Sure but a) there’s a monetary cost to doing it, so you’re…

I think it proves the exact opposite? If someone got to the social media website first, they wouldn't be able to squat on my domain name since only I can prove I own it. The alternative on twitter would be @pfrazeesmonster, which is no less of an impersonation risk - and is vulnerable to squatting

1 3

liquid8d 6 Jul 2023

I see what you are saying, but I dunno where the line is.. what if you grabbed pfrazee.dev? People don't have any clue or those that do don't bother to look. it's a problem everywhere, but who's handling the complaints?

2 1

Samuel

@samuel.fm

Sure but a) there’s a monetary cost to doing it, so you’re unlikely to see an attack like that at scale and b) this has been a thing for websites forever, so people are primed to be on the lookout for it

1 2

liquid8d 6 Jul 2023

Just playing devil's advocate (again, I like it, there's just a built-in problem) a) 0.99 b) they aren't, look at removing verified checkmarks on Twitter What you use (usernames, etc) are always ripe for impersonation so it's not just a domain thing, it just gives it a more legit appearance

1 1

Samuel 6 Jul 2023

yeah I mean at the end of the day those problems are always there unless we use our social security codes as usernames. I just believe bluesky has come as close as anyone to solving it

1 2

liquid8d 6 Jul 2023

Also another annoyance for me.. I didn't even realize you were mozzius.dev until I saw the Graysky tweet 😆 So old linked at in profile links to new at, that's not confusing for users (again this is generalization for display names, usernames, etc on all the webs)