3 ms·

> I trust the NYT as far as I can throw them when it comes to verification You don't trust the NYT to verify its own reporters? Also, why do you say that in a

by mmooss 2y ago

> I trust the NYT as far as I can throw them when it comes to verification You don't trust the NYT to verify its own reporters? Also, why do you say that in any circumstance? Who do you trust?

immibis 2y ago
How should you verify that they only verify their own reporters?
- yifanl 2y ago
  If they really wanted to verify a non-reporter as a reporter, they could give someone a salary of $1/year and then they would actually be a "reporter".
yellowapple 2y ago
> You don't trust the NYT to verify its own reporters? What happens when those individuals stop being NYT reporters? Does @nytimes.com leave them verified? Or does that account yank the verification? And who's to say @nytimes.com is only verifying NYT reporters? > Also, why do you say that in any circumstance? Who do you trust? People I've met in person, for one. Bluesky has an opportunity to make the old-school web-of-trust idea mainstream, with UI around "Is this someone you've met face-to-face?" and then extending that with multiple levels of checkmarks based on how many degrees of separation exist between a given user's verified personhood and your own. Organizations actually accountable to the general public, for another. Not some corporation, even if it's a publicly-traded one like the NYT. This is the exact sort of thing that government agencies could be implementing independently as a service to their residents (like I mentioned elsewhere). Or private-sector non-profits; Associated Press would be much more trustworthy than the NYT by that virtue alone, and yet @apnews.com ain't even verified at all, let alone given the magic "trusted verifier" powers. Why? Barring that, I trust nobody. A blue checkmark doesn't convince me someone's "real". It just convinces me someone got a blue checkmark. I'd rather see that checkmark actually mean something that I can independently verify. Keybase had the right idea there, with the ability to add proofs to your various online accounts to assert "yes, these belong to the same person"; that would be something worthy of some checkmarks. I'd be thrilled to see little icons for "yes, there's a bidirectional connection between @foo.bsky.social and github.com/foo / reddit.com/u/foo / news.ycombinator.com/user?id=foo / etc.".

by mmooss 2y ago

> I trust the NYT as far as I can throw them when it comes to verification You don't trust the NYT to verify its own reporters? Also, why do you say that in any circumstance? Who do you trust?

immibis 2y ago

How should you verify that they only verify their own reporters?

yifanl 2y ago
If they really wanted to verify a non-reporter as a reporter, they could give someone a salary of $1/year and then they would actually be a "reporter".

yellowapple 2y ago

> You don't trust the NYT to verify its own reporters? What happens when those individuals stop being NYT reporters? Does @nytimes.com leave them verified? Or does that account yank the verification? And who's to say @nytimes.com is only verifying NYT reporters? > Also, why do you say that in any circumstance? Who do you trust? People I've met in person, for one. Bluesky has an opportunity to make the old-school web-of-trust idea mainstream, with UI around "Is this someone you've met face-to-face?" and then extending that with multiple levels of checkmarks based on how many degrees of separation exist between a given user's verified personhood and your own. Organizations actually accountable to the general public, for another. Not some corporation, even if it's a publicly-traded one like the NYT. This is the exact sort of thing that government agencies could be implementing independently as a service to their residents (like I mentioned elsewhere). Or private-sector non-profits; Associated Press would be much more trustworthy than the NYT by that virtue alone, and yet @apnews.com ain't even verified at all, let alone given the magic "trusted verifier" powers. Why? Barring that, I trust nobody. A blue checkmark doesn't convince me someone's "real". It just convinces me someone got a blue checkmark. I'd rather see that checkmark actually mean something that I can independently verify. Keybase had the right idea there, with the ability to add proofs to your various online accounts to assert "yes, these belong to the same person"; that would be something worthy of some checkmarks. I'd be thrilled to see little icons for "yes, there's a bidirectional connection between @foo.bsky.social and github.com/foo / reddit.com/u/foo / news.ycombinator.com/user?id=foo / etc.".