And like I replied there, when’s the last time a celebrity gave out their email address? They care more about the username brand that works across all platforms. Their publicist may know where to email them, but for general fans, they just put out a username like @Username. You never see [email protected]. And the reason is because it would be too easy to grab a duplicate email and impersonate them. Which was the whole point of the post. Right now I could register Blaze (he/him)@piefed.social and if someone is on an interface that they don’t see which instance you’re home to (such as how I don’t see your home instance right now), I could be you. I could say things you whole heartedly disagree with, and if people thought I was you, they would attribute you to saying such things. Maybe offensive things. Maybe posting offensive or illegal pictures. And now you are credited with having done that, despite never having done that.
So the risk for a celebrity being cancelled is too high for them to migrate to an unproven platform if they can’t even control their own username. Thus they won’t come, and thus the fediverse as a whole stays small and unknown as a result.
Right now I could register Blaze (he/him)@piefed.social and if someone is on an interface that they don’t see which instance you’re home to (such as how I don’t see your home instance right now), I could be you. I could say things you whole heartedly disagree with, and if people thought I was you, they would attribute you to saying such things. Maybe offensive things. Maybe posting offensive or illegal pictures. And now you are credited with having done that, despite never having done that.
I maintain a list of alt accounts in my bio.
I don’t care that much about that, if those impersonators (implying they use my profile picture, otherwise it’s just another Blaze, I have two friends called John, they’re not impersonating each other, they’re their own distinct person) get spotted, their accounts will probably get removed, they aren’t mine.
In 1996 somebody registered Madonna.com. then in 1998 tried to sell her the domain for 2 million dollars. She instead took the guy to court and sued him instead. Then it worked out that she would buy the domain for far cheaper than 2 million.
Difference is, especially in 1998, a .com url is all people know. So that particular url is the most important thing on the internet for Madonnas brand in 1998.
The fediverse is NOT the most important thing online to Margot Robbie’s brand. Right now, it’s not of any importance, and without a unified username system, it never will be important. Because right now, I would argue in 2024 a brandable username is more important than a .com domain website…but the username has to be consistant, and exclusive.
If Margot Robbie was @MargotRobbie on twitter, @TheRealMargotRobbie on instagram, @MargotRobbie1 on pintrest, and @MargotRobbievids on youtube, that would be a real problem for her.
So to be told that you can search the fediverse and find @[email protected] and also @[email protected] and also @[email protected] and also @[email protected] and also any other countless combination of instances, some of which may not even exist yet, and only will exist if you kill 1, 3 more pop up.
Margot Robbie would look at that and say “I’ll stick with twitter/youtube/instagram/pintrest/tiktok/twitch where I can control my username.”
I posted it there, but I’ll repeat: you know how email works, right? [email protected] is not [email protected]
And like I replied there, when’s the last time a celebrity gave out their email address? They care more about the username brand that works across all platforms. Their publicist may know where to email them, but for general fans, they just put out a username like @Username. You never see [email protected]. And the reason is because it would be too easy to grab a duplicate email and impersonate them. Which was the whole point of the post. Right now I could register Blaze (he/him)@piefed.social and if someone is on an interface that they don’t see which instance you’re home to (such as how I don’t see your home instance right now), I could be you. I could say things you whole heartedly disagree with, and if people thought I was you, they would attribute you to saying such things. Maybe offensive things. Maybe posting offensive or illegal pictures. And now you are credited with having done that, despite never having done that.
So the risk for a celebrity being cancelled is too high for them to migrate to an unproven platform if they can’t even control their own username. Thus they won’t come, and thus the fediverse as a whole stays small and unknown as a result.
I maintain a list of alt accounts in my bio. I don’t care that much about that, if those impersonators (implying they use my profile picture, otherwise it’s just another Blaze, I have two friends called John, they’re not impersonating each other, they’re their own distinct person) get spotted, their accounts will probably get removed, they aren’t mine.
But I’m not a celebrity.
Should we report @[email protected] and get that account banned?
In 1996 somebody registered Madonna.com. then in 1998 tried to sell her the domain for 2 million dollars. She instead took the guy to court and sued him instead. Then it worked out that she would buy the domain for far cheaper than 2 million.
Difference is, especially in 1998, a .com url is all people know. So that particular url is the most important thing on the internet for Madonnas brand in 1998.
The fediverse is NOT the most important thing online to Margot Robbie’s brand. Right now, it’s not of any importance, and without a unified username system, it never will be important. Because right now, I would argue in 2024 a brandable username is more important than a .com domain website…but the username has to be consistant, and exclusive.
If Margot Robbie was @MargotRobbie on twitter, @TheRealMargotRobbie on instagram, @MargotRobbie1 on pintrest, and @MargotRobbievids on youtube, that would be a real problem for her.
So to be told that you can search the fediverse and find @[email protected] and also @[email protected] and also @[email protected] and also @[email protected] and also any other countless combination of instances, some of which may not even exist yet, and only will exist if you kill 1, 3 more pop up.
Margot Robbie would look at that and say “I’ll stick with twitter/youtube/instagram/pintrest/tiktok/twitch where I can control my username.”
And all the power stays in the wealthys hands.
All you need is one instance to actually verify its users.
https://nytimes.social seems like a good one. Maybe they should start that.
I guess what you mean is there should be a way to verify celebrity accounts.
That does not automatically translate to centralizing usernames, but more a federated verification system.