Post

imho domain handles should automatically get some sort of verified checkmark automatically; they literally verified control over that domain! This is basically what Flathub does.

I mean, the point of the second system of verification was that it was added because some accounts didn't set a custom handle but Bluesky still wanted people to know it's legit… if you have a custom handle, you don't need the checkmark that much

ABSOLUTELY NOT, Tynan.

Say more? Note I said ask not require. I acknowledge it’s a lift not every org wants to put resources into.

Before implies a condition imo

@aaron.bsky.team how do y'all approach verification approvals and domain handles? I personally consider it an anti-pattern to verify accounts who own a domain that obviously should be their handle.

That is a long headache that gets complicated based on the org and IT structure. Surprisingly difficult with some governments. In the case above I would strongly prefer that they use their domain but have given up having that fight endlessly and my moderation team trying to do tech support.

I see. What's the calculus then to decide to verify anyway? I can see value in drawing that line, with the justification "we don't want our users to just take our word for it, we want to demonstrate the trust signals of the network"

to take it even further: @bsky.app should only verify accounts with a *.bsky.social handle, @blackskyweb.xyz should only verify accounts with a *.blacksky.community handle, etc. this is how the verification system *should* be structured, along with letting users choose their own trusted verifiers

i understand why it is the way it is now, early ecosystem and all, but this should be the direction it's headed

that isn't sustainable imo. the point is people can move around