Post

We’re introducing a new layer of verification on Bluesky — a user-friendly, easily recognizable blue check. In addition to account verification issued by Bluesky, we're also introducing Trusted Verifiers. Select independent organizations can verify accounts directly.

5.3K reposts39.7K likes

Trust doesn’t come only from the top down; it emerges from relationships, communities, and shared context. That’s why we’re also enabling trusted verifiers: organizations that can directly issue blue checks. Trusted verifiers have a scalloped blue check.

We’re starting this initial roll-out with a small and non comprehensive group of accounts. Currently, we are not accepting requests for verification. As the feature stabilizes based on feedback, we’ll launch a request form for account verification and trusted verifier status.

I would like to be considered for verification as I am far to lazy to be going around paying for domains of my own. I am also happy to wait for the application version too as long as it works! We all know what's been going on with blue ticks on the bird app ¬_¬...

Today I applied to be the headline writer for the NYT. My application: editorial@nytimes.com I am applying for a job writing headlines for the NYT. My qualifications are that I am ANYBODY and that ANYBODY would be better than your current writers. I can start today. Let’s all apply! Repost! #NYT

the new york times is your poster child, are you kidding we all know that you don't care for trans people too much, but you gotta be more subtle than this

Make it so that if you block the so-called "trusted" verifiers their "verifications" don't count anymore, thank you. I don't and will never trust the NYT with anything.

Hovering over a user icon should show who they were verified by. A key part of a web of trust is traceability - I don't trust everyone you trust, but I do trust some of them. If I can see who did the verification, I get to decide my trust level. SSL infrastructure has this; cert chains are visible.

Hm. Bluesky might need to clarify that an institutional check badge only verifies the org is who they claim to be, nothing more Bc to brand NYT as a “verified source” may come back to bite Bluesky in the heinie. Yes, this is NYT’s acct But ✔️ should not imply NYT’s content is necessarily accurate.

This feels a bit too pointed. You wouldn't be trying to make us lose the platform we use for sharing info and organizing, after getting us to come here when we lost Threads, Tiktok and Twitter to the right wing trash heap, right? You aren't siding with the fash. Right?!

Me: Trusted verifiers, I guess that makes sense Also me: Oh wow you're trusting the NYT with this 👀 We can't even trust them with journalism or democracy lol

People are dramatic. The only thing I would complain about is that this function is centralized in bluesky and its team, But bluesky probably already thought of a way to decentralize it, and if not, it's good this way, Bluesky is reliable, not just any random person will be able to verify someone.

Will accounts that connect their website to their account by using the website address as the handle also proactively receive the blue check?

I'm a computer illiterate senior. Yes I read what I could of your domain instructions which made no sense to me. I did get to the annual cost part and that's where you lost me. I don't know who I'm expected to pay but with the state of my maybe income that isn't going to happen. enjoy

Why does this image say 587.1M when @jay.bsky.team has hundreds of thousands of followers rather than hundreds of millions? An odd mistake? Someone deciding to fluff the CEO's ego? Not exactly inspiring trust in a post about verification.

genuinely curious how you’ll define notability. I think it would be kinda cool if you deferred to Wikipedia on that pt. as long as someone had a Wiki entry about them for [x] pd of time, there weren’t unresolved notability issues & there’s no evidence they were involved w the entry, they’re notable

I'm fairly certain they think this is the pointless moneygrab Twitter(X), version of 'verification'. Instead this seems more like original Twitter, which is fantastic.

Maybe I'm being too harsh, but sometimes people just don't think critically and act based on pure emotion. That seems to be the case here. The reasoning behind the outcry here seems to be: Twitter has blue checks and Twitter sucks, therefore, if Bluesky has blue checks as well, it will suck too.

I don't really know about that, but I do know there were people who have been asking for a type of verification here for months due to all the copy cat accounts lately. We now have one and people are immediately assuming the worst thanks to how Musk treated it on Twitter so,

The blue check thing is universal, on Telegram and Discord they are the same and the same color Have you ever stopped to think that maybe you're exaggerating a little?

I registered my domain as you advised, the domain got verified, and I haven't got a blue checkmark. What do I do? You clearly stated that we can self-verify, but without a blue checkmark we're not realy verified. Sorry, but this is not how it works.

Verification via domain credibly proves that you are in control of the Domain in question. If you are operating a business, your customers will be able to see that you are who you say you are based on the matching domain name, blue check mark or not.

I know, but this is not good enough for me because I am not running a business and won't help with my online visibility. There's a good reason why people want the blue checkmark and it shouldn't be that difficult to implement. Even the bumble app has it, you just scan an ID document and voila.

I prefer what you're suggesting. What a lot of people want and pressure being put on Bluesky is special verification for "important" people. The open web is supposed to be for everyone not just "important" people. Furthermore, I'm not from the US. A lot of bluechecks are for US citizens/entities.

Scrap this. This isn't twitter and its open to abuse. You'll end up giving it to people who are abusive or spout conspiracy BS. This is an admin and moderation nightmare. Sort out character limits first.

Oh my a blue check how original of you. Fail EDIT BUTTON and more text would be something great, and you go with a blue check. And now it seems the bigger accounts will once again be given priority over the lil guys/gals cause we don't matter. Keep your Twitter Checker don't need it I'm Verified

Exactly. Just a small fraction in social media space. Compared to it's competitor of 600+ million. Advertising is a great tool to reach an audience and give them a reason to switch.

A. Why make yourself more like Twitter with damn blue checkmark? B. Why do I need to have an organization I may not trust vouce for me? C. I decide whom I trust, if others tell me who is trustworthy by default I am suspicious. Way to push me out . . .

👏 Many MAGA propagandists are here. I have seen Joe Logan's podcast clip going viral on Bluesky in recent days. They are being posted by some influential blue(supposedly) accounts & reposted by thousands of followers. MAGAs' clever tactic to infiltrate and normalize JL in the Bluesky community.

Bluesky@bsky.app

We’re starting this initial roll-out with a small and non comprehensive group of accounts. Currently, we are not accepting requests for verification. As the feature stabilizes based on feedback, we’ll launch a request form for account verification and trusted verifier status.

It was still very poor UX prior to Musk. Bluechecks were increasingly mocked, mainly because while it first was intended for authentic accounts for famous people and brands, it was quickly just given out to anyone with a big enough following and was viewed as a way to confer status

yeah it was amazing.

luna@imlunahey.com

fun fact, back in 2010 a few of my mates paid $50USD per account to get verified on twitter and instagram. this was before musk and zuck owned either platform. we simply messaged a few 14-15 year olds who knew people working in the verification department and boom accounts verified. 🙃

Domain verification basically IS pay for play. also, there was ALOT of questions surrounding "blue checks" even during the jack years. people forget the phrase was basically a slur then, too.

True. I don't have any money or want someone else's. Just on a web platform that says it is different. So far no contact, no help all same same. I do not follow or understand all this stuff, just like chatting as no friends in real life. So why do I need a 'tick'?

Please offer some sort of option for an extended character limit, that not being a feature like it is on Twitter is THE main thing preventing me from using Bluesky as much as I use that I do big posts on history/archeology and really benefit from extra text/characters to use in posts!

Threaded tweets/skeets – which can be COMBINED with uploaded image files for longer passages of text – are a great way of breaking "big posts" into manageable bite-sized chunks for the reader. I modestly attach an example, although I'm sure there are much better! 2/2 bsky.app/profile/hugh...

Hugh Mann Wright@hughmannwright.bsky.social

𝐄𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐲𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐲𝐨𝐮 𝐚𝐥𝐰𝐚𝐲𝐬 𝐰𝐚𝐧𝐭𝐞𝐝 𝐭𝐨 𝐤𝐧𝐨𝐰 𝐚𝐛𝐨𝐮𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐨𝐬𝐞 𝐩𝐞𝐬𝐤𝐲 𝐑𝐍𝐋𝐈 “𝐭𝐚𝐱𝐢𝐬”*… *but were afraid to ask. 1/29

I'm not going back to spending hours of my time trying to split up posts across multiple replies within a <300 character limit I think you're also underestimating how long my posts can get, sometimes I make tweets over 15,000 characters long. Not that bluesky needs to support that, but...

Unfortunately, forums don't really exist anymore. Also, I don't really care that it's not "what twitter/bluesky is for", ~300 character limit posts forces people to remove nuance and encourages inflammatory discourse, and it litterally gives me anxiety to try to have to work within it

Forums are all over the place, what are you talking about? Reddit is a glorified forum. There's also blogging platforms like Tumblr. Plenty of places for long form content out there. That being said, I wouldn't mind a "read more" option or something here. Keeps posts short with optional extras.

You're not wrong about how the short format is a big negative. It's almost like we shouldn't be having serious conversations on such a platform. Increase char. limit, but the culture that sites like this created stays LONG afterwards.

So far this looks like a bit of confusion. What is a "verifier"? From the blog it would appear it is only available to users with a web site who also change their user id to their website domain. Is that correct? What about individuals without a website?

If it doesn't, people with domain verification will no longer be recognized as "truly" verified unless they can somehow obtain a blue check that shows "real" verification. It's just a way of undermining self-verification through domain.

My issue with domain verification is that it doesn't stop someone from using the same name in conjunction with a typical account. Do a search for Amy Klobuchar, for example. She has 2 domain named accounts. There's some 3rd one there that could be an imposter, who knows?

I left Twitter, too, because of the abusive people. I'm glad to see a checkmark here. I don't get why people are so negative about it. A little blue checkmark doesn't make this platform X.

The problem is, the same as Twitter's original system, is they plan it seems to delegate who is important, and who isn't. X now has a great system where users can pay to show they are real people. Aure that doesn't stop some bad apples from trying to game the system, but I like it more than this.

I think I understand u. Please explain further if u feel I don't. I don't think people should pay extra for a ✅️. I'm sure if u wanted the ✅️, you're able to obtain it per their steps. Quite honestly, this new system is quite similar to Mastodon. People don't have a mass following if they're crooked.

The domain verifications means anyone can be who they say they are if they follow the domain verification steps. With the check system, you're only who you say you are if Bsky agrees. If you have a big enough following. Enough rizz. No peasants allowed.

Yeah that left a bad taste in allot of people's mouths mainly because it was a paid thing. So many people left Twitter/X for a platform that isn't doing what they do. Although if it helps combat bots & is free to get I can see it having some use here but if Blue Sky becomes yet another X I'm out.

Doesn't matter, verification is for the wealthy - So their voice will be lifted up above the general user base You see, rich people get very mad if they don't get special treatment on social media... And bluesky run by a billionaire named Jack Dorsey cannot be allowed to be different

I'm curious, how does adding a little checkmark next to their name lift a persons name above others any more than their follower count in the hundreds and thousands they already have? What about this makes them special? What are you basing your comments on?

But this is a good security feature! It will make the site safer from scammy accounts with lookalike domains. Personally, I don't see an issue with this implementation. It was a good feature on twitter as well before elon killed it and vomited capitalism over its corpse.

That depends on how it's done. If you have to hand over personal information for verification, well, there's a lot of good reasons why people would not want to do that. When Facebork required real names, it did nothing to prevent harassment and threats.

"During this initial phase, Bluesky is not accepting direct applications for verification. As this feature stabilizes, we’ll launch a request form for notable and authentic accounts interested in becoming verified or becoming trusted verifiers."

what the hell does this Mean? what information are you seeking? just tell me and I'll give it to you if I think it is safe for you to have. I'm Just an old guy... seeking to help society...

Better would be to somehow automatically dismiss impersonated accounts. So we could be sure, if I see NY Times, it is "the NY Times" even without checking if a blue mark is there or not. Highlight the potential scam, not the safe ones. That way you would help more for the reliability of the platform

nope, it's completely impossible because of the technology underpinning bluesky. they own their data, which includes following you, and nobody can edit that on their behalf

How would they get the view count? What about people who follow you but use deer.social or graysky.app as their preferred app? There is no way Bluesky would be able to know they viewed your post. So you wouldn't be able to get anywhere close to the "real" view count ... it wouldn't be possible.

While probably 90% of people use Bluesky as a standard social media app. It's important to remember that at its root that atproto (which runs this joint) is designed to be distributed to prevent locking in a user's data. So certain things that are possible elsewhere are actually impossible here.

googled your name and some sponsored thing appeared, apologies (and ive never seen the voice) you may even be able to directly contact bluesky and ask for a check email support@bsky.app about it, they will likely verify you as your already notable & authentic - Aiden, Founder

I agree if they feel it's necessary, make it something beautiful like the butterfly. I still am not sure it's a good idea at all, but at least it won't look like a direct Twitter copy