if you want to find content you enjoy and want to follow the author for more of the same.
sp332 3y ago
The Cult of the Dead Cow is launching Veilid at Def Con next weekend.
terribleperson 3y ago
A mandatory random set of numbers at the end of every name is an approach I quite like. Not only does it directly make every name available to 10,000 people, it should reduce the demand for these desirable names in the first place since you have to share them with thousands of other people. Platforms should also consider accommodations for trademark holders. Most have some sort of program, but it seems to be a mess. If every normal screen name has a numeric code at the end, there's room to give trademark holders a non-numeric name without having to seize a handle from someone else. The spot normally occupied by the numeric code could be replaced with an indication that that account is owned by the trademark holder or with the name of the entity that owns the trademark, to differentiate it from normal accounts and also from any accounts that might hold a similar mark in a different business.
- rectang 3y ago
  I like that you're making concrete proposals and the append-random-numbers approach is thought-provoking. Removing the numbers for trademark holders is an imperfect solution though, though, since multiple entities can hold the same mark so long as they are in different markets. A critical test for trademark violation is "does it cause confusion in the marketplace?" and if nobody confuses Oracle Software with HiSpec Oracle trailer tires or Oracle Lighting, they're all allowed to hold a trademark on "Oracle". But if you're talking about a namespace where "there can be only one", which of the entities who holds a registered trademark wins?
  - terribleperson 3y ago
    That's why I followed on with the suggestion of replacing the numbers with the owning entity. "Apple|Apple Inc." would be separate from "Apple|Apple Records." Of course, this is complicated when a trademark is owned by different companies in different countries or when a trademark is licensed to a company including the right to advertise with that trademark. An alternative thought I had was replacing the numbers with the business the trademark is in, but plenty of trademarks apply to more than one business and the 'primary' one can change over time. There are assuredly better solutions, but even an imperfect solution is better than the current state of things. First-come-first-serve with unique per-site screen names just plain sucks.
rapnie 3y ago
Petnames. Similar to the contacts in your phone. See e.g. https://spritelyproject.org/news/petname-systems.html https://spritelyproject.org/news/petname-systems.html

fluoridation 3y ago

>Are there any solutions that are even close to … some kind of fairness, or even approximation of a system that respects… anything? One way could be have names mean nothing in terms of identification. You can call yourself "music" if you like, but so can anyone else. You're better off calling yourself something unique and then building a following, so that future potential followers can distinguish you from copycats.

andrepd 3y ago
Discord kinda had that with username#1234 (4 digits). But that's being phase out.
- tagamma 3y ago
  Is there an explanation anywhere of their reason for doing the phase out? Very curious!
  - rurounijones 3y ago
    User confusion.basically
  - Ekaros 3y ago
    Because absolutely everyone employed there. Or at least those having any power were incapable of coming up with alternative solution for adding friends... As 4 numbers was too hard to remember. And only possible way was to use exact name... Not to generate link or email or something...

verve_rat 3y ago

Better search? Authors of books don't call themselves Scifi P. BestAuthor, they market themselves and their books. First come first served for @music or @movies or @whatever shouldn't really matter if you want to find content you enjoy and want to follow the author for more of the same.

sp332 3y ago

The Cult of the Dead Cow is launching Veilid at Def Con next weekend.

terribleperson 3y ago

A mandatory random set of numbers at the end of every name is an approach I quite like. Not only does it directly make every name available to 10,000 people, it should reduce the demand for these desirable names in the first place since you have to share them with thousands of other people. Platforms should also consider accommodations for trademark holders. Most have some sort of program, but it seems to be a mess. If every normal screen name has a numeric code at the end, there's room to give trademark holders a non-numeric name without having to seize a handle from someone else. The spot normally occupied by the numeric code could be replaced with an indication that that account is owned by the trademark holder or with the name of the entity that owns the trademark, to differentiate it from normal accounts and also from any accounts that might hold a similar mark in a different business.

rectang 3y ago
I like that you're making concrete proposals and the append-random-numbers approach is thought-provoking. Removing the numbers for trademark holders is an imperfect solution though, though, since multiple entities can hold the same mark so long as they are in different markets. A critical test for trademark violation is "does it cause confusion in the marketplace?" and if nobody confuses Oracle Software with HiSpec Oracle trailer tires or Oracle Lighting, they're all allowed to hold a trademark on "Oracle". But if you're talking about a namespace where "there can be only one", which of the entities who holds a registered trademark wins?
- terribleperson 3y ago
  That's why I followed on with the suggestion of replacing the numbers with the owning entity. "Apple|Apple Inc." would be separate from "Apple|Apple Records." Of course, this is complicated when a trademark is owned by different companies in different countries or when a trademark is licensed to a company including the right to advertise with that trademark. An alternative thought I had was replacing the numbers with the business the trademark is in, but plenty of trademarks apply to more than one business and the 'primary' one can change over time. There are assuredly better solutions, but even an imperfect solution is better than the current state of things. First-come-first-serve with unique per-site screen names just plain sucks.

rapnie 3y ago

Petnames. Similar to the contacts in your phone. See e.g. https://spritelyproject.org/news/petname-systems.html https://spritelyproject.org/news/petname-systems.html