Yes, but in comparison to a federation only the information will survive because it was copied out of the central system, but the system will fail as soon as the company folds. I mean the reason the fact that you need a 3rd party mirror to save the data proves the flaws of the 1st party. This instance for example doesn’t need to be mirrored because it is built on a foundation that already has redundancy built in.
I know that old tale, bunch of religious people voting for the religious nutcase but when you say ‘the turks’ you imply it’s at least the majority of people but that’s not the case here. Don’t put the blame on the people, if they haven’t been given the chance to vote for their leader in fair and free elections.
Right, but if they feel they have enough pressure to someone in turkey banned, they probably would likely also use that pressure to ban someone outside of turkey I suppose.
Yes totally true, if you want to be safe from all governments. But there are plenty countries you can safely host an instance without fearing censorship. On the one hand you have options in wealthy countries that want to defend their values, and on the other hand you have options in poor countries which do not have the resources to locate the actual server.
should’ve put an /s there maybe, don’t want to curb your enthusiasm of writing 2 sentences to promote a platform some people may not have checked out in some time, if at all. Do your thing lol
Considering you say that I don’t think you’re up to date as to how voting ‘works’ in Turkey nowadays.
I wouldn’t say they ignore it, more they’re too naive or misinformed to understand it’s a problem.
Which one? TurkmeniGovernmentNet or TurkmeniOppositionNet?
I believe those laws target the author, so their main goal wouldn’t be to take the content down but figure out who wrote it. I think when it comes to ‘real’ censorship you still want both to happen but it would be much more importent to get the content deleted.
Which is not part of Bluesky, only proving the point having a central system controlling the data makes the data vulnerable.
Decentralization isn’t done to hide the author, federating content works because the content is spread beyond a central owner. I don’t know if you ever used a peer-2-peer network like you do when you torrent a movie, but the concept is very similar. It is harder to censor something because you have more places you need to censor.
Imagine you are in a country where a lot of information is censored and you want to spread a message. Would you pick 1 giant billboard in the city center or would you make a bunch of leaflets you secretly hand out to someone you trust, hoping they will give the information along to someone they trust etc? Obviously, one giant billboard is easier to take down by the censoring government. That is why decentralisation does in fact work against censorship.
Anonymity or ‘layers of privacy’ are useful if you don’t want to be caught as the author of the message. In that case it is not about running the instance over Tor, but accessing the instance over Tor. You wouldn’t even need to use tor if you can trust your computer isn’t infected and you acces the instance through a VPN and remove all new data (e.g. cookies) from your pc before you disconnect your vpn.
You get it, they’ll just do what they did with torrents and p2p networks. /s
But Turkey blocking acces to certain content is not the same as removing the content (which is what Bluesky does when they honour a request).
But now they are not targeting the person posting it, they are targeting the platform it is posted to. If we let them they can censor the whole internet Bluesky.
Can Turkey ask for any account/post to be banned regardless of where a post was written? For example, if I were to register there and called Erdogan a dictator who suppresses the Turks by breaking down the media and justice system and he is taking political prisoners; could he then ask BlueSky to get my account removed because i’m breaking a law in Turkey even though I am not in Turkey? That sounds totally crazy. Like from now on you can make laws on your citizens, your lands and all of the internet? What the fu. e: typo
No offense but I think your effort is wasted on the people (already) here.
On the one hand it is crazy, on the other hand I suppose you don’t even need that many ‘policemen’ on the interwebs to clean it up compared to the amount of (secret) policemen you need to keep the physical country ‘clean’.
Yes they have said so themselves
The benefit is them offering a better service which might help them sell more subscriptions. They don’t need this change for the more malicious benefits like more data for training or more insight in their customers etc.
I hope so, but if their intent is to commit fraud what is and isn’t legal might not prevent them from ending up with manipulated results