Because let’s say you’re Tom Hanks. And you get [email protected]
Well, what’s stopping someone else from adopting [email protected]?
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.
Celebrities are going to be shocked when they hear about email
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.
Can you even tell which of my comments came from Lemmy.World, and which comments didn’t?
Yes. Yes we can.
I’m not familiar with every client, but on mine it only hides the domain for users on my own server. (Early email used to work exactly the same—you could send an email addressed to just a username with no tld and it would go to the user with that name on your own server by default.)
I’m not using any client. I’m just using the browser that came with my cell phone.
Never heard of email
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.
Not sure what VC stands for…
But the Chinese boy with the broken leg is my 103 year old grandmother in a wheelchair. But he’s not actually Taylor Swift, which is the point of the comparison.
The narwal bacons at midnight?
please seek help
Yes, but you see. Lemmy users generally don’t give a flat fuck about what celebrities want.
I think it might be kind of nice to be Tom Hanks and have the name [email protected] and just chat and chill.
Those poor celebrities! What will we do without them?
Truthiness of a user should be determined with corroboration on 3rd party services.
Except no one will. If millions of people were on the fediverse, maybe 1% would confirm.
We live in a world where people read the headline and believe it, but don’t even open the article.
Then it doesn’t matter.
But it would.
Imagine Kamala Harris as president had a mastodon account. And somebody else made a duplicate Kamala Harris account. And this duplicate announced that the United States has gone to war with Russia.
Except these media stations don’t know how the fediverse works. They don’t know what an instance is. They just see Kamala Harris on social media announcing war.
And in media you HAVE to be the first to break the news story. So now you have every major news outlet confirming nuclear war, and the nation is panicing.
Meanwhile, Harris is trying to figure out how this all started. And this whole thing maybe lasts 10-60 minutes before somebody notices the mistake. Then it takes time to correct themselves and calm everybody down.
All over something that isn’t happening. All because people don’t check sources.
Now this is an extreme example, but I could see it happening if the fediverse was bigger, under it’s current setup.
Or, all accounts in the fedi are anonymous by nature, and if they need to be verified, they are verified on 3rd party sources.
Except they won’t.
Then return to the first clause.
Then people won’t sign up for it.
The fediverse as it stands right now is confusing enough as it is for new people. Now you’re saying you want to add in the chaos that comes from everybody being annonomous? They say that the internet, and trolling, and threats of violence are encouraged online because you’re annonomous. And now you want to highlight that feature on a service thats hard enough to grasp without nazis and death threats.
Well, what’s stopping someone else from adopting [email protected]?
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.
Reminds me of ICANN fucking up all the domain names.
CocaCola.com CocaCola.new CocaCola.drink Cocacola.world CocaCola.bev
Etc.
Shameful. One thing that might work for the fediverse is federal institutions running their own Mastadon instances on .gov to move away from announcements on Twitter. You can’t fake .gov domains.
I see this as a benefit. Generally speaking celebrity posts are the most useless threads on most platforms.
I don’t think it’s a huge deal, we’ll either know they’re legit or not. Care to weigh in @[email protected] ?
Pssh. Celebrities on social media, who needs them anyway.
Like, say, if esteemed Academy Award nominated character actress Margot Robbie was on social media, it’d be utterly brilliant to choose to be on Lemmy, as no-one would believe it even if she went by her real name.
Personally I would find that highly amusing, a testament to having the soul of a true thespian.
Didn’t she just have a baby?
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 [email protected] but you can’t have [email protected]
So when you come to the fediverse, instead of searching for [email protected], 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 [email protected] 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
I presume I’m supposed to care, but I dont, and I don’t know why anyone would.
The other night 337K people all registered to vote, simply because Taylor Swift sent one message on instagram.
People come to the platforms FOR the celebrities. And that’s just ONE celebrity. The more celebrities on the platform, the more fanbases come with it.
But celebrities are picky. If they think something will hurt their image, they won’t do it. Even if theres minimal chance it hurts their image. They have to be protective.
So they need assurance that when they post something, there’s zero chance someone else could be posting “as them”. Ironically enough, that was the original purpose of twitters blue checkmark.
I think you have forums confused with microblogs.
Fuck the celebrities. They aren’t your people, peers, or friends. They adopt platforms only when they determine they can make a buck from it. They’re the kids that break your new toys, and you’re suggesting we keep inviting them over to play.
They will only bring enshittification. Having a platform that isn’t celebrity friendly is a boon.
With the celebrities come their followers. Which is like 97% of the world. I’m trying to get that 97% to adopt the fediverse.
But they don’t come on their own. They go where their celebrities go. The celebrities bring content for their followers to consume.
You’re arguing quantity over quality. I do not care the least for bootstrapped growth at the detriment of the platform. I also do not care about people who idolize and platform hop in order to follow celebrities. I suspect very few will bring with them value beyond increased traffic.
If you want this, Reddit is still an option available to you.
Quantity is quality, if you have good filters in place.
I never understood people that argue something is bad by looking at the median case. The problem of Reddit, Twitter and Facebook is not due to the amount of people they have, and they were absolutely fine until they tried to exploit their userbases.
(Aside for @[email protected]: see what I mean about Fedi’s anti-growth and reactionary culture? Our friend here is not an isolated case)
Aside for @[email protected]: see what I mean about Fedi’s anti-growth and reactionary culture? Our friend here is not an isolated case
It’s more against having celebrities and their followers coming here en masse, which I get.
I’ve still seen a few comments mentioning “organic grow” which seems indeed healthier
“oh, I want it to grow, I just don’t it want to grow with people that I don’t like”
You can dress it however you want, it’s still elitist, reactionary and exclusive.
deleted by creator
