Isn't the whole point of the verification checkmark is to make sure nobody impersonate well known people/organizations? I know Twitter eventually turned it into a whole cash grab subscription and ruined the concept, but on most other platforms it isn't treated like some premium subscription and is just a means of knowing who is who.

[–] schnurrito@discuss.tchncs.de 11 points 1 week ago

Not a new debate at all… https://xkcd.com/1914/ and the context for that was https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/twitter-suspends-verifying-accounts-giving-154625015.html

I agree that if "verification" is going to be a thing, it should only mean the person or organization is who they claim to be, not imply endorsement of any of their activities.

[–] joyjoy@lemmy.zip 2 points 1 week ago

Bluesky has a great self-verification system, no checkmark involved. In case someone hasn't noticed, your username is a domain name, but only nerds use it.

[–] hemko@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I don't think anyone impersonating gestapo would post anything worse than they already do, so there's no damage there

[–] damnedfurry@lemmy.world 2 points 1 week ago (1 children)

You haven't been on the Internet very long, huh?

[–] supersquirrel@sopuli.xyz 0 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

What ICE is doing is way worse than what happens on the internet...? Most of the stuff on the internet is words, ICE is actually kidnapping, killing and deporting people.

[–] damnedfurry@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago

I see what you mean now; your wording was ambiguous, specifically "do".

anyone impersonating gestapo would post anything worse than they already do

sounds like you're saying 'would post anything worse than they already post'.