I’m also going be real that this is also the least of my concerns for a platform. If they make some people change their handle that don’t need to, it really isn’t a massive deal in the grand scheme of things. Especially since when handles are changed on Bluesky, all the references to that handle also change because they have a constant ID for all accounts. Impersonations leading people to scams is a much larger issue
I am not saying ghey are doing it now. I am saying they are heading down that path by initially justifying it based on scammers (an actual concern), but that is generally how it starts and if they don’t say they will limit it to scammers and other criminal activity then they are most likely not going to limit it to that.
They are also focusing on ‘squatters’, which shows they care more about famous people and companies than whoever registered first.
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.
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.
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.
That’s not what they are doing right now
I’m also going be real that this is also the least of my concerns for a platform. If they make some people change their handle that don’t need to, it really isn’t a massive deal in the grand scheme of things. Especially since when handles are changed on Bluesky, all the references to that handle also change because they have a constant ID for all accounts. Impersonations leading people to scams is a much larger issue
I am not saying ghey are doing it now. I am saying they are heading down that path by initially justifying it based on scammers (an actual concern), but that is generally how it starts and if they don’t say they will limit it to scammers and other criminal activity then they are most likely not going to limit it to that.
They are also focusing on ‘squatters’, which shows they care more about famous people and companies than whoever registered first.
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.socialhandle, 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.
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.
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.
Yes, this one step is correct. They need to be clear it will be limited to this one step.
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.