Bluesky just took the unprecedented step of geo-blocking an entire U.S. state. The Twitter alternative cut off access to all Mississippi users rather than comply with HB 1126, a sweeping age verification law that the Supreme Court controversially allowed to take effect earlier this month despite First Amendment concerns.
Bluesky just crossed a line no major social platform has crossed before - completely shutting out an entire U.S. state rather than bow to what it calls fundamentally invasive regulation. Users logging in from Mississippi IP addresses now hit a wall explaining the company's decision to block access rather than comply with HB 1126, the state's sweeping age verification law.
The move represents a dramatic escalation in the battle between social platforms and state regulators, with Bluesky choosing nuclear option over compromise. "Mississippi's approach would fundamentally change how users access Bluesky," the company stated in its blog post announcing the decision, drawing stark contrasts with how it handles similar regulations elsewhere.
The company's reasoning cuts to the heart of why HB 1126 stands apart from other age verification efforts. Unlike the UK's Online Safety Act, which Bluesky complies with by restricting only direct messages and sensitive content for unverified users, Mississippi's law "would block everyone from accessing the site — teens and adults — unless they hand over sensitive information." Even more concerning for the platform: "once they do, the law in Mississippi requires Bluesky to keep track of which users are children."
That tracking requirement appears to be the dealbreaker. Bluesky emphasized that "building the required verification systems, parental consent workflows, and compliance infrastructure would require significant resources that our small team is currently unable to spare," pointing to the law's "broad scope and privacy implications" as primary concerns.
The decision gained urgency after the Supreme Court's unexplained rejection of an emergency request to block HB 1126 earlier this month. The court's move was particularly striking given Justice Brett Kavanaugh's concurring opinion acknowledging the law "probably violated the First Amendment" while arguing plaintiffs hadn't sufficiently demonstrated immediate harms.