7 ms·

They will ban Bluesky too if it gets too popular .

• deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
• alphabettsy 2y ago
  It’s not as easy to ban.
  • new_user_final 2y ago
    x.com is also not easy to ban. vpn are always to use but you will be fined by the government if they can identify you. same goes for any other platform that are not "easy to ban".
• stevebmark 2y ago
  AT Protocol aggregators (“relays”) can choose their own content moderation policies. It’s possible that if there are multiple relays, and one of them doesn’t block violent / hate speech, the government would ban that relay and corresponding domain, and others could continue to thrive.
  • verdverm 2y ago
    ATProto actually separates moderation from PDS or App View. Users can choose which labellers they prefer and can even combine them, separate from where they host their data or the UI they choose to use. https://bsky.social/about/blog/03-12-2024-stackable-moderation https://bsky.social/about/blog/03-12-2024-stackable-moderati... They do the same for feeds, 4 core components, with user choice and interoperability for each
    • jazzyjackson 2y ago
      So what levers does that give governments seeking to get compliance out of an internet service - if multiple apps are hosting anti-party propaganda the government has to block the domains of each app ? Or, perhaps the domains of the content itself is blocked so apps continue to work but fail to load content within certain borders ?
      • verdverm 2y ago
        apps don't host data, PDS (personal data servers) do apps implement views on that data, and may or may not follow the rules, of gov't or users. For example, even though you can block a user, detach a quote post, or hide comments, apps have to implement this behavior, and nothing stops a person from finding that relation. ATProto is federated, not centralized, and not something gov'ts and regulations have thought thoroughly about. Also, with DID, I believe DNS blocking will be hard because I can change the name and still get to the same content
        • jazzyjackson 2y ago
          > not something gov'ts and regulations have thought thoroughly about Not trying to be combative but I find this mode of thinking is likely to backfire, governments don't have to think they can just act - has bsky thought seriously about what their response will be to the same laws that X is suffering from?
          • verdverm 2y ago
            Users have choice over moderation, it's not necessarily something Bluesky can limit, by design. It's also worth seeing how it plays out with others, while you are still not on the radar. Part of the reason Xitter is getting harsher treatment is because Musk antagonized. That's not the best way to negotiate, especially since he said he'd abide by local rules, like how he said he'd be better for free speech.
            • AlienRobot 2y ago
              I'm not sure I understand. Are you trying to say if a judge says "you must stop displaying this content" Bluesky will argue "we can't do that"? I think Bluesky would get banned.
              • verdverm 2y ago
                Bluesky could implement it in their moderation service, but that does not mean users in Brazil would be impacted by it. Users could swap moderation service or swap interfaces The one thing that could happen is the PDS deleting the record for everyone, everywhere One thing to separate is Bluesky from ATProto. Bluesky is the default implementation of the 4 core pieces, but one could use alternatives for all of them as well and still have their content show up in the bsky app. Imagine if Twitter was open source and federated
• slashdave 2y ago
  Not so sure. I mean, as long as Bluesky doesn't just simply ignore a judge. Also, there has been some backlash.
  • extheat 2y ago
    Bluesky isn’t a centralized service, the developers cannot themselves comply with judicial orders (any of them).
    • nunobrito 2y ago
      It is centralized. Just block the app and domain, down it goes. Very different when compared to NOSTR, where are a variety of domains and apps keep popping up everywhere around the globe.
    • slashdave 2y ago
      Bluesky can block its own users. I don't see why they would be responsible for anything else beyond that.
• throwadobe 2y ago
  [flagged]
• insane_dreamer 2y ago
  Based on what evidence? IG, FB, WhatsApp, etc are all still running in Brazil last I checked.
  • blackeyeblitzar 2y ago
    They previously banned Telegram, and might come for these other services next. But selective enforcement is also part of how injustices are performed in authoritarian regimes. Note that most websites and businesses on the Internet don’t need to have a local representative in Brazil, for example, though the Supreme Court justice here demanded Twitter have one (just so he could jail the person like an act of theater). The aggressiveness against Twitter/X could just be a strategy to compel other companies to quietly censor in behalf of the current administration, even if it would be illegal for them to comply.
    • rescbr 2y ago
      Twitter/X has a local entity set up in Sao Paulo. The previous administrator was removed and another wasn't appointed, running foul from the societal laws. Telegram doesn’t have a local entity and complies with Brazilian law, which is the only thing that is required. There is absolutely no need for local representation of foreign entities in Brazilian law. Twitter having a local office is simply a commercial decision - easier to conduct business, better relationships with customers, local tax vs duty over importation of services etc.