4 ms·

I like the idea of a trust hierarchy. Bluesky verifies NYT, then NYT verifies all their journalists. Makes the entire process a lot more scalable.

by paxys 2y ago

Robotbeat 2y ago
NYT journalists as a privileged class… With actions like this, Bluesky is not exactly beating the allegations.
- 9283409232 2y ago
  I actually don't know what you are talking about.
  - JustSkyfall 2y ago
    I presume he’s saying that Bluesky’s a very left wing social media platform.
    - mrguyorama 2y ago
      Calling NYT left wing is patently absurd. They've spent the past 4-8 years platforming writers to say absolute horseshit about trans people and equivocate between Biden having like 6 leftover classified documents in his house vs Trumps bathroom of for sale state secrets.
      - 9283409232 2y ago
        Everything that doesn't worship the Emperor is left wing these days.
        Robotbeat 2y ago
        Believe it or not, plenty of left wingers have a bone to pick with the East Coast traditional media establishment as well, NY Times in particular. And the traditional media also seems to have a symbiotic relationship with Trump, whose chaos drives news ratings.
- muglug 2y ago
  NYT journalists are in a different class from random Bluesky users — if they spread unfounded conspiracy theories on their corporate-approved account, they can be fired from their jobs. Put another way, a Bluesky post saying "BREAKING: Trump dies from natural causes" from an employed NYT journo carries a different salience than the same post from a random Bluesky user.
  - SV_BubbleTime 2y ago
    >if they spread unfounded conspiracy theories on their corporate-approved account, they can be fired from their jobs. Or… you know… win a Pulitzer.
- Applejinx 2y ago
  Correct. I'd like the example of NYT as a verifying authority better if I trusted the Times more than I trusted some of their journalists (blessed few, mind you). I think it's pretty hilarious that the Times, of all people, count as 'trusted'. It makes me automatically distrust BlueSky verification, which doesn't sound like the intention.
  - enneff 2y ago
    It’s not that you need to trust the New York Times as a whole, it’s that you can trust that account is linked to that organisation. A verification tick does not imply endorsement, just that they are who they say they are.
    - Applejinx 2y ago
      That would be nice, I guess. In normie world a blue tick is supposed to mean 'vouched for and trustworthy, also high status so you should maybe show deference'. You can say it means whatever you want, but then watch how people fight for these things and argue about/rebel against them. In practical terms, no, they are status markers.
      - azernik 2y ago
        If you're treating a "this person is who they say they are" checkmark as a status symbol, that's a you problem.
        Robotbeat 2y ago
        That’s the problem with a lot of people, tho. They DO give deference to the checkmark.
  - mmooss 2y ago
    > I think it's pretty hilarious that the Times, of all people, count as 'trusted'. Why? Who do you trust?
trompetenaccoun 2y ago
The blog post is unclear on if they will only be allowed to verify accounts as being part of NYT or if they will be allowed to give out blue checks to anyone in general. It sounds like it's the latter. If not it shouldn't be a blue check at all, it should just inform users that the account is associated with NYT. News organizations have in recent years started selling so-called "contributor" positions. Anyone with enough money can be a journalist and influence public opinion. And NYT and similar outlets are not trustworthy sources either way, they sneak edit articles when they get caught spreading misinformation but regularly don't disclose what was actually changed. Basically rewriting their reporting as the narrative changes.
- steveklabnik 2y ago
  > The blog post is unclear on if they will only be allowed to verify accounts as being part of NYT or if they will be allowed to give out blue checks to anyone in general. On a technical level, any account can "verify" any other account. On a practical level, blue checks are shown only if that verification comes from someone BlueSky trusts. Right now, that's bsky.app and nytimes.com.
  - throwaway642012 2y ago
    That’s very interesting. Does It mean NYTimes can also provide a Blue Check to someone from BBC, Reuters or even from a completely different org?
    - steveklabnik 2y ago
      At the protocol level, any account can verify any other account. If you have one, you can verify anyone you'd like right now. The NYT can verify any account, even ones from those organizations, or not even from a news organization. The only difference is that Bluesky won't show a blue check for just any verification, only ones from accounts they trust. That's a social relationship, not a technical one, and so I'm sure if the NYT decided to go rogue, Bluesky would have them not be an input into the blue check any more.
- 2y ago

I like the idea of a trust hierarchy. Bluesky verifies NYT, then NYT verifies all their journalists. Makes the entire process a lot more scalable.

by paxys 2y ago

I like the idea of a trust hierarchy. Bluesky verifies NYT, then NYT verifies all their journalists. Makes the entire process a lot more scalable.

Robotbeat 2y ago

NYT journalists as a privileged class… With actions like this, Bluesky is not exactly beating the allegations.

9283409232 2y ago
I actually don't know what you are talking about.
- JustSkyfall 2y ago
  I presume he’s saying that Bluesky’s a very left wing social media platform.
  - mrguyorama 2y ago
    Calling NYT left wing is patently absurd. They've spent the past 4-8 years platforming writers to say absolute horseshit about trans people and equivocate between Biden having like 6 leftover classified documents in his house vs Trumps bathroom of for sale state secrets.
    - 9283409232 2y ago
      Everything that doesn't worship the Emperor is left wing these days.
      - Robotbeat 2y ago
        Believe it or not, plenty of left wingers have a bone to pick with the East Coast traditional media establishment as well, NY Times in particular. And the traditional media also seems to have a symbiotic relationship with Trump, whose chaos drives news ratings.
muglug 2y ago
NYT journalists are in a different class from random Bluesky users — if they spread unfounded conspiracy theories on their corporate-approved account, they can be fired from their jobs. Put another way, a Bluesky post saying "BREAKING: Trump dies from natural causes" from an employed NYT journo carries a different salience than the same post from a random Bluesky user.
- SV_BubbleTime 2y ago
  >if they spread unfounded conspiracy theories on their corporate-approved account, they can be fired from their jobs. Or… you know… win a Pulitzer.
Applejinx 2y ago
Correct. I'd like the example of NYT as a verifying authority better if I trusted the Times more than I trusted some of their journalists (blessed few, mind you). I think it's pretty hilarious that the Times, of all people, count as 'trusted'. It makes me automatically distrust BlueSky verification, which doesn't sound like the intention.
- enneff 2y ago
  It’s not that you need to trust the New York Times as a whole, it’s that you can trust that account is linked to that organisation. A verification tick does not imply endorsement, just that they are who they say they are.
  - Applejinx 2y ago
    That would be nice, I guess. In normie world a blue tick is supposed to mean 'vouched for and trustworthy, also high status so you should maybe show deference'. You can say it means whatever you want, but then watch how people fight for these things and argue about/rebel against them. In practical terms, no, they are status markers.
    - azernik 2y ago
      If you're treating a "this person is who they say they are" checkmark as a status symbol, that's a you problem.
      - Robotbeat 2y ago
        That’s the problem with a lot of people, tho. They DO give deference to the checkmark.
- mmooss 2y ago
  > I think it's pretty hilarious that the Times, of all people, count as 'trusted'. Why? Who do you trust?

trompetenaccoun 2y ago

The blog post is unclear on if they will only be allowed to verify accounts as being part of NYT or if they will be allowed to give out blue checks to anyone in general. It sounds like it's the latter. If not it shouldn't be a blue check at all, it should just inform users that the account is associated with NYT. News organizations have in recent years started selling so-called "contributor" positions. Anyone with enough money can be a journalist and influence public opinion. And NYT and similar outlets are not trustworthy sources either way, they sneak edit articles when they get caught spreading misinformation but regularly don't disclose what was actually changed. Basically rewriting their reporting as the narrative changes.

steveklabnik 2y ago
> The blog post is unclear on if they will only be allowed to verify accounts as being part of NYT or if they will be allowed to give out blue checks to anyone in general. On a technical level, any account can "verify" any other account. On a practical level, blue checks are shown only if that verification comes from someone BlueSky trusts. Right now, that's bsky.app and nytimes.com.
- throwaway642012 2y ago
  That’s very interesting. Does It mean NYTimes can also provide a Blue Check to someone from BBC, Reuters or even from a completely different org?
  - steveklabnik 2y ago
    At the protocol level, any account can verify any other account. If you have one, you can verify anyone you'd like right now. The NYT can verify any account, even ones from those organizations, or not even from a news organization. The only difference is that Bluesky won't show a blue check for just any verification, only ones from accounts they trust. That's a social relationship, not a technical one, and so I'm sure if the NYT decided to go rogue, Bluesky would have them not be an input into the blue check any more.
2y ago