post
Anthony Comstock.
J. Edgar Hoover.
Joseph McCarthy.
Roy Cohn.
Donald Trump.
Willful traitors all. Have it writ upon thy meager graves, "destroyed the union just so people wouldn't masturbate."
There's more, I know. But those fellas are all linked.
I mean, I kind of guessed this way back when Collective Shout pushed their action.
I actually had a comment removed here on Lemmy when I brought up how this was "US politics/elections affecting your life as gamers", because the mods insisted it was purely an Australian action, and my comment was off-topic. But we live in a global online world. There's no way that US politics wouldn't have a huge effect on this type of censorship.
Conservatives HATE GAMING. Not the online chuds and 4channers who hate women, they're barely even conservatives...
They sure sound like conservatives to me.
Terminology is confusing. Lowercase-c conservatives want to keep the status quo as it is. But fact is that e.g. in the USA, legal access to abortion has been the status quo for 50 years.
So nobody can say that the status quo has been anything but that in the US. So uppercase-C “Conservative” just means “reactionary” now, because that's what it is to roll back a 50 year old right.
It is as it always was: Even if you have no interest in politics, the politics are interested in you.
Ordinary people should adopt politics as a hobby, if only to have agency about which type of politics thrives or dies. I would much prefer sex-positive media to proliferate over sex negative, because the latter will take away my hentai games and manga. Furries, queers, and genuine perverts, all of them should have a shared interest of putting conservative values into a pine box, with a bit of stake and garlic.
Furries, queers, and genuine perverts, all of them should have a shared interest of putting conservative values into a pine box, with a bit of stake and garlic.
And facing towards the earth with their head decapitated and placed between their legs. Kudos in advance if you know what that means.
No matter how you measure it, global sexually repressive puritanism always traces back to the US.
The US is still the leader of the West, whatever its policies are, they will greatly affect the people in these countries.
Let's discuss semantics instead of the hegemony they still have over our countries as they descend into a dictatorship and drag us down with them.
Not surprised. stripe, PayPal, visa and Mastercard wouldn't just give up to millions of dollars in fees just because a small Australian group asked for it
So how does this tie into what's happening now? Part of Vought and Project 2025's plans are to remove Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (CDA). This law currently protects platform holders, providing immunity for any content uploaded to said platform that third-party users created.
By removing Section 230, platform holders, like Steam, would be liable for any "illegal" content uploaded to the platform, as opposed to those creating and uploading said content. If Steam were found guilty of hosting this content, the company could be hit with huge fines. Therefore, Steam, Itch, and many other platforms would likely place a blanket ban on any adult content, mitigating any risk of fines or other legal action. This, as pointed out on Reddit, would affect all forms of user-generated content, including fan art, mods, and videos, not just games themselves.
Seems like a deceptive headline.
The real takeaway is: Project 2025 guy also wants to do the platform-level censorship thing, but by removing legal protections (Section 230) instead of using payment processors.
Yeah I started to read comments on other sites and theres a LOT of speculation on this. But the actual article is pretty small. Thanks for breaking it down even further.
Why did you write the headline in big bold letters that looks like you state something as fact, then in small print at the bottom ask if it's true?
You are the one that said it was true and you didn't know?
Hear me out: what if repealing section 230 would end up killing our social media monoculture, since it would be impossible for these platforms to operate. Instead, what if people had to host their content themselves, you know, like we did back in the day, when the Internet was fun.
I don't know when you're talking about, but it probably wasn't self hosting, unless you're talking about like original internet stuff. GeoCities, for example, was not self-hosting. It was hosting your content on their platform.
LLMs would be liable for every hallucination.
But how do you enforce it? When the internet crashes out into millions of websites again? When the people who made it happen are the people bad ones and they only go after messaging they don’t like?
The wild runaway success of Gmail proves that federation as a concept is currently not understood by the masses. I have lots of faith but little hope that more learning will be done on a large scale.
Yeah, the only way I see it happening is if it's done in a way that's invisible to users. Even then, I don't know if it's a good idea. Either you store a copy of all content locally or your content is only available when your server (presumably your computer or phone for most users) is online. Most people aren't going to have to storage space for self-hosting federated content that's distrubuted, and having people go down constantly from turning their computer off is far from ideal.
Who’s going to host a place where you could be sued millions of dollars because someone posted libel on there? Not your next door neighbor.
The thing that's been bothering me is, since when did a local, "ragtag group" of activists have this much influence on the actions of massive corporations? Bigger, more powerful groups have tried and failed to make changes like this over and over again. Why does collective shout have so much pull? It doesn't make any sense to me.
This is quite literally the crux of the post: Who is actually making these decisions? Because there is, in fact, a zero percent chance that any number of Australian wokescolds would have leverage to force MASTERCARD AND VISA, the two global monopoly payment processors to change their practices just because the australians dont agree with the content of games.
This is a top down decision coming from the owners of visa. Any attempt to backpedal this into the hands of some activist group is the most disrespectful patronizing I've seen in my entire life. I'm glad you and others are calling this shit out for the farce that it is.
You mean to tell me the most successful activist movement in the last 50 years has been a single week protest lobbied at the most powerful capitalist institutions in the world, and the payment processors were bent over backwards for it? As if thats definitely not a giant, flaming red flag in itself?? It feels like the most obvious scapegoating of all time: a faceless Australian group nobody ever heard of before suddenly wrenched the arm of an economic lynchpin? No.
Visa and Mastercard are doing this because this is what they want to do. No amount of protest would achieve this outcome save the literal socialist revolution at their doorstep. I dont care what any report says, this is top down. Visa is not exposed to any risk by any protest, it is laughable to suggest otherwise.
With that out of the way, we can discuss the real matters of import: why are payment processors taking on the role of decency enforcement in global markets? What are their goals, who is making these decisions, and why is any government allowing these processors to dictate commerce within their borders unilaterally? Really and truly I dont even care about the games. I want names and faces of the people in charge of visa and Mastercard who are making these decisions, and I want them brought into a court room to clearly explain to everyone in the world what their exact reasoning is for caving to a historically insignificant protest. Stop killing games has been going simultaneously to this and, with millions of signatures, the response has been slander from the companies targeted. This collective shout bs is an absolute sham.
Not entirely surprising if true.
Project 2025 goal is to spread their backwards ideology across the globe. They want to see the world burn.
They think being cruel to minorities and women will make their lives better. Cause they're idiots. Or naive. Or hateful. Probably all of those, but that's speculation.
they dont want to make anyones lives better except their own. Pieces of shit like those have been bitter about any improvement to womens rights because they had it good being able to abuse women and want it back. Also minorities are good scapegoat for any problems they cause, so their rights have to go too or the whole thing collapses eventually as people might catch on who is really to blame.
top 75 comments