Bluesky will block Mississippi IP addresses until courts resolve a state law requiring age verification and parental consent for underage users. HB 1126 would block access to the site unless users provide sensitive information and would require Bluesky to track which users are children. The law differs from the UK's Online Safety Act, which limits direct messages and sensitive content without gating the whole site. Building verification systems, parental-consent workflows, and compliance infrastructure would require significant resources beyond Bluesky's small team's capacity. Most similar US laws have been blocked as likely unconstitutional; the Supreme Court declined an emergency stay, with a concurring opinion noting probable First Amendment problems.
Bluesky will block access to Mississippi IP addresses in response to a new state law requiring age verification and parental consent for underage users. The decision, outlined in a blog post, will stand until courts decide the fate of the law. Mississippi's approach would fundamentally change how users access Bluesky, says the post, in ways that rules like the UK's Online Safety Act (which Bluesky complies with) don't.
The law, HB 1126, would block everyone from accessing the site teens and adults unless they hand over sensitive information, and once they do, the law in Mississippi requires Bluesky to keep track of which users are children. In the UK, by contrast, users are only blocked from accessing direct messages and sensitive content unless they undergo a verification process using a third-party tool.
HB 1126 is one of numerous attempts to age-gate social media in the US, but most similar laws have been blocked under court challenges as likely unconstitutional. HB 1126 went into effect thanks to an unexplained decision by the Supreme Court earlier this month, rejecting an emergency request to block it while a legal challenge progresses. A concurring opinion from Justice Brett Kavanaugh acknowledged that the law probably violated the First Amendment but said the plaintiffs had not sufficiently demonstrated harms.
Collection
[
|
...
]