Hacker News Reader

Comment by KerrAvon | Hacker News Reader

No problem: add a second line with the verified name, or put the verified name in hover text if it differs from the display name. The verified name could still be a pseudonym, but it couldn't change without going through the verification process again.

Also, anyone willing to go through the verification process should get a blue check. Right now it's dependent on some Twitter insider liking the account holder (the insanely bullshit "Notable" requirement).

View on HN

> or put the verified name in hover text if it differs from the display name

This isn't really a solution, because it's already "obvious" that it's the wrong user if you're looking closely. The UI shows "Vitalik.eth [verified checkmark] @scamusername" so you can see that @scamusername is not @vitalik. The problem is that you shouldn't need to look at the light text or hover to see that a verified user is who they say they are, the UI should make it completely clear.

This is already the case, the verified name is the account name, which is always displayed just below the nickname. What's your plan? Add a 3rd name?

Remove nicknames.

“There are 44,935 people named John Smith in the United States.”

https://alexaanswers.amazon.com/question/24Ryred578w14fHwRNC...

This is obviously not true, unless I'm misunderstanding something. I'm not a twitter scientist, but I don't know what an "account name" is, unless it's the twitter handle. The twitter handles of blue checks are verifiably not required to have any relationship to a name that anyone knows them by, so are not a "verified name."

> I don't know what an "account name" is, unless it's the twitter handle

So, you know perfectly well and understood perfectly my point.

You'd still have edge cases where a change in verified name is needed (marriages, avoiding deadnaming, etc). A solution like this might narrow the problem space, but it doesn't solve the issues.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com