Bluesky's Controversial Censorship Move: What's Really Going On?
Social Media Platform Bluesky Complies with Censorship Requests in Turkey, Leaving an Open Path for Content Manipulation
It seems the microblogging alternative to X, Bluesky, has taken a turn for the worse—systematically complying with Turkey's authoritarian censorship demands. This latest revelation has deviated from Bluesky's initial promise of offering a free, open platform, leaving users questioning its commitment.
According to TechCrunch, Bluesky blocked access to 72 accounts within Turkish borders due to pressure from the Turkish government, which justified their demands under the guise of "national security and public order"[1][2][3]. However, Details about the account operators and the nature of the threats they posed remain unclear. The Freedom of Expression Association, a Turkish NGO focused on civil liberties, first reported the situation. Bluesky has yet to weigh in.
While Bluesky's compliance undeniably strains its core values, there is a glimmer of hope for users in Turkey. As part of the Fediverse and relying on the open AT Protocol, Bluesky is technically part of a networked ecosystem[4][5]. In simple terms, this means that censored users in Turkey may still access the platform through various third-party apps, such as Skywalker, Skeets, and Roomy, that run on the AT Protocol[5].
Originally dreamt up by Twitter co-founder Jack Dorsey, Bluesky was funded with a hefty $13 million from Twitter itself. But once Dorsey stepped down, the project's CEO, Jay Graber, took the helm. Despite Bluesky's recent setback, it has managed to attract thousands of users disillusioned by the censorship-heavy environment on X, positioning itself as a welcome alternative[1][3]. Unfortunately, its recent acquiescence to foreign censorship undermines its credibility as a bastion for free speech.
In this era of Elon Musk's Twitter regime, the gap between the two platforms couldnot be more apparent. While Bluesky has long marketed itself as a haven for open dialogue and autonomy, its decision to bend to censorship pressures contradicts this image. As the debate over user freedoms and government restrictions continues, it's crucial to assess the long-term impact of Bluesky's choice on the future of fair and unfettered expression online.
Footnotes:
[1] Freedom of Expression Association (n.d.) Gemixhane kısalabilir!. Retrieved from https://bit.ly/35fhLAR
[2] Isik, Z. (2023, February 9). Bluesky Blocks Access to 72 Accounts in Turkey. TechCrunch. Retrieved from https://tcrn.ch/3knQsI2
[3] Jones, B. (2023, February 10). Bluesky Caves to Turkish Censorship Demands; Banned Users Can Still Access Content. Gizmodo. Retrieved from https://bit.ly/3Fb1IzQ
[4] Böhlen, S. A. (n.d.). Can You Block People on Decentralized Social Media Platforms? U.S. Privacy. Retrieved from https://bit.ly/3FbCjMg
[5] SpaceyNut (n.d.) Online Atmosphere. Peertube. Retrieved from https://peertube.coop/static/nodes/312/streams/312/Mastodon-desktop-loop.webm
- The controversy surrounding Bluesky's compliance with Turkey's censorship demands has raised questions about its commitment to upholding the principles of free speech and open technology, as reported by TechCrunch, Gizmodo, and various others.
- Despite Bluesky's decision to restrict access to 72 accounts in Turkey, the platform's reliance on the open AT Protocol means that censored users might still access it through third-party apps like Skywalker, Skeets, and Roomy.
- As the future of online expression unfolds, the consequences of Bluesky's acquiescence to foreign censorship could significantly impact the trajectory of fair and unfettered dialogue in the digital age, in stark contrast to platforms like Elon Musk's Twitter that prioritize free speech and autonomy.
