Bluesky, the social network known for its decentralized foundation, has restricted access to 72 user accounts and one specific post within Turkey. This action, confirmed by the Freedom of Expression Association (İfade Özgürlüğü Derneği – İFÖD) possibly marks a turning point for the platform, which many users joined seeking refuge from the content moderation policies of more centralized services like X (formerly Twitter). The restrictions appear driven by legal demands from Turkish authorities citing national security concerns.
Turkey’s Broader Clampdown on Online Platforms
The Turkish government has frequently exerted pressure on online platforms to control content. İFÖD’s EngelliWeb project, which tracks this censorship, provided the data highlighted by the Stockholm Center for Freedom (SCF).
This environment has seen major platforms face restrictions; Turkey’s Information and Communication Technologies Authority (BTK) already blocked Instagram access nationwide in August 2024 temporarily, after Instagram restricted posts concerning the death of Ismail Haniyeh, the leader of Hamas.
Following that incident, a Turkish official stated, “This is a clear and blatant act of censorship. We will continue to defend freedom of expression against platforms that serve global exploitation and injustice.”
Access to X, Facebook, YouTube, and even the cloud storage services OneDrive, Google Drive and Dropbox, had been limited previously. This context is underscored by Turkey’s low placement in global press freedom rankings, placing 158th out of 180 countries in the Reporters Without Borders 2024 World Press Freedom Index.
Government Orders and Platform Actions
İFÖD’s data reveals a two-pronged approach to the Bluesky restrictions. Turkish courts ordered Internet Service Providers to block 59 accounts, citing “protection of national security and public order” under the relevant law (Law No. 5651, Article 8/A).
In addition to these ISP-level blocks, Bluesky implemented its own measures, geo-blocking another 13 accounts and one specific post, making them inaccessible only within Turkey. As of this report, Bluesky has not publicly commented on these specific actions.
Bluesky’s compliance is notable given its structure based on the Authenticated Transfer (AT) Protocol, designed for greater user control and censorship resistance. However, the platform had previously established a mechanism for such situations.
In September 2024, Bluesky announced a policy for handling legal demands via “geography-specific labels,” allowing regional content visibility restrictions based on valid legal requests. This policy aims to balance global expression with local law adherence. The Turkish situation appears to be a direct application of this policy under government pressure.
The pressure seems to have built over time. While the 72 restrictions were confirmed by İFÖD around April 17, 2025, earlier reports indicated the process was already underway.
Bianet noted on April 5, that Turkish courts had already mandated blocks on 44 Bluesky accounts, which the platform had not yet implemented at that time. This suggests a period between the initial orders and Bluesky’s eventual action. This unfolding situation tests the expectations of some users who had potentially joined Bluesky seeking fewer restrictions, including those who reportedly migrated from X following earlier censorship incidents in Turkey.
Source: Winbuzzer / Digpu NewsTex