Original post: https://bsky.app/profile/ssg.dev/post/3lmuz3nr62k26

Email from Bluesky in the screenshot:

Hi there,

We are writing to inform you that we have received a formal request from a legal authority in Turkey regarding the removal of your account associated with the following handle (@carekavga.bsky.social) on Bluesky.

The legal authority has claimed that this content violates local laws in Turkey. As a result, we are required to review the request in accordance with local regulations and Bluesky’s policies.

Following a thorough review, we have determined that the content in question violates local laws in Turkey, as outlined in the legal request. In compliance with these legal provisions, we have restricted access to your account for users.

  • @sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
    4•2 months ago

    Sure. It’s like comparing having one tyrant, which can be good or bad (but at least isn’t going anywhere) vs a lot of tyrants whose power is limited to their little area, and who will come and go. I guess that’s better, but I don’t think anyone would say it’s “good,” just a bit better.

    I like the Fediverse, I just think it only went halfway to solving the problem.

    • @73ms@sopuli.xyzEnglish
      1•2 months ago

      Do you have a proposal for how you’d solve the other half then or just think it isn’t enough?

      • @sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
        4•2 months ago

        Yeah, I’m working on something that I think should improve on things, but I keep bringing it up in the hopes that someone beats me to it. Here are some notes:

        • P2P network based on something like IPFS or Iroh (I picked Iroh)
        • a “community” is a distributed hash table, with posts, comments, etc as structured keys
        • everything is cryptographically signed by the author, so you can check for tampering (built-in feature of Iroh)
        • moderation is also distributed, based on “trust”; everyone is a moderator, and you “trust” others’ moderation either explicitly or by happening to moderate similarly; options are “like,” “dislike,” “relevant,” “report” (spam, CSAM, etc)
        • everyone contributes a little storage to the network, and you can adjust your storage quota

        Some interesting side effects of this design:

        • single namespace - no “instances” since hosting is distributed (so just “Technology” instead of “Technology@lemmy.world”)
        • everyone will see a different feed due to differences in moderation choices
        • no concept of “all” since you wouldn’t sync communities you don’t care about - I would add a discovery mechanism to help here
        • could be “sneakernetted” if countries block this service, provided you have a way to discover other users in each closed region
        • nobody can censor you since moderation is opt-in, so I literally cannot respond to takedown requests by governments
        • there’s a very real risk of echo chambers, but that’s on the user not centralized mods

        When launching, I’d have a default set of mods that automatically “block” things like CSAM, but users can choose to remove those and/or adjust weights. The idea is for moderation to be transparent, but also something users aren’t expected to change.

        The only hosting needs would be:

        • relay servers to connect people - relay servers would be federated and incredibly lightweight
        • storage instances - only needed in the early days until enough people join the network
        • website for documentation and whatnot

        It’s very early days (still working on the P2P part, but have a POC for the moderation algorithm). I’ll probably post once I feel like it’s actually useful, which won’t be for a while.