Bluesky is cracking down on impersonators and scammers.

  • MentalEdge@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    6 hours ago

    So they shouldn’t address actual concerns?

    This change is tiny. Bluesky currently allows people who own domains to use those domains for their handle. (Anyone can buy domains, not just companies, I own two) Before, doing so would “release” the default name.bsky.social handle, allowing someone else to use it.

    This literally doesn’t take away any handles from anyone, except people who grabbed handles that were “released” by their original owners. It DOES NOT allow someone who shows up with a new spechul domain to take away the handle of a user that already exists.

    • snooggums@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      6 hours ago

      They should address actual concerns, but make it clear they won’t overstep afterwards like all of the other social media apps before them.

      That is what I wrote.

      You say they are only acting on ones where the company switched away from bsky.social, but squatters and scammers are not limited to only the ones they switched away from. To address squatters and scammers they will need to address those how got there first too. That is a necessity, but also the start of a slippery slope that they need to put the brakes on before they go down the familiar path to taking joke accounts.

      • MentalEdge@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        6 hours ago

        Ok. But again, this isn’t that.

        No part of this particular change, is even step one of what you’re talking about.

        This is literally only stopping new users from registering accounts under handles someone used before, but switched away from.

        It’s straight up a "correct " solution.

        • snooggums@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          6 hours ago

          Yes, this one step is correct. They need to be clear it will be limited to this one step.

          • MentalEdge@sopuli.xyz
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            4 hours ago

            I don’t share your view.

            Company doing good thing without simultaneously promising it won’t do bad thing doesnt automatically mean BAD THING WILL ABSOLUTELY SUPER DUPER CERTAINLY HAPPEN NEXT.

            The opposite, actually.

            When corpos are specific about bad thing definitely not being planned, that’s when it is DEFINITELY the next step.