Unfortunately, Bluesky is unavailable in Mississippi right now, due to a new state law that requires age verification for all users. While intended for child safety, we think this law poses broader challenges & creates significant barriers that limit free speech & harm smaller platforms like ours.
@bsky.app And this is why real decentralization matters. There is nobody that can decide for the fediverse to block Mississippi.
I feel like this is potentially misleading, Eugen? Both because others can host their own views of the network, but also will the largest instances, which you run, be willing to pay the $10k/user fines in Mississippi? Because the state can still go after instances, no?
Oh this is going to be a good thread.

a man wearing 3d glasses is ho...
It's really not meant to be a gotcha kinda thing. I'm just trying to understand the actual complaint.
Fair point, and I believe you but I've see how conversations between fedi and bluesky usually goes. Many people still think atproto is centralized and corporate controlled on the fedi side. I am curious how eugene will respond since fedi runs tge whole instance as a site that talks to other sites.
My larger point is simply that this is a bad law that impacts both Mastodon and Bluesky (and the wider Fediverse/Atmosphere) and it seems like a reason to work together to fix the law (i.e., with @gargron.mastodon.social.ap.brid.gy) than to use it to take potshots at each other. The law is bad.
@[email protected] The law is bad, nobody said otherwise. But decentralized systems are supposed to be resilient. If the US makes a law banning all mentions of LGBT from social media, which sounds less unlikely by the minute, what will Bluesky do? All of your infrastructure is controlled by one US company…
Your final point is incorrect. Please don't spread misinfo about stuff like that.
The key point here matters @gargron.mastodon.social.ap.brid.gy: this law equally impacts both ActivityPub and ATproto instances. Using this law (and the fact that some Mastodon servers plan to not comply and risk liability) is not a statement regarding which network architecture is better.
It's just a statement over which systems are willing to risk ruinous liability over a bad law.
@[email protected] You keep repeating this claim, but this doesn't make it correct, see for example https://mastodon.social/@folkerschamel/115080383013572736