That’s really the biggest disappointment with them. They started with a reasonable vision for scalable decentralized social media, and then built something and at every turn doubled down on centralization and took advantage of their privileged position to implement things easily rather than doing it the Right Way (tm).
There’s a lot of lessons there for many Bitcoin protocols…
There exist end-to-end ATprotocol implementations that touch no Bluesky infrastructure. It's nowhere near Nostr, but it's also not a centralisation pantomime villain.
I know, I’m disappointed in the Bluesky app decisions, mostly. They pitched it all about things being done at higher levels - systemwide bans even as lists that the client just downloads (and they even did this for some things!) but then once actually-controversial people started joining they threw that out and just said nope and banned their servers from touching those accounts (which has totally legal, if highly disagreeable, speech).
That all is true, and it's also true that while these banned people can set up accounts on other clients that use other relays and other app views they'd then be invisible to 99% of protocol users.
Zooming out though, these Mississipi-esque State laws are written to catch out anyone running any relevant infrastructure, including Nostr relays, Nostr clients, blossom servers, and whatever else. So all that can really be said is that Nostr tech makes it easier for Nostr tech operators to flout these laws.
Yea, I agree, in this specific case nostr isn’t immune, though the highly redundant nature of the protocol means you just need one, unlike Bluesky (not that they couldn’t pretty easily engineer for that if they wanted…)
Bluesky is the least of at protocol problems, eventually Mississippi will discover that they own and run the centralized PKI that can't be decentralised and will be ordered to nuke accounts from the network, not just from one app or server.
