5 ms·

Not convinced by this. We need a way to reflect that human "social trust" is born distributed, and centralising trust subverts it. But here, while they introdu

by ajb 2y ago

Not convinced by this. We need a way to reflect that human "social trust" is born distributed, and centralising trust subverts it. But here, while they introduce third party verifiers, rather than individuals deciding which verifiers to trust, bsky is going to bless some. So this is just centralised trust with delegation.

TheJoeMan 2y ago
Are there any good examples of a working "vouch" system? I vouch for a few friends, they vouch others, etc. But if my credibility is revoked, everyone downstream of me is either yanked or needs a new voucher.
- jsheard 2y ago
  I think the more exclusive private torrent trackers usually work on that basis.
- godelski 2y ago
  ArXiV. Though they don't revoke papers that way
- fp64 2y ago
  A long time ago there was this “web of trust”, I don’t think it exists anymore. Was one of the big CA and you could get different certificates through some form of vouching, I think it even went as far as meeting people to show your ID and then they sign you or something. As it was run by a big CA, not really distributed but IIRC they kept their involvement minimal. It’s been a long time but if you’re curious maybe look into that
  - duskwuff 2y ago
    CACert.org, but they were never included in any major trust store.
  - runjake 2y ago
    It might have been Keybase? Keybase got acquired back in 2020 and it's popularity -- at least among cypherpunks, seems to have dropped off. https://keybase.io/ https://keybase.io/
    - jsheard 2y ago
      Keybases popularity falling off a cliff isn't really surprising, their venture into shitcoinery already put them on thin ice with the anti-cryptocurrency crowd, and then development basically ceased overnight after the Zoom acquisition. I don't know why they're even bothering to keep the lights on, it's been five years of radio silence at this point.
    - lgiordano_notte 2y ago
      keybase had promise early on but kinda lost the plot. the vouching system was neat in theory but never really caught on outside a small circle. the crypto stuff definitely didn’t help, and once zoom bought them it was basically a ghost town, no roadmap, no real dev activity, just inertia. feels like identity + trust systems keep coming back around but never quite stick. maybe too hard to balance usability, decentralization, and adoption all at once.
      - binary132 2y ago
        I tend to think the ecosystem is vastly dominated by established solutions. In order for a New Thing to win, it needs to be at least an order of magnitude better and more usable, or the network effect obliterates it.
        TheJoeMan 2y ago
        Could it also be that social media sites depend on commingling “daily active users” vs “number of unique humans” for having high numbers? A web of trust would establish one live person per account, somewhat like Facebook had a policy for.
    - godelski 2y ago
      I feel like keybase was a good idea but needs to be redone. I guess there's keyoxide (any other?). What are people's thoughts on that? https://keyoxide.org/ https://keyoxide.org/
  - ghewgill 2y ago
    You're thinking of the Thawte Web of Trust: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thawte https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thawte which was run by Mark Shuttleworth (now of Canonical). The certificates were used for email, not for SSL. I lost track of what happened to it after CACert took over.
    - fp64 2y ago
      Yes, exactly! Thank you!
- benwilber0 2y ago
  My initial thought is about GPG's "Web of Trust" system for trusting strangers' keys. But I don't know if that's a very good example since it always seemed somewhat esoteric and maybe not very successful in general.
- giaour 2y ago
  "Working" would be a stretch, but this is how "web of trust" systems like PGP are supposed to function. Although I would say the BlueSky system sounds like it could skirt some of the pitfalls of web of trust because verifiers can also be trusted to revoke verification.
  - binary132 2y ago
    certificate authorities…?
- paulsutter 2y ago
  Google Pagerank Could use follows, retweets, etc instead of page links
- aunetx 2y ago
  There is a p2p social network (as in, people offering there services whatsoever) in France that does exactly this: it's called "Gens de confiance". It works well, although it creates kind of a gated community (as intended: it is mainly meant for upper-class social circles).
godelski 2y ago
I don't see what the problem was with using domains. If you're trying to claim you work for NYT then get a NYT verified account? And what ever happened to Keybase? That seemed like a good solution. Verify by public private key? It really seems like that could be extended. I mean we have things like attribute keys and signing keys. It seems like a solvable solution but just the platforms need to create a means for the private bodies to integrate their keys. Hell, I wish we'd have verification keys for cops and gov employees. So me a badge? No, show me a badge with a key I can scan and verify your identity. It's much harder to forge a badge with a valid key than it is to forge a badge that just looks good enough
- detectd 2y ago
  > And whatever happened to Keybase? They got acquired by Zoom and promptly put Keybase into maintenance mode.
- mattl 2y ago
  > I don't see what the problem was with using domains. DNS for your average user is too complicated. Also what should the domain name be for a journalist at the NYT? What if they leave the NYT?
  - godelski 2y ago
    > DNS for your average user is too complicated. The average user doesn't need verification either. In fact, I don't think I want most users verified. It then creates a reverse incentive where anonymous accounts are distrusted by default and too much trust is given to verification. An important part of a system with free speech and not governable (the point of distributed) is to be able to freely speak. Sometimes that means hiding your identity. Especially for those in countries or societies with particularly authoritarian rule. The best way to keep people quiet is to make them afraid of their neighbor. > what should the domain name be for a journalist at the NYT? AliceBob@NYT > What if they leave the NYT? AliceBob@bsky.social Everyone has the bsky.social handle, so you revert. I'd even be happy if optional profiles could show former affiliations. But it doesn't seem like a big problem. I mean NYT shouldn't be verifying a journalist if that journalist is no longer at NYT. Their new employer should.
verdverm 2y ago
Apps on ATProto get to decide for themselves. Another Bluesky client, or a completely different app, can make different choices. Users can then decide which interface they want to use. All part of the design of ATProto
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
dbbk 2y ago
Ironically, Twitter's mechanism of auto-verifying anyone over 1M followers kind of achieves this.
Akronymus 2y ago
IMO a system of "I vouch for these accounts" and "I trust the accounts these accounts vouch for, and the accounts those vouched for vouch for up to x levels deep" would be a workable solution.
CobrastanJorji 2y ago
Human social trust works great at small scale. You go to Jim the butcher because everybody you know in town regularly goes to Jim the butcher and they know he's been making meat pretty well for a long time. An automated version of this system might say "we verify anybody who at least N people within 3-4 steps of your followers graph are also following." In a big city, you go to the store that's labeled "Butcher" and figure that, because the building is quite permanent and there's a lot of butchery stuff in there and it seems clean and there are people going in and out, then it's probably a fine butcher shop. No real "social" trust involved. An automated version of this is probably domain checking, follower count, checking that N other 'verified' accounts follow it, some basic "is this a known malicious actor" checks, waiting until the account has some age, etc. Still kind of distributed, but not really relying on your own social trust metrics. What's fun is that Bluesky allows you to implement both of those mechanisms yourself.
healsdata 2y ago
What's missing from the blog announcement is that on the at protocol, anyone can publish a verification of any account. It is then up to each client to decide which verifiers to display / trust / etc. With that in mind, it seems like bluesky is trying to thread the needle on providing tools for the community to do their own verification (via the protocol) while also making their own client "notable user" friendly (via blessed verifications that show blue checks). I also don't see why it wouldn't be possible for someone to build a labeler that shows verifications from non-bluesky blessed sources. Then community members could subscribe to that labeler to get non-blessed verifications that they choose to show. It wouldn't show up as a blue check but it would still show up on the user's profile in bluesky. It would look something like this existing "verification" labeler that doesn't use the underlying verification feature on the protocol but instead has to maintain the data in a 3rd party store: https://imgur.com/a/tXR4FUu https://imgur.com/a/tXR4FUu Additionally, third-party clients like Pinksky or Skylight could choose to show blue checks or whatever UI for any verifiers they choose. All the data is on the protocol now, so the 3rd party clients wouldn't need to do the verification themselves.
- ajb 2y ago
  Very interesting; thanks. So it is possible on the tech side, but needs organisations to take advantage.

by ajb 2y ago

TheJoeMan 2y ago

Are there any good examples of a working "vouch" system? I vouch for a few friends, they vouch others, etc. But if my credibility is revoked, everyone downstream of me is either yanked or needs a new voucher.

jsheard 2y ago
I think the more exclusive private torrent trackers usually work on that basis.
godelski 2y ago
ArXiV. Though they don't revoke papers that way
fp64 2y ago
A long time ago there was this “web of trust”, I don’t think it exists anymore. Was one of the big CA and you could get different certificates through some form of vouching, I think it even went as far as meeting people to show your ID and then they sign you or something. As it was run by a big CA, not really distributed but IIRC they kept their involvement minimal. It’s been a long time but if you’re curious maybe look into that
- duskwuff 2y ago
  CACert.org, but they were never included in any major trust store.
- runjake 2y ago
  It might have been Keybase? Keybase got acquired back in 2020 and it's popularity -- at least among cypherpunks, seems to have dropped off. https://keybase.io/ https://keybase.io/
  - jsheard 2y ago
    Keybases popularity falling off a cliff isn't really surprising, their venture into shitcoinery already put them on thin ice with the anti-cryptocurrency crowd, and then development basically ceased overnight after the Zoom acquisition. I don't know why they're even bothering to keep the lights on, it's been five years of radio silence at this point.
  - lgiordano_notte 2y ago
    keybase had promise early on but kinda lost the plot. the vouching system was neat in theory but never really caught on outside a small circle. the crypto stuff definitely didn’t help, and once zoom bought them it was basically a ghost town, no roadmap, no real dev activity, just inertia. feels like identity + trust systems keep coming back around but never quite stick. maybe too hard to balance usability, decentralization, and adoption all at once.
    - binary132 2y ago
      I tend to think the ecosystem is vastly dominated by established solutions. In order for a New Thing to win, it needs to be at least an order of magnitude better and more usable, or the network effect obliterates it.
      - TheJoeMan 2y ago
        Could it also be that social media sites depend on commingling “daily active users” vs “number of unique humans” for having high numbers? A web of trust would establish one live person per account, somewhat like Facebook had a policy for.
  - godelski 2y ago
    I feel like keybase was a good idea but needs to be redone. I guess there's keyoxide (any other?). What are people's thoughts on that? https://keyoxide.org/ https://keyoxide.org/
- ghewgill 2y ago
  You're thinking of the Thawte Web of Trust: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thawte https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thawte which was run by Mark Shuttleworth (now of Canonical). The certificates were used for email, not for SSL. I lost track of what happened to it after CACert took over.
  - fp64 2y ago
    Yes, exactly! Thank you!
benwilber0 2y ago
My initial thought is about GPG's "Web of Trust" system for trusting strangers' keys. But I don't know if that's a very good example since it always seemed somewhat esoteric and maybe not very successful in general.
giaour 2y ago
"Working" would be a stretch, but this is how "web of trust" systems like PGP are supposed to function. Although I would say the BlueSky system sounds like it could skirt some of the pitfalls of web of trust because verifiers can also be trusted to revoke verification.
- binary132 2y ago
  certificate authorities…?
paulsutter 2y ago
Google Pagerank Could use follows, retweets, etc instead of page links
aunetx 2y ago
There is a p2p social network (as in, people offering there services whatsoever) in France that does exactly this: it's called "Gens de confiance". It works well, although it creates kind of a gated community (as intended: it is mainly meant for upper-class social circles).

godelski 2y ago

I don't see what the problem was with using domains. If you're trying to claim you work for NYT then get a NYT verified account? And what ever happened to Keybase? That seemed like a good solution. Verify by public private key? It really seems like that could be extended. I mean we have things like attribute keys and signing keys. It seems like a solvable solution but just the platforms need to create a means for the private bodies to integrate their keys. Hell, I wish we'd have verification keys for cops and gov employees. So me a badge? No, show me a badge with a key I can scan and verify your identity. It's much harder to forge a badge with a valid key than it is to forge a badge that just looks good enough

detectd 2y ago
> And whatever happened to Keybase? They got acquired by Zoom and promptly put Keybase into maintenance mode.
mattl 2y ago
> I don't see what the problem was with using domains. DNS for your average user is too complicated. Also what should the domain name be for a journalist at the NYT? What if they leave the NYT?
- godelski 2y ago
  > DNS for your average user is too complicated. The average user doesn't need verification either. In fact, I don't think I want most users verified. It then creates a reverse incentive where anonymous accounts are distrusted by default and too much trust is given to verification. An important part of a system with free speech and not governable (the point of distributed) is to be able to freely speak. Sometimes that means hiding your identity. Especially for those in countries or societies with particularly authoritarian rule. The best way to keep people quiet is to make them afraid of their neighbor. > what should the domain name be for a journalist at the NYT? AliceBob@NYT > What if they leave the NYT? AliceBob@bsky.social Everyone has the bsky.social handle, so you revert. I'd even be happy if optional profiles could show former affiliations. But it doesn't seem like a big problem. I mean NYT shouldn't be verifying a journalist if that journalist is no longer at NYT. Their new employer should.

verdverm 2y ago

Apps on ATProto get to decide for themselves. Another Bluesky client, or a completely different app, can make different choices. Users can then decide which interface they want to use. All part of the design of ATProto

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

dbbk 2y ago

Ironically, Twitter's mechanism of auto-verifying anyone over 1M followers kind of achieves this.

Akronymus 2y ago

IMO a system of "I vouch for these accounts" and "I trust the accounts these accounts vouch for, and the accounts those vouched for vouch for up to x levels deep" would be a workable solution.

CobrastanJorji 2y ago

Human social trust works great at small scale. You go to Jim the butcher because everybody you know in town regularly goes to Jim the butcher and they know he's been making meat pretty well for a long time. An automated version of this system might say "we verify anybody who at least N people within 3-4 steps of your followers graph are also following." In a big city, you go to the store that's labeled "Butcher" and figure that, because the building is quite permanent and there's a lot of butchery stuff in there and it seems clean and there are people going in and out, then it's probably a fine butcher shop. No real "social" trust involved. An automated version of this is probably domain checking, follower count, checking that N other 'verified' accounts follow it, some basic "is this a known malicious actor" checks, waiting until the account has some age, etc. Still kind of distributed, but not really relying on your own social trust metrics. What's fun is that Bluesky allows you to implement both of those mechanisms yourself.

healsdata 2y ago

What's missing from the blog announcement is that on the at protocol, anyone can publish a verification of any account. It is then up to each client to decide which verifiers to display / trust / etc. With that in mind, it seems like bluesky is trying to thread the needle on providing tools for the community to do their own verification (via the protocol) while also making their own client "notable user" friendly (via blessed verifications that show blue checks). I also don't see why it wouldn't be possible for someone to build a labeler that shows verifications from non-bluesky blessed sources. Then community members could subscribe to that labeler to get non-blessed verifications that they choose to show. It wouldn't show up as a blue check but it would still show up on the user's profile in bluesky. It would look something like this existing "verification" labeler that doesn't use the underlying verification feature on the protocol but instead has to maintain the data in a 3rd party store: https://imgur.com/a/tXR4FUu https://imgur.com/a/tXR4FUu Additionally, third-party clients like Pinksky or Skylight could choose to show blue checks or whatever UI for any verifiers they choose. All the data is on the protocol now, so the 3rd party clients wouldn't need to do the verification themselves.

ajb 2y ago
Very interesting; thanks. So it is possible on the tech side, but needs organisations to take advantage.