this post was submitted on 13 Sep 2024
-16 points (40.5% liked)

Fediverse

27740 readers
609 users here now

A community to talk about the Fediverse and all it's related services using ActivityPub (Mastodon, Lemmy, KBin, etc).

If you wanted to get help with moderating your own community then head over to [email protected]!

Rules

Learn more at these websites: Join The Fediverse Wiki, Fediverse.info, Wikipedia Page, The Federation Info (Stats), FediDB (Stats), Sub Rehab (Reddit Migration), Search Lemmy

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

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.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] RandomVideos 3 points 15 hours ago

Discord and email worked for a long time with needing something extra after the name. Why would the fediverse be different?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

What's stopping that same 7 year old taking [email protected] 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.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 2 days ago

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 [email protected] can exist, and [email protected] can exist, and [email protected] 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 [email protected], 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.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 3 days ago

I see this as a benefit. Generally speaking celebrity posts are the most useless threads on most platforms.

[–] [email protected] 59 points 5 days ago

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.

[–] [email protected] 17 points 5 days ago

Yes, but you see. Lemmy users generally don't give a flat fuck about what celebrities want.

[–] [email protected] 22 points 5 days ago (4 children)

[email protected]

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.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] [email protected] 22 points 5 days ago

That's a feature, not a bug. Celebrity culture needs to get in the sea.

[–] [email protected] 31 points 5 days ago (35 children)

I presume I'm supposed to care, but I dont, and I don't know why anyone would.

load more comments (35 replies)
[–] [email protected] 24 points 5 days ago (4 children)

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.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] [email protected] 21 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago)

Celebrities are going to be shocked when they hear about email

[–] [email protected] 14 points 5 days ago

Never heard of email

[–] [email protected] 21 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago) (7 children)

Who the fuck wants celebrities here?

This is a good thing.

[–] [email protected] 21 points 5 days ago (14 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 22 points 5 days ago

Kind of like the BBC has their own Mastodon server instead of being on someone elses.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago)

Yep. Also, aren't there already celebrities on Mastodon? I know George Takei is. Granted, you'd have to know he was @mastodon.social versus mstdn.social so that could complicate things for those unfamiliar with the platform.

OP's definitely got a point, though.

load more comments (12 replies)
[–] [email protected] 13 points 5 days ago

If you are that famous or worried about trademark, you shouldn't be using someone else's server. Tom Hanks can just buy e.g tomhanks.actor domain and set up the @[email protected] AP actor.

I keep repeating this: the weird part is that we still have all these companies and institutions being okay with depending on someone else's namespace. Having the NYT still announcing their Twitter or Instagram for social media presence is the same as using aol.com for their email.

[–] [email protected] 16 points 5 days ago (1 children)

I don't think it's a huge deal, we'll either know they're legit or not. Care to weigh in @[email protected] ?

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 12 points 5 days ago (5 children)

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.

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] [email protected] 10 points 5 days ago (4 children)

I'm not here for celebrities and they will always flock to centralized platforms anyways, since they are all about the views.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] [email protected] 9 points 5 days ago (2 children)

That's why she hosts her own domain, instead of sending half a million followers to some random fediverse instance.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 8 points 5 days ago

Those poor celebrities! What will we do without them?

[–] [email protected] 7 points 5 days ago

Account verification is relatively simple, if you have your own website you just add a link back with a special formatting. Problem is, barely anyone applies for self-verification, and several platforms such as Lemmy don't support self-verification whatsoever. I can see why something like a distributed verification agency should be a thing, if we manage to make the implementation less technical for the end users of course.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago) (1 children)

We had a AMA with Will Ropp, an actor a few months ago: https://lemm.ee/post/31335226

[email protected]

We verified it was him by having him send us a message from his IG.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 5 days ago

How fun, this should go on a 'Best of the Fediverse' type post or something.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 5 days ago

I think it might be kind of nice to be Tom Hanks and have the name [email protected] and just chat and chill.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 5 days ago

I have a dream that one day I be part of a platform where one will not be judged by the glamor of their username but by the quality of their discourse.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 5 days ago (1 children)

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.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›