Bluesky may soon add blue check verification

Tech Crunch - Apr 18th, 2025

Bluesky is set to launch a new blue checkmark verification system, as indicated by updates to its GitHub repository observed by reverse engineer alice.mosphere.at. Unlike Twitter's, now X's, verification process, Bluesky's system will involve multiple organizations distributing blue checks. These organizations, labeled as “trusted verifiers,” will have the authority to directly issue verification. Notable accounts on Bluesky will be actively verified, and tapping on a blue check will reveal the organizations responsible for the verification. Changes might be announced soon, as suggested by a recent pull request dated April 21, 2025.

This decentralized approach marks a significant departure from X's verification strategy, which has faced criticism for diluting the value of its blue check by allowing payment for verification. Bluesky’s model could democratize the verification process, potentially increasing trust and authenticity on the platform. The system might involve reputable news organizations like The New York Times, which could enhance credibility. While the system's practical effectiveness remains to be seen, it represents a bold step towards decentralizing digital identity verification in social media.

Elon Musk Git Hub Twitter Bluesky Jay Graber Verification System Blue Checkmark Trusted Verifiers

Story submitted by Fairstory

RATING

7.0

Fair Story

Consider it well-founded

The article provides a timely and largely accurate account of Bluesky's potential new verification system, offering a clear and engaging narrative that contrasts it with Twitter's approach. While the story is well-structured and accessible, it could benefit from more diverse perspectives and authoritative sources to enhance its balance and source quality. The topic's relevance to current debates about social media verification systems adds to its public interest and potential impact. However, the article could delve deeper into the controversies surrounding these changes to maximize engagement and provoke meaningful discussions.

Accuracy

The story presents a largely accurate depiction of Bluesky's potential new verification system. It accurately identifies the changes in Bluesky's public GitHub repository, indicating a shift toward a blue checkmark verification system similar in appearance to Twitter's but different in function. The claim that Bluesky's system may involve multiple organizations as 'trusted verifiers' is supported by the codebase changes. However, the story could improve by providing more concrete evidence or direct statements from Bluesky to verify these claims fully. The timeline for the announcement, suggested by a pull request dated April 21, 2025, is also a factual element that aligns with the story's narrative, though it requires official confirmation from Bluesky.

Balance

The article attempts to balance its portrayal of Bluesky's new verification system by comparing it to Twitter's approach and exploring the potential implications of a decentralized model. However, it lacks perspectives from Bluesky's leadership or users who might be affected by this change. The article could benefit from including more diverse viewpoints, such as reactions from current Bluesky users or industry experts, to provide a fuller picture of the potential impacts and reception of this new verification system.

Clarity

The article is generally clear and well-structured, making it easy for readers to follow the main points regarding Bluesky's potential new verification system. The language is straightforward, and the comparisons to Twitter's system help contextualize the information. However, the article could improve clarity by providing more detailed explanations of technical terms or processes for readers who may not be familiar with software development or verification systems.

Source quality

The primary source of information in the article is a reverse engineer who identified changes in Bluesky's GitHub repository. While this source is credible for technical insights, the article would benefit from additional authoritative sources, such as statements from Bluesky's executives or official company announcements. The lack of direct quotes or responses from Bluesky reduces the reliability of the information, as it largely relies on interpretation of technical changes rather than confirmed company policy.

Transparency

The article provides some transparency by mentioning the source of its information—a reverse engineer—and the specific changes observed in Bluesky's GitHub repository. However, it lacks detailed explanations of how these changes were interpreted and the methodology used to reach its conclusions. Additionally, the article does not disclose any potential conflicts of interest or biases that might affect its reporting, which could enhance transparency and reader trust.