this is how it should be anyway, you do not want any ledger or database to be mutable because it allows for integrity violations and will cause you to lose the ability to trust it. Even non-blockchain styles follow that principle.

Reverts work because users have equal write access to all the data. You can mess things up in the codebase, and even if you die of a heart attack 10m later, my revert is just as valid as your commit.

It's not really the same when every user has "sovereignty" over their address in the ledger. A bad actor has to consent to pushing a revert transaction onto the chain, or they have to consent to using a blockchain system where 3rd-party reversion is possible (which exists on some systems, but also defeats the concept of true sovereignty over your address).

So, would the bitcoin equivalent be sending the BTC back?

First thing I found when I searched for "Maersk IBM blockchain":

A.P. Moller - Maersk and IBM to discontinue TradeLens, a blockchain-enabled global trade platform

The only selling point of blockchain is that it's trustless. This becomes a less-useful property when it comes to things in the real world, as you tend to need to trust at least one party.

For example, anything they achieved there with blockchain, they could have achieved with a simple government-run web service and a traditional database.

I can’t find the case study, but this blockchain project by IBM was implemented in Singapore and was shown to reduce customs processing times from several weeks to just several hours.

the real question is what part of this was specific to blockchain, something that would be difficult or impossible to do without it. if you want to put forward this argument you need to at least provide a simple, clear, coherent answer to that.

in this case, i could easily argue a sqlite db hosted on gitea would work better and theres no way to prove im wrong.

Yes, both git and blockchain tech use merkle trees. No, that doesn't make git a blockchain

Does it though? Because to me the fact that the largest cryptos have had several forks is proof that no, in fact, the magic of crypto can't coordinate people. People coordinate people and then decide what to do with the technology.

That, to me, seems like an ideal use case. My only reservation is that I think it would be bungled in implementation, then pushed without enough testing and validation, then hacked due to the bungled implementation, and then rejected forever because it was hacked once lol

That's a unique interpretation

thats fine, but installing youtube-local and a redirector addon is probably better than relying on some bot to pick one of 10 possible alternative front ends.