3 ms·

At this stage, labelers still require a fair amount of work to setup and operate. We didnt want it to be difficult for people to issue verifications

• steveklabnik 1y ago
  That's a good reason too!
  • mozzius 1y ago
    also, it's nice that verifications are easily enumerable, unlike labels
• yellowapple 1y ago
  So what's the process for people to issue verifications? Where is that documented?
  • steveklabnik 1y ago
    You create a record in your PDS. Here's the people I've 'verified' for example: https://pdsls.dev/at://did:plc:3danwc67lo7obz2fmdg6jxcr/app.bsky.graph.verification https://pdsls.dev/at://did:plc:3danwc67lo7obz2fmdg6jxcr/app.... There's no UI to do it. It's not currently intended to be a generalized feature, but because the protocol is, it's forwards compatible with eventually doing that if they decide to.
    • yellowapple 1y ago
      That's what I'm getting at, though: I'm glad (and already aware) it's straightforward from a protocol level to implement custom verifiers, but if you're having to dig down into the protocol level to implement them then that doesn't sound like they're actually easier to implement than labelers (which is what Paul's implying above). I'm assuming the New York Times ain't hand-inserting records into their account's PDS, which means they probably have some kind of UI already in place. I also wouldn't be surprised if people already built their own third-party applications to this effect (sounds like deer.social already allows users to specify their own verifiers, and I'd be entirely unsurprised if they extend that to allowing users to verify each other directly, too - if they haven't already done so). Still, that hardly sounds less difficult than the current labeler situation.