The technical factors are actually key to the political decision. Content addressing will occur at the browser level in order to improve caching behaviours, this will be implemented by organisations who are part of a political sphere (google, mozilla, apple) whose influence is largely determined by their technical performance. It is then a minor matter for it to move forward into a larger addressing scheme (likely to occur at the same time).
IPFS is approaching the issue from the opposite direction of course, but the two are so tightly coupled that I doubt there will be much risk.
IPFS is most likely to fail for any technical problems it may have.
Correct, but over time, Turkey would find their internet is progressively more broken as people switch over to IPFS.
More importantly, I doubt the censorship-efficiency gains would be improved much by banning IPFS, since nobody really uses it yet, and I suspect selling the "anti-censorship" angle will get more non-anti-censorship adopters (i.e. people who just use it for performance gains) in non-Turkey places, compared to staying silent on the anti-censorship angle of IPFS. And more widespread non-Turkey adoption means more pressure on Turkey to allow IPFS.
