[_heimdall]

To be fair, that order would only matter if Bluesky is logging and storing user IPs. I don't know of any technical reason for needing to track that based on the AT Protocol, they could avoid the entire problem by not tracking that data (assuming they currently do).

[ivewonyoung]

The judge would probably force the legal rep to log ip addresses the next time those users access BlueSky under threat of jail time and frozen bank accounts like he did for Twitters rep.

[_heimdall]

Is it not a problem to you that a judge would go after legal counsel personally based on how the counsel represents the will of their client?

Personally I see that as a very serious problem. Its one thing if it can be proven that legal counsel knowingly breaks the law. Its entirely different if the lawyer simply disagrees with the judge. Judges shouldn't be able to threaten counsel with jail time of seizure of assets simply because the judge disagrees with the legal argument a client wishes to make.

[vitorgrs]

You probably need to store user IPs to moderate.

At least on Mastodon, any instance stores IP, so....

[_heimdall]

Are IP addresses really helpful in moderation? Moderation usually pertains to the content itself, meaning you would want to block certain content from being posted regardless of the IP that sends a request. Maybe you extend moderation to include banning users, but at that point you have more specific data than IP addresses (like usernames or user IDs).

You can target a list of suspected spammer IPs, though that's often a losing game of cat and mouse where you end up missing some spammers and catching legitimate users in the crossfire.

[vitorgrs]

I know that for Instagram/Threads, IP is very key to their moderation. Once they ban a user with that IP, any other account from that IP will also be banned (or something like it), it's fundamental to avoid ban evasion.

For Mastodon, all of this is manual, so it will be up to moderators on the server....