Bluesky Censorship: Government Requests & Third-Party Apps

Censorship on Bluesky and Existing Workarounds

Government censorship has begun to impact the social network Bluesky, although a current structural characteristic of the platform provides a potential means of circumvention.

Recent findings from the Freedom of Expression Association reveal that Bluesky implemented restrictions on access to 72 accounts within Turkey, responding to requests from Turkish governmental bodies. Consequently, users located in Turkey are now unable to view these accounts, and their potential reach has been significantly curtailed.

Reasons for Account Restrictions

The report details that 59 of the blocked Bluesky accounts were targeted due to concerns regarding the preservation of “national security and public order.” Furthermore, Bluesky rendered an additional 13 accounts, along with at least one specific post, inaccessible to users within Turkey.

This development has sparked debate within the Bluesky community, particularly among Turkish users who transitioned from X (formerly Twitter) seeking refuge from governmental oversight. Questions are being raised about the platform’s commitment to its stated principles of openness and decentralization.

Bluesky’s Architecture and Censorship Resistance

Despite these restrictions, Bluesky’s underlying technical design currently facilitates bypassing these blocks more readily than would be possible on platforms like X. However, it doesn't quite achieve the same level of openness as Mastodon, another decentralized alternative to X.

On Mastodon, users have the ability to relocate their accounts to different servers, effectively evading censorship that may be directed at their original server. This provides a degree of control not currently available on Bluesky.

Limitations of User Control

While Bluesky users utilizing the official application can customize their moderation preferences, they lack the option to decline the moderation services provided by Bluesky itself. This includes the utilization of geographic labelers, such as the recently implemented Turkish moderation labeler responsible for enforcing censorship directives issued by the Turkish government.

In essence, if a user is accessing Bluesky through the official app and the company agrees to censor content within their geographic region, there is currently no mechanism to override this censorship and view the restricted posts or accounts.

A detailed technical explanation of these mechanisms can be found on The Fediverse Report.

Circumventing Censorship within the Atmosphere Ecosystem

Alternative applications built for Bluesky, collectively forming the broader open social network known as the Atmosphere, are not currently bound by the same restrictions. This situation, however, may not persist indefinitely.

Due to Bluesky’s foundation on the AT Protocol, these third-party clients possess the capability to construct unique interfaces and perspectives on Bluesky content, independent of the platform’s core moderation policies. Critically, the accounts subject to censorship are not prohibited from utilizing Bluesky’s underlying infrastructure, such as relays and independently operated personal data servers.

Moderation of these accounts is instead enacted through geographic labelers at the client application level. Presently, Bluesky does not mandate that third-party apps integrate its geographic moderation labelers, a requirement that would necessitate user geolocation and subsequent application of regional limitations. Consequently, any application omitting these labelers effectively bypasses the restrictions imposed on the blocked Turkish accounts.

Consequently, platforms such as Skeets, Ouranos, Deer.social, and Skywalker currently offer avenues to circumvent Turkish censorship measures.

However, this approach is subject to several important considerations.

The decision by app developers to forgo geographic labelers isn’t always a deliberate act of defiance. Implementing these labelers represents additional development effort, and many developers have simply not prioritized their integration. Furthermore, these alternative applications generally serve smaller user bases compared to the official Bluesky app, reducing their visibility to government censors. This diminished profile also lessens the immediate concern for developers – at least for the present time.

Should these third-party apps achieve significant popularity, governments, like that of Turkey, could directly engage them and demand compliance. Failure to comply could result in the app being blocked within the country; several Bluesky developers have indicated they will postpone labeler integration until prompted by Apple regarding potential App Store removal.

Recognizing that bypassing labelers is unlikely to be a lasting solution, developer Aviva Ruben is creating an alternative Bluesky client, Deer.social, with a different operational model. This client will empower users to completely disable Bluesky’s official moderation services and labelers, opting instead to utilize alternative third-party labelers.

Additionally, the application will allow users to manually define their location within the settings, providing a means to circumvent geolocation-based blocks and censorship.

“I support the current policy, but I anticipate potential future restrictions or alterations – a compelling reason to continue developing alternative AppViews,” Ruben stated, emphasizing the importance of diverse methods for accessing and viewing Bluesky data.

While current censorship concerns center on Turkey, Bluesky’s community must prepare for a future where governments, including the U.S., may request the concealment of posts extending beyond explicitly illegal content, such as Child Sexual Abuse Material (CSAM).

Ruben explains that Deer.social would introduce a “no location” setting, enabling users to opt out of all geographic labelers in such scenarios.

Despite these potential workarounds, censorship has undeniably reached Bluesky. Given the official app’s widespread reach, this represents a significant development.

Update: As of April 20, 2025, data released by the Freedom of Expression Association indicates that 63 accounts have been affected, including 19 accounts rendered invisible and 5 posts hidden from view.