Because let’s say you’re Tom Hanks. And you get TomHanks@Lemmy.World
Well, what’s stopping someone else from adopting TomHanks@Lemm.ee?
And some platforms minimize the text size of platform, or hide it entirely. So you just might see TomHanks, and think it’s him. But it’s actually a 7 year old Chinese boy with a broken leg in Arizona.
Because anyone can grab the same name, on a different platform.
Discord and email worked for a long time with needing something extra after the name. Why would the fediverse be different?
Yes, but you see. Lemmy users generally don’t give a flat fuck about what celebrities want.
I see this as a benefit. Generally speaking celebrity posts are the most useless threads on most platforms.
Well, what’s stopping someone else from adopting TomHanks@Lemm.ee?
There’s over 1400 people solely in the US named Tom Hanks. Tom Hanks The Celebrity does not get patent rights or trademarks or copyrights on the name.
Wanna know which is the Tom Hanks The Celebrity? Check if their profile is authenticated against their personal website, à-la-Mastodon.
A celebrity can host their own domain to prove authenticity.
So what. On Xitter I can make an account called Tom.Hanks and get the blue mark by paying Elon. Because Tom Hanks has the username Tom_Hanks.
You’re missing the point. You can have Tom.Hanks@twitter.com but you can’t have Tom_Hanks@othertwitter.com
So when you come to the fediverse, instead of searching for Tom_Hanks@tomhanks.com, you just search for Tom_Hanks, and the fediverse will know that defaults to the account Tom_Hanks. Which is the same account on Lemmy, the same account on Peertube, the same account on pixelfed.
Because it’s all Tom_Hanks.
Except Tom@TomHanks.com will come up first because they will surely have the most fooloerrs.
fooloerrs
Typo, but kind of a cool word too. Like people who would fool around
What’s stopping that same 7 year old taking TomHanks@Lemmy.World before the real Tom Hanks even knows about Lemmy?
It’s not the lack of unique usernames that’s a problem. It’s the lack of identity verification. Which, I mean, understandably is lacking because it’s not like there are high profile people making accounts here. Well, except of course for Margot Robbie.
If “TomHanks” is his username on every other service, like twitter, and youtube, and tiktok, and instagram, then he would want to use it when he comes to the fediverse. Now, if only ONE person can have the username TomHanks (and it just so happens to be @Lemmy.World), then he could send a cease and disist letter, and if that doesn’t work, a lawsuit. Madonna did it in the 90s with Madonna.com.
However, if TomHanks@Lemmy.World can exist, and TomHanks@Lemm.ee can exist, and TomHanks@piefed.social can exist and…and…and…then it gets a little impossible for him to really own that username, because it can be duplicated on an infinate amount of instances, some that may not even exist when he shows up to the fediverse.
But if only one instance can have TomHanks, than he could absolutely show courts he’s had a vested interest and usership of that identity and thus that’s HIS username. Even on services he’s never signed up for. Like if he doesn’t have an instagram account at all, but someone else starts using TomHanks on instagram, he can take it to the courts that they are not allowed to do that, because that’s his username.
But the way the fediverse is currently set up right now, that’s not feasible. Because he could enter a court battle with TomHanks@Lemm.ee, and then 5 more instances with his username popup. And eventually it becomes harder and harder to prove that people know his ownership of that username if there’s 500 other people also using the same username. It’s the reason you can’t email celebrities. They can’t control their presence in email, so they don’t use that as their identity.
so what if someone that is named Tom Hanks, there can be more than 1 person with a name, that isn’t the pedophile celeb tom Hanks? are they not allowed to have their real name? this is stupid and no one gives a shit what celebs say think or do. except maybe you?
The account with her pic floating around here is real?
Respect
Taylor Swift’s Twitter handle is @taylorswift13 and it doesn’t seem to be a problem for her.
Because there can only be one taylorswift13.
There aren’t multiple instances on twitter.
There is also only 1 taylorswift@lemmy.world
Why would there being extra numbers or a different instace change anything?
Even without federation and such it’s an issue. Old twitter actually did a really good job of this, but other social networks have had problems in the past,
https://www.dailydot.com/debug/katie-hopkins-impersonated-parler/
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/07/02/republicans-parler-trolls-347737
We don’t have to guess if trolls will try to impersonate celebs and be successful at it, because it’s already happened elsewhere.
That said, there are two nice things about the fediverse. First, verification is explicitly not offered, so folks have to do the digging themselves to see if an account is official or not. (Which is as easy as checking a person’s web site). Or perhaps confusing a regular person’s account with a celeb of the same name.
Second, you can host your own instance. Celebs might not bother, but official gov’t agencies set up their own domains and websites - and in particular under domains like .gov which aren’t open to regular folks. So seeing if a gov’t agency is really authentic is potentially as simple as checking the domain that the instance is using.
I mean sure…but essentially you’re using the facts as they stand as justification that it will never work, when my whole point is that these facts as they stand need to change because they will never work unless we change them.
People keep using email, and domains as reasons for why it’s not an issue, but there’s a reason celebrities aren’t known for their email. You can tweet at celebrities, and you can follow celebrities on instagram, and all the other services, but you generally can’t email them.
Now, the reason for this is that celebrity wants to own the exact spelling and exact letter/number combination that they’re known for. I like to try to make things relatable to the person that I’m talking to, but let’s face it, abff08f4813c is a really really bad username for branding purposes. But, be that as it may, IF you were a celebrity, and everybody knew abff08f4813c on instagram, and everybody knew abff08f4813c on twitter, then if you were to come to the fediverse, you wouldn’t want a second abff08f4813c to exist. You would want to own “abff08f4813c” on every platform, even if you’re not on that platform. Even if you don’t use tiktok, you would want to make sure nobody else has the name abff08f4813c on tiktok.
The problem is, the fediverse is so fractured that’s not really logistically possible. Because if you try to sue one person on one other instance that has abff08f4813c, now suddenly 300 more abff08f4813c on 300 different instances all pop up.
What I’m suggesting is, no matter which instance you’re on, if you search abff08f4813c, the search should find that username, and direct you to the profile that corrilates with you. And even though that profile is only on one instance, it would make it so if I tried to make abff08f4813c, on another instance, I would be told that username is already taken.
From there, you could absolutely create an old twitter style verification system. And NOW celebrities will be more willing to use the fediverse. But until that changes, I don’t see any celebrity who values their own brand on an international scale, be willing to publically announce they are on the fediverse, and their fans can migrate to the fediverse to follow them.
I mean sure…but essentially you’re using the facts as they stand as justification that it will never work
More or less.
when my whole point is that these facts as they stand need to change because they will never work unless we change them.
I think to make that argument you’d have to first argue that this works elsewhere. But we see warnings like this, https://web.archive.org/web/20221104001618/https://old.reddit.com/r/TaylorSwift/comments/yljj15/swifties_be_warned_that_this_is_a_fake_account/ or like this, https://www.instagram.com/czaronline/p/CvAts_9MFDf/
then I’m not at all convinced that this is the case.
You can tweet at celebrities, and you can follow celebrities on instagram, and all the other services, but you generally can’t email them.
Perhaps it’s a generational thing? Back in the day you could. Bill Gates used to be reachable at bill.gates@microsoft.com and Jeff Bozos at jeff@amazon.com
On the flip side, just because a celebrity has a handle on a particular social media service doesn’t guarantee you can reach them. Taylor Swift has a tumblr but she hasn’t publicly used it in years.
People keep using email, and domains as reasons for why it’s not an issue, but there’s a reason celebrities aren’t known for their email.
What’s the reason? Two things come to my mind: first, Bill Gates supposedly said he had an entire team whose job was just to read and respond to his public email.
Second, email is direct contact, like a DM rather than a tweet (that everyone sees). The email equivalent would be a mailing list. If you want that, you can join Taylor Swift’s mailing list over at https://www.taylorswift.com/#mailing-list
you wouldn’t want a second abff08f4813c to exist.
I wouldn’t mind that much, tbh. Though considering the username in question, it’s very unlikely.
Even if you don’t use tiktok, you would want to make sure nobody else has the name abff08f4813c on tiktok.
Much harder with a name like Taylor Swift. How many other people have the same name? Even on twitter there’s a different taylorswift - so the famous singer is taylorswift13 there.
now suddenly 300 more abff08f4813c on 300 different instances all pop up.
My username is probably the wrong one to use for this example.
But more generally - does anyone want to be taylorswift@hotmail.com and taylorswift@gmail.com and taylorswift@outlook.com and taylorswift@yahoo.com all at once? (Well, okay, yes there probably is someone who wants that, with bad intentions, but practically speaking it’s kinda obvious that these aren’t all official email accounts by the singer.)
Because if you try to sue one person on one other instance that has abff08f4813c,
But Taylor Swift may not be able to sue the other person - she’s not the only one named Taylor Swift after all.
What I’m suggesting is, no matter which instance you’re on, if you search abff08f4813c, the search should find that username, and direct you to the profile that corrilates with you. And even though that profile is only on one instance, it would make it so if I tried to make abff08f4813c, on another instance, I would be told that username is already taken.
And then someone tries to be abffo8f4813c or abff08f48i3c.
I don’t see any celebrity who values their own brand on an international scale, be willing to publically announce they are on the fediverse,
uh … https://joinfediverse.wiki/Notable_Fediverse_accounts
and their fans can migrate to the fediverse to follow them.
I mean, there’s no accounting for the fans, sure. If anything, celebs seek out platforms that have lots of people to connect them with fans, rather than them bring fans to a platform, I’d guess.
From there, you could absolutely create an old twitter style verification system.
Sure, but it’s not a required step.
Mastodon.social could implement a mimic of the old twitter style verification system for folks who join that particular instance - and those joining another instance simply wouldn’t have the guarantee.
And then threads can implement the verification system for folks joining directly through threads - and again those joined on another instance simply wouldn’t have the guarantee.
And then Bluesky can …
I don’t really see anyone but a commercial company even trying to do this - it’d be a headache - and probably expensive - in terms of the requirements to protect the data used (such as identify card verification).
But I’d add - if someone could draft this up and show me a working prototype, I might be easier to convince. It’s a lot easier to think about something when you can play with an idea.
Give em a blue checkmark
$50 bucks little man, put that shit in my hand.
Shock: I’m not really Artie Shaw.
I don’t know who Artie Show is. You could have told me you were Artie Shaw, and I’d have not questioned it. I’d have just thought that was your name.
That’s a feature, not a bug. Celebrity culture needs to get in the sea.
The fix for this is for the guilds and unions that represent these celebrities to spin up their own instances. The suffix of the username granting the legitimacy.
It would solve the issue for people who look into it. But what if I registered AstralPath@Lemmy.World? I could pretend to be you. And because most people won’t check, I’d get away with it until people caught on.
Now if you make your living off your public image, and I say horrible things, your career could take a hit. Even if nothing I said is true, and its proven it was never you.
People will just remember “Hey, remember that time AstralPath admitted to having sex with their grandmother?”
“No, that wasn’t actually them.”
“Are you sure? I remember reading about it in (insert tabloid here)”.
And suddenly you have a legit reason not to use a platform that easily ruins your career through no fault of your own.
People will ALWAYS attempt to troll online for the memes. Remember Boaty McBoatface?
If your email address is lostmymind@outlook.com, what prevents someone to create lostmymind@gmail.com and pretend to be you?
A difference between kbin (and mbin?) vs lemmy (and pyfedi) - the former would show the entire name, including instance. If instance was not included, it was because it was local (so you could assume ‘@kbin.social’)
On lemmy/pyfedi the name shows up alone - though you can hover over and see the instance name. But at a glance I can see how someone could get confused. Not the best UX IMHO.
- Take picture of proof you are Tom Hanks
- post picture on Lemmy
- Pin it to the top on your profile (once that feature exist)
- ???
- profit!
Either way, celebrities will probably never use Lemmy or other social media unless it goes mainstream.
Photoshop exists.
Don’t be silly. Tom Hanks have no idea how to use Photoshop…
It should work the same as email: you can trust it’s them if the user account is hosted on their own site, or their employer’s, or if they link to it from another confirmed source.
But look below in the comments. Can you even tell which of my comments came from Lemmy.World, and which comments didn’t? Some platforms will just show Lost_My_Mind. I can’t tell which platform @AbouBenAdhem is posting via. I just see AbouBenAdhem.
Use a better client that shows you the information? The default UI does, so that’s firmly a problem you’ve inflicted on yourself.
I’m just using a web browser that came with my phone. And if they were all hidden, it wouldn’t matter.
You’d just register your username. And this would be good for all the fediverse platforms. Once you register your innitial name, only you could register other services under that name. So it’s always you. Even if you never register for a service, you registered the name.
Then, if you register a new service, even years later, you still have your name.
Who manages that centralized service? What prevents it from being bought out, or attacked?
Because it’s not centralized. Every platform/instance just uses the same protocols. Any that try to go against that get defederated by all instances.
Any that try to go against that
How do you identify them? Lemm.ee registers Tom Hanks, does every other instance have to check what information they provided to trust them?
What prevents someone to bribe a small instance to register a celebrity username on their instance?
If anything we want to encourage this.
I like the example of SAG AFTRA hosting their own instance to be official, for example. Celebs typically have their own domains and websites, so easy enough to hire a team to create and manage their own instance that supports the celeb but federates. And you know it’s legit just because it’s on the celeb’s own domain. Ditto for gov’t agencies having their own instances.
I don’t think it’s a huge deal, we’ll either know they’re legit or not. Care to weigh in @MargotRobbie@lemmy.world ?
You seem to be under the impression that it’s good if this place grows explosively. It’s not. There’s no VC to pay back here (and thank fuckin god for that). There’s no ad revenue here (again, this is good).
Also, not entirely sure what exactly to make of the weirdly targeted quip about a Chinese child, but spidey sense says it’s nothing good.
