{"p":"","h":{"iv":"ROXSYW+cfvEbFHu5","at":"ocxplSQjdRC3tXEtB/9/wg=="}}

And yes "you can check that on Google easily" implies that Google can be trusted and it can't all the time. Ultimately at some point you do have to simply trust SOMEone, SOMEwhere. What I'm saying is that I don't trust a random person who bought a domain with "fedi" in the name and set up a directory

5
Share
Share on Mastodon
Share on Twitter
Share on Facebook
Share on Linkedin
Josh Lee

@darius hang on lemme scroll through all 4000 words of book.keybase.io/guides/proof-i

0
2y
Pauxlll Kruczynski

@darius or random people with servers—that issue of trust is what has held up some people I know from joining Mastodon

0
2y
raphael

@darius many things benefit from hiding their depth behind a simple and small surface. but trust really is one of those that benefit from making each link in the chain transparent. trust as a simple tiny interface is almost by necessity a lie.

0
2y
j.r

@darius funny, I actually tried to bring up this concerns to the original author, they blocked me without any notice...

0
2y
Darius Kazemi

Been talking to people at work about this whole verification thing and I was pointed to this really interesting specification for "trust.txt" -- basically a "robots.txt" and I could imagine it augmenting the rel=me thing that Mastodon already does. nytimes dot com could list their associated journalists' social media at this endpoint and Mastodon could do a handshake with that, similar to what it does with rel=me

journallist.net/wp-content/upl

3
2y
Replies