[Laaas]

They will ban Bluesky too if it gets too popular .

[stevebmark]

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]

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-moderati...

They do the same for feeds, 4 core components, with user choice and interoperability for each

[slashdave]

Not so sure. I mean, as long as Bluesky doesn't just simply ignore a judge. Also, there has been some backlash.

[extheat]

Bluesky isn’t a centralized service, the developers cannot themselves comply with judicial orders (any of them).

[insane_dreamer]

Based on what evidence?

IG, FB, WhatsApp, etc are all still running in Brazil last I checked.

[blackeyeblitzar]

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.

[alphabettsy]

It’s not as easy to ban.

[new_user_final]

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".