Burning questions (and some answers) about Bluesky’s new verification system

Tech Crunch - Apr 22nd, 2025

Bluesky has launched a verification system aimed at authenticating notable users on its platform, raising numerous questions about the selection process and the roles of outside organizations. Unlike Twitter's previous verification system, Bluesky's approach involves 'Trusted Verifiers' outside of the company, such as The New York Times, to independently verify users. However, details on other participating organizations and criteria for 'notable' accounts remain unclear, causing confusion among users eager to understand the new system's operations.

The verification system's rollout signifies a shift toward decentralized authentication, aligning with Bluesky's ethos. Despite the intention for a transparent process, the lack of clarity on which organizations are involved and how they were chosen has left users questioning the system's fairness and transparency. The ongoing use of domain-based self-verification and the uncertainty surrounding unofficial verifiers add layers to the narrative, suggesting that while Bluesky is innovating, it must address user concerns to maintain trust and credibility.

Twitter The New York Times Tech Crunch Bluesky Jay Graber Paul Frazee Verification System Trusted Verifiers Decentralized Social Media User Authentication

Story submitted by Fairstory

RATING

6.4

Moderately Fair

Read with skepticism

The article provides a timely and generally accurate overview of Bluesky's new verification system, highlighting key features and raising important questions about its implementation. While it effectively communicates the basic facts and context, the lack of diverse perspectives and detailed analysis limits its depth. The article could benefit from a more comprehensive exploration of the implications of Bluesky's approach to verification, particularly regarding potential abuses and the criteria for selecting notable accounts. Overall, it serves as a useful introduction to the topic but leaves several critical areas underexplored.

Accuracy

The article accurately reports on Bluesky's launch of a verification system and its association with Trusted Verifiers like The New York Times, Wired, and The Athletic. However, it lacks specificity regarding the criteria for selecting notable accounts and the complete list of Trusted Verifiers. The article correctly notes the system's decentralized ethos and mentions the continuation of domain-based verification, which aligns with Bluesky's stated plans. Yet, it does not fully address how Bluesky plans to handle potential abuses by Trusted Verifiers, which is a critical aspect of the system's integrity.

Balance

The article primarily presents Bluesky's perspective on their new verification system, with limited viewpoints from external stakeholders or those affected by the changes. While it mentions user confusion and questions about the system, it does not explore in-depth perspectives from critics or those who may be disadvantaged by the new verification process. This could lead to an imbalanced understanding of the system's broader implications.

Clarity

The article is generally clear and well-structured, making it easy for readers to follow the main points about Bluesky's verification system. It logically presents the sequence of events and the questions surrounding the system's implementation. However, the use of technical jargon and assumptions about reader familiarity with Bluesky might limit accessibility for a broader audience.

Source quality

The article references Bluesky's own documentation and posts from its leaders, which are authoritative sources for the company's actions. However, it lacks input from independent experts or third-party commentators who could provide a more nuanced view of the verification system's impact. The absence of diverse sources limits the depth of analysis and reduces the article's reliability.

Transparency

The article provides some transparency by referencing Bluesky's blog posts and acknowledging the lack of response from the company to requests for comment. However, it does not fully disclose the methodology behind its information gathering or the potential biases in relying heavily on Bluesky's own statements. Greater transparency in these areas would enhance the reader's understanding of the article's foundation.