Anyone know if this is true or not?
Your title is misleading & false. The article is technically correct, but clunky.
Consider the title, Steam’s Content Removal Could Be A Wider Consequence Of Project 2025. The article misspells Russell’s name frequently. “Part of Vought and Project 2025’s plans are to remove Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (CDA)”. So the Steam content removal…is a consequence. Who is dishing out the consequences?
Louis Rossmann will tell you, it’s Collective Shout. Collective Shout has no relation to Russell Vought…or even America. It’s a ragtag group of 1067 Australian fuckheads that complained to Mastercard, Visa who then put pressure on Steam. And yes. This was enabled thanks to Russell Vought & removal of Section 230 of the CDA.
Russell Vought isn’t a good guy by any means, but this specifically was done by Collective Shout’s 1067 Aussies bitching to American credit card companies & American businesses, threatening them & trying to dictate what they can sell to Americans. It’s…truly infuriating. I don’t go to their mom’s place of work & smack the dick out of her mouth, I don’t write them emails & tell them how to run Australia. So kindly return the favor, don’t fuck with the US. Like what the hell.
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.
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.
There’s no way that US politics wouldn’t have a huge effect on this type of censorship.
I’ve been called a fearmonger also for trying to tell apathetic gamers who “hate politics” that if they don’t get involved they’re going to start losing their own goddamn games.
I have linked the “Conservapedia” articles on video games all over reddit until they banned me. I have tried to tell people that voting for Trump or supporting his ideals even distantly isn’t going to “take the woke out of your games” that it will actually crush your gaming entirely, because… and I can’t stress this enough, Conservatives HATE GAMING. Not the online chuds and 4channers who hate women, they’re barely even conservatives… they’re fodder for the online fights. But the old-guard and middle-class conservatives who get marching orders from churches and grifters, the ones who have all the actual money on the right. They want to see an end to “distractions” and fiction and fantasy and everything that isn’t some kind of sanitized, un-nuanced devotion to Dear Leader and his United States of White Jesus.
Fiction has been an enemy of power since writing began, and games are just another kind of fiction that lets people stretch their imagination. This is why it’s dangerous, this is why they want to see it ended.
Fiction has been an enemy of power since writing began
x for doubt
Conservatives HATE GAMING. Not the online chuds and 4channers who hate women, they’re barely even conservatives…
They sure sound like conservatives to me.
I mean, they are in the moment that they’re mad that someone made a black female with realistic proportions as a selectable character… but they largely don’t have principles or values at all, they’re a slime-mold that fits into whatever social trend is easy to latch onto right now so they can share emotional connection with their peers.
What happened is we ignored them and people like Steve Bannon and Russians and other agents of regression saw them as a ripe target for exploitation and manipulation. We have a massive rise in things like incels and anti-woke young men, but it’s largely manufactured. These are mostly young people who are unhappy, alone and they’ve been nudged towards easy-to-digest memes and talking points that this is the fault of unattractive feminists who want to take their games away.
This isn’t “conservatism” as much as reactionary attitudes and social isolation. If we were able to get a foot in the door faster and have a concerted effort to show them that their issues are largely socio-economic and mental-health related, we would have made a lot more progress a lot sooner. Source: I used to do just that and mentored/coached lonely young guys for years, they’re staggeringly easy to turn if you make the effort and are social and can listen to people.
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.
There are a lot of people that are capable of suppressing women without the US just fine. Just have a quick look at the Arabic peninsula, or the Taliban.
Western securely repressive puritanism, maybe.
This is Iran in the 1970s, before the US started providing weapons, training, and funding to groups like literally the Taliban.
Wow, I’ve never seen this before. I don’t mean this in a derogatory way or anything, but they look like people.
It’s why iran has so many educated women and is weirdly technologically powerful for a theocratic regime. Iran in the 70s was modern. Inshallah the people of iran will be freed from the tyranny of theocracy.
But yeah, iran is what should scare you the most because their collapse was fast and unexpected.
They still are, they’re just people that are repressed by a theocracy now.
Yeah, I know I just mean to say that nowadays they’ve had all of their humanity stripped away, they look more like machines than they do people.
I get what you’re saying, but remember they’re still fighting. Feminist protests break out every few years there.
deleted by creator
Nah, we funded both Iran and the Taliban. We even elected a guy who illegally funneled weapon sales to Iran in order to take that money and give it to Nicaraguan death squads. Arguably, without US support, neither gets the critical mass it needs to effect regime change or become anything more than an upstart.
The Taliban hated women long before being funded by the US, and hating women was not why they are funded. Same for the fundamentalist Iranian Muslims.
Them being in power (and the subsequent suffering of women) can be attributed to the US, but not them hating women per se.
I like hating on the US as much as anyone, but let’s not pretend they’re the source of all evil (only lots).
Without the funding, most of those people would believe different things.
The women in the middle east weren’t nearly as suppressed before the US got involved
The US is still the leader of the West, whatever its policies are, they will greatly affect the people in these countries.
The US isn’t a leader in anything they are imperialist and they meddle. It’s not leadership it’s influence. They’ve consolidated political, economic, and military power and they use all of those to varying degrees to meddle in everyone’s affairs
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.
It’s not just semantics the idea that the US is leading implies passive influence rather than active influence.
They’re leading not through inspiration and innovation but as they would with a leash.
Calling it now: What we currently know as “Project 2025” will reveal itself to be the largest conspiracy of this millenium. The push for internet ID verification “to protect the kids” in UK, US, Canada, EU, Australia is 100% a collective effort. Fuck this timeline, we will not comply!
A conspiracy implies they made an attempt to hide it.
I’ve been showing people this shit on social media and reddit for years now and nobody cared. I was called a fearmonger and hyped up “shrill” leftist, stirring up controversy over unrealistic possibilities, etc. etc.
Fuck all ya’ll, I know some of you are out there reading all this, some of the same head-buried-in-the-sand lazy fuckers who tried to dismiss real warnings about real things because you didn’t want to be bothered to get involved or change your vote.
deleted by creator
Donald Trump: I’ve never heard of Project 2025. I don’t know what it is. I’m not a part of it.
Also Donald Trump: Appoints Project 2025 authors to high positions in his administration, signs a ton of Project 2025 policies as EOs on Day 1.
More than likely it’s even more petty than that: they just didn’t want to admit to being wrong.
The English speaking world should be isolated. Rupert Murdoch made it sick.
No he didn’t, he doesn’t have that kind of power. Not even close.
A bunch of idiots decided to listen to lies.
I know this is not going to be well received here, but we as a society do need to do something to prevent children from being able to access pornography. We are just now getting research showing the detrimental effects of social media and internet pornography on developing children’s brains. There hasn’t been concrete evidence until recently, and now we know. Things do have to change.
However, this needs to be done with as little information as possible collected and distributed. Zero-knowledge proofs should be used to establish that a person is above a certain age without telling the site what their age actually is. This can be done, however I do imagine they are going to skip past all of that and just go to collecting all the information possible.
No one is saying that kids should be able to access pornography. People are saying that it shouldn’t be the states job to raise your children for you.
Effectively blocking pornography for everyone in the country unless you dox yourself to shady websites is not the answer. The answer is developing the tools and simplifying processes required to stop children accessing these things on the device and local network level and putting those tools in the hands of parents. Doing this is almost certainly orders of magnitude cheaper than trying to police the internet
The Great Firewall of Britain is a frankly stupid concept.
People are saying that it shouldn’t be the states job to raise your children for you.
This logic does not hold up in most other cases. We stopped selling alcohol and cigarettes unless you dox yourself to shady gas stations and stores. Parents should be able to stop their kids from being able to buy that shit, why should the stores have to do more work to enforce it? You’re seriously going to inconvenience all the adults that can legally buy it just to prevent kids from being able to buy it? Why can’t we keep our cigarette vending machines? Surely it’s cheaper just to have parents control their kids, rather than manage every single store in the country.
The internet is different, and it’s currently the wild west. Because it’s different, it’s also possible to prove your age without doxing yourself (like I mentioned with zero-knowledge proof). It is possible to prove you are over an age without telling anyone anything about yourself. Unlike being required to give your drivers license/ID card to buy alcohol or cigarettes which gives all of your information to every person you hand it to.
Not all parents are going to have the know-how to lock down a child’s internet access. They may need to use 3rd party tools, many of which would cost money. Does it really make more sense to have parents try to secure every place a kid may access internet pornography rather than securing it at the source? Again, if done correctly, it can be done privately and securely. I am not advocating that we give our ID to every sketchy internet site. I am advocating for a widespread secure and standardized solution. That makes more sense than to put all of the onus on the parents.
We stopped selling alcohol and cigarettes unless you dox yourself to shady gas stations and stores.
Both of which famously keep databases of everyone’s IDs, and require transmitting your ID over who-knows-what network to who-knows-where.
Oh, wait, no they don’t.
Again, if done correctly, it can be done privately and securely. I am not advocating that we give our ID to every sketchy internet site. I am advocating for a widespread secure and standardized solution.
Right, and such a solution will ultimately just require everyone to trust the fact that it’s been “done privately and securely”
Both of which famously keep databases of everyone’s IDs, and require transmitting your ID over who-knows-what network to who-knows-where.
Scanning ID’s into a database is a thing. It’s not everywhere, but I have seen places do it. Usually Hospital’s and Casinos
Right, and such a solution will ultimately just require everyone to trust the fact that it’s been “done privately and securely”
No, that is not true. It is possible to set it up with zero trust, so we do not have to trust them. It will be setup properly in the first place. It’s like the fact that Bitwarden can be open source and yet people can’t just decrypt vaults despite everyone having access to the code. Zero-knowledge proofs can be done without requiring us to trust anyone. That is what I have been saying, but it keeps seeming to be skipped over. There would be an initial proof with a government identification (which basically everyone already has) and from there the system could be setup in a way that you can prove you are over the age without them knowing literally anything about you. It is possible to prove you are over 18 without them even know your age (other than it is greater than or equal to 18)
It’s your job to keep your kid from cruising porn on the devices you own
What about the devices you don’t own?
And regardless, how are parents that struggle to setup their email going to keep their kid from accessing porn? What would you have them do? Install a 3rd party software? Setup a local DNS filter? Prevent them from using devices that can access the internet? When it is as easy as googling “naked girl” how on earth are parents going to stop them from access it. The answer? The aren’t. There is nothing even the most diligent parent can do to stop them from accessing it while it is so readily accessible.
You haven’t demonstrated what harm comes from googling naked girl and seeing boobs.
If you want devices with parental control you will need to pay for them.
Devices like school computers already have such. This won’t stop a determined person from borrowing their friends phone and googling naked girl but that is a reasonable trade off honestly.
I don’t want to turn the entire Internet into 1984 so your kids doesn’t see boobs until he’s 18
You haven’t demonstrated what harm comes from googling naked girl and seeing boobs.
I cannot, since I am not a researcher. The research is out there though.
If you want devices with parental control you will need to pay for them.
If it is definitively negative, parents should not have to research, install, and pay for such restrictions onky to be easily avoided on another device.
I don’t want to turn the entire Internet into 1984 so your kids doesn’t see boobs until he’s 18
I don’t have kids. This about an entire generation and all future ones. Have you read 1984? While sueveillance is a part of it, it’s largely about authoritarianism and the control of reality itself. Being ID’d for a porn site is not that. 1984 is already happening, and the porn has nothing to do with it. Regardless, you have made no comment on the idea that I want it done with zero knowledge proof. The site would know nothing about you except you are over 18. There is absolutely nothing 1984 about that
Which country anywhere has ever implemented a zero knowledge proof of age rather than using a id or information trivially linkable to an id. The answer is none have none intend to and none will its a complete fabrication to cover actual reality.
Nor is it liable to be limited to outright porno.
The truth is out there is what people say about big foot, the flat earth, UFOs, and lizard people.
You have to pay monthly for devices that access the internet at all. It doesn’t seem unreasonable that YOU not everyone should have to pay for something that is safe for your 8 year old rather than just getting your 8 year old an Ipad and wifi. This forum isn’t safe for an 8 year old.
Regardless, you have made no comment on the idea that I want it done with zero knowledge proof.
Because there is no indication that that is ever going to happen. Either nothing with happen. A few hardcore porn sites will get age gating because they want to do legit business whilst others hosted in other countries will do nothing ensuring your teen still finds boobs when he searches OR we will go full on 1984 and this will mostly be used to suppress the entire free and open internet in the US.
Your fantasy that this will be done safely is just an indication that you are stupid.
https://www.newamerica.org/oti/briefs/exploring-privacy-preserving-age-verification/
The privacy-preserving promise of this “double blind” method has inspired various countries to further explore and develop ZKP-based age verification solutions. In the European Union (EU), a ZKP age verification protocol is being developed as part of a European-wide EU Digital Identity (EUID) framework. However, some organizations have pushed back against linking age verification tools to digital identity solutions, citing concerns over potential misuse and user privacy. While the EUID solution is set to be released by the end of 2026, the EU launched an interim age verification app in the meantime.
Literally none of this is my problem. I do not give two shits what other people’s children do on the Internet.
That’s what people said when they took away cigarette vending machines. Why should adults have to suffer because other people can’t control their children
Those people were correct.
I guess if you still hold that belief, then it is fair you think ID for internet pron is also wrong. Though I imagine most people support the controling of alcohol and cigarette sales. In which case internet pornography should fall into the same category
we as a society do need to do something to prevent children from being able to access pornography
Yes, it’s called “parenting”
This. Times 1000.
Kids aren’t born with internet-connected devices in their hands. Adults give devices to them and then walk out of the room.
Would you let the average internet poster or YouTuber babysit your kid? Because that’s literally what you’re doing.
I grew up in the '80s and '90s. My mom did her best to pay attention to the shows/movies I was watching, the books I was reading, the music I was listening to. And up until I was about 13, it was all very tightly controlled. It’s still possible to have that kind of oversight, but it’s more work than a lot of parents are willing to do.
I live outside the US now, and most of my elementary-school students have parents who very tightly control their screen time and actively monitor their usage. The kids have sports training, dance classes, and other activities that get them out in the world. It’s very, very different from the kids I used to teach in the US.
Why do we regulate alcohol and cigarettes? Why dont parent’s just parent their kids? How would the kid even bave the money to buy them in the first place? To be clear, when these restrictions were being put in place, people absolutely had the exact same arguments you are making right now. The onus is on the parents.
Even kids with parents that have reasonable restrictions are easily able to access internet pornography because internet devices are everywhere. Internet devices are easier to access than cigarettes and alcohol, and can do just as much damage to their development. Why wouldn’t the government also control access to confirm someone’s age.
Please do not respond to me about giving out your ID if you do not acknowledge my comment on use zero knowledge proof’s to verify you’re over an age.
Fuck that. I was raised in a rural area. My only potential sex partners for my first 20 years of life was my family. Without being able to use dial-up to access hentai manga and VNs, my sexuality would have completely withered on the vine. Many of my years of youth were sexless, and by the time I had some agency, my body wasn’t up to the task of enjoying sex for more than several minutes at a time.
Puritans have no place in dictating who should have porn, because they cannot account for the circumstances or nature of a person’s sexual existence. People should be allowed to explore and enjoy sex, and if they don’t like it, then they don’t have to infringe on other people’s ability to partake.
Porn should be normalized.
I am not religious, and religion should stay far the fuck away from government and laws.
However, if there is conclusive research on the negative impacts of watching internet pornography during developmental years, why should that be allowed? Once someone is an adult, they can do whatever the fuck they want with internet porn. But we stopped letting kids drink alcohol and smoking cigarettes because of the negative health impacts that were far worse when consumed prematurely.
I explained my circumstances, and you ignored them. You have demonstrated why conservative values are evil, as they would have prevented me from finding myself as a person. My emotions were stunted by living in rural isolation, and only started to grow after being exposed to VNs and porn.
Not all people have YOUR privilege of having friends, platonic or otherwise. What you trying to steal from my childhood, is a better future for someone you don’t know. Your values exist expressly to benefit those who live by narrow-minded sexuality, and have a community of likeminded people. This sucks, because you are advocating that people outside of your ingroup shouldn’t live full lives as humans.
Not all people have YOUR privilege of having friends, platonic or otherwise. What you trying to steal from my childhood, is a better future for someone you don’t know.
Are you advocating for replacing social interactions with internet porn due to rural conditions? Basically all of human history has had a very limited number of people they can interact with, and that only changed very recently.
My emotions were stunted by living in rural isolation
Research has shown that not socializing during development harms their emotional and social growth. There are people there you could have socialized with, but you didn’t have to because the internet provided an escape.
I explained my circumstances, and you ignored them. You have demonstrated why conservative values are evil
I am not conservative. I am not religious. I am literally only talking about research, which is neither a religious not conservative thing to do. Even if someone had anecdotal experience as to why alcohol helped them get through their childhood, that does not mean we should allow children to have alcohol. Likewise, it does not matter if it benefited you (which I am skeptical of to begin with) if research shows it to be harmful to kids and teens.
You ignored my life experience. Again. I had no access to people beyond my own family. No friends, let alone people to have sex with. You would have to walk many miles to find other people, most of whom were at least three decades older than me. Plus, my parents DIDN’T have friends nor social lives.
I don’t give a damn about your “research”, because it is clearly intended to ruin the lives of people. People discover their sexuality through media and other humans, the former often allowing them to identify what kinds of folks are compatible with them. It could be the camaraderie of furries, perhaps girls liking girls and finding their partner. The key thing, is that in our formative years, our sexuality is either discovered or destroyed. Your position exists to stifle the humanity each of us have.
You are welcome to ignore your own sexuality. All I ask is for you to not repress children from figuring out what makes them happy, because that dictates whether they possess a guiding light for the rest of their lives.
I don’t give a damn about your “research”, because it is clearly intended to ruin the lives of people.
I don’t think you understand how research works.
No friends, let alone people to have sex with. You would have to walk many miles to find other people, most of whom were at least three decades older than me. Plus, my parents DIDN’T have friends nor social lives.
You didn’t go to school? You didn’t interact with people your age? Could your lack of friends not be partially caused by your dependency on the internet
a lot of people knew this already, yes
Freedoms slowly get taken away.
these people have been planning on this for lot longer than a year. christians have been trying to ban video games for decades. the only reason this group hasn’t come after more games is because they know they don’t yet have enough politicians behind them to manage it.
Christians are evil
I don’t want to come off as pedantic, but what we’re dealing with in the US is a very strange and successful breed of “Christian Nationalism.”
Essentially, it’s a belief that ultra-conservative Christianity is the only legitimate religion and that the USA is a Christian nation.
It probably comes as no surprise that these people heavily influenced the Confederacy, is strongly white-supremecist, anti-vice, etc, and has been an anathema in this country since before the states actually formed.
Christians themselves are… A problem, but not the problem. It’s these Christian nationalists. They’re loud. They want you to think all Christians believe what they do too. They also tend to drown out opposing Christian speakers by being louder than them too.
It’s one of the reasons why MLK Jr was hated so much by Hoover, by the south, etc. He was a Christian pastor, and stood against everything they did.
It’s important that we don’t group Christians in with Christian Nationalists. It’s very difficult but necessary.
I do agree, but I still think that all religions are a cancer on humanity, harming us, dividing us and holding us back. Religion is the enemy of progress.
Religion is a tool of control. Some of it is benign, even beneficial, but as with all power and money rich platforms, unscrupulous forces creep in because they see the opportunities and profit.
Humans are the ones that are harming and dividing us. If religion is gone they’ll find a new way to do it. Us vs them mentality is part of human nature and has always attached itself to anything that can be called ours vs theirs. Religion, politics, sports, skin color, language, the fucking phone brand you use, you name it.
Yeah, that’s all fine and good.
Just don’t confuse “cocaine” with “cocaine laced with fentanyl.” One is significantly worse.
The best counter example I’ve seen is Shintoism.
But on a separate note, i believe religion has an evolutionary advantage vs logic and reason, as evidenced by it being so prevalent throughout human history. So in the most literal sense, i believe humans wouldn’t have any progress without religion.
In order to survive, humans need to build societies that can adapt to the ever changing environments we find ourselves in.
One possibility is to use pure science, logic, and reason: educate every child on the scientific method, teach them how to not fall for logical fallacies, to be skeptical, to demand extraordinary evidence to support extraordinary claims, to repeat experiments and engage in peer review, to create ethical frameworks, and have a logical justification for the actions you take…
Another possibility is to use religion: brainwash a kid on what “good” looks like, and show them how to put on blinders to anything that might threaten that. Johnny down the street is “sinning”? Make him stop, that hurts our society. Father Dale is touching kids? Don’t lose sight of the goal, Father Dale is a great man, this is a personal struggle that we can help him through.
Which of those two methods of adaptation requires less energy? Because when an organism has to evolve, the organism that can do it using less energy will have the advantage. Religion, or the concept of morality in general, is a society’s selection pressure on itself. The best we can do is acknowledge this, and learn to wield it as a tool. And I believe that many leaders throughout human history, both political and religious, understood this well.
Mostly because of all the stupid.
All religions are evil.
Right on man. Fuckin’ Buddhists. Probably don’t even use Linux.
Do you know about Myanmar?
Buddhists are also capable of committing violence in the name of their religion. Look at Myanmar
Met this Amish person once, didn’t even known what Linux was. The heathen.
Buddhist nationalists do genocide all the same, like in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rohingya_genocide
It’s almost as if it’s the nationalism part that makes them do that rather than having anything to do with their religion.
Same with christianity, the core religion is somewhat fine, it’s the church and the people that used it as a tool that arent.
“20 Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result, 21 but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two, since the slave is their property."
Exodus 21:20-21
“But they told me the bible was only about love thy neighbor and forgiving the sinners!”
Yeah I don’t disagree. However, in practice the tool is what it’s used for, e.g. guns. I’m pro-gun, but it’s foolish to not understand where the gun control people are coming from. Religion is the same.
“I use Arch, btw”
- Richard Dawkins
The bullshit going on in the USA under the christian name is short sighted, stupid and lacks empathy. Christianity isn’t USA fundamentalism tho.
No, but we’re doing a fantastic job exporting a lot of the doctrine and repackaging it.
There’s a distinctive difference between american evangelists and other christian groups, for starters that the evangelists have been integrated in the state-religion the USA has been running at least since the cold war., and they are actively utilized by the Republicans. This also means that those evangelists believe that in the US white nationalists should be in power.
Please note that the “christian” part in this has gone pretty far from any christian roots - it’s for the most part just utilized to identify the in-group and to radicalize members. The quip “Y’all qaeda” comes pretty close to the truth - they are just as radical and socially regressive as any other islamic sect that would use terror to achieve their goals.
Painting with such a broad brush is how these people got to where they are now, don’t make the same mistakes they did.
Lmao thanks for the heads-up, past me.
Edit: this user thinks that equal rights for women are Islamophobic.
Oooh how do you do that user tag function? I couldn’t find it when I looked just now and it appears as though we’re using the same frontend…?
What I gather from the linked conversation: (In regards to a joke where a boy turns out to have a polygamous dad)
Sure, but that’s universal. Most of the Islamic theocratic have this problem, and it’s a point of general focus… but Islam is their excuse, not a functional cause. It’s not like Mormons did it any better.
Islamic theocratics are not the same as muslims. Theocracy is where the law of one’s god is seen as the ruling body, and tend to be more of the extremists of a religion - in Islam’s case, the ones more likely to use religion as a weapon of power to have multiple wives. Nothing in that conversation came across as “Being pro-Islam is being anti-feminism”.
I’d also point out, the user made several efforts to ask for better explanation from those disagreeing, but everyone was just digging for more words from him instead of discussing openly. This is how disagreement is manufactured.
It’s a consistent pattern of behavior from that person, which is why one thread might seem like people are overbearing. At some point you get sick of the disingenuous faux-intellectual “just asking questions”.
You’re claiming a pattern, but so far I’ve only been pointed to one example. On the other hand, the other participant in that conversation, you, has been posting giant screengrabs of this individual where they are claiming…that we shouldn’t generalize evil groups?
I’m all too aware of how people can “Sealion” the energy out of a discussion. But even your choice examples aren’t painting yourself in the best light here, nor a very strong impression towards Zorque. I could yet be convinced, but not so far.
Wait, how do you get that? I also use Voyager, but not seeing that :/
Edit: it’s called user tags. It’s not shared as far I’m concerned.
Press and hold on any user and you can add a tag. It is incredibly useful for a myriad of reasons. I started implementing a system for sharing/community tags but I didn’t like the implications of having a parallel voting system to the existing one and scrapped it.
Edit: the best part of the feature is that it can link you to why you created the tag. In this case the user in question argued that supporting women’s rights is the same thing as Islamophobia.
It’s also a feature of Piefed.
It seems properly federating images to Lemmy is not quite there yet :(
I looked at that link, and that’s a pretty shitty misrepresentation of what they said.
Thanks neighbor
Edit: Messed up a copy/paste.
I couldn’t find the exact context of what you linked, but down from it I saw your opinion, which I don’t agree with, and doesn’t say what you’re claiming now.
I honestly don’t understand what you’re asking of me. Women having equal rights is a binary thing, they either do or don’t.
This is wrong. They can be equal in some parts and unequal in others. No culture gives identical rights to all other cultures. There are degrees to equality. It isn’t all or nothing. I would say most of the west is more equal than countries that follow Islam as a state religion, but most of them don’t have total equality. I assume you agree with that, right? And Saudi Arabia is better than Iran, right? Not significantly, but there are degrees to it, right?
Painting it as binary all or nothing is wrong, and probably is antithetical to progress. If it’s all or nothing, and something would take a step in the right direction, then why take that step if it isn’t all the way, right? Treating it as binary is bad.
I should have been more specific. Probably the standard pig headed refusal to acknowledge a point 🤷♂️
edit: yup that’s exactly what it was. Their failed attempt to call me out is a reference to where I saw them refuse to acknowledge when they’re wrong, or at least just keep it to themselves.
Said the guy that actively endorses a fascist military coup.
You’re flat out lying here. I oppose Trump’s DC police action, and basically everything Trump has ever done or said. What I said, clearly, was that the Mayor of DC instituted the curfew - for a reason and months ago + extended it a few times - and it has nothing to do with Trump. Which the OP of that post was too lazy to know before posting and misleading people. Accuracy matters.
All anyone has to do is search “dc curfew” to find nothing but articles about Muriel Bowser’s curfew. You will find nothing about Trump.
So yeah, you tend to earn the tag I gave you.
Religion is the closest thing to true evil that exist on this planet. Insane cultists shouldn’t be allowed around children. Not even their own (they tend to mutilate them in order to mark them as members of their insane cult).
He is right you know
Its Republicans. Don’t blame the religion. Republicans want fascism and they want to control everyone’s thoughts and behaviors because they’re wired to be subservient to authoritarians. They hate that so many of us have a mind of our own.
I’ll happily blame all religion, thank you. Nobody should build a worldview where an unaccountable (and imperceptible) third party is responsible for moral decisions.
It’s been interesting to see this agenda switch from D to R over the least 30 years in the US.
It will never happen on a large scale. Not as long as there is this much money to be made. I have no doubts these freaks will keep trying and make our lives harder, though.
christians have been…
A few closeted and bitter homosexuals in denial have been…
This comment was reported as homophobic.
I believe the meaning of the comment to be
Republicans projecting - again
Leaving it up for @Korkki@lemmy.ml to clarify.
Just saying that those who are most obsessive about policing morality or sexuality of others are often just hypocritical/ in denial themselves.
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
They said please though
They’ve been playing the very long game of trying to control human behavior for centuries, not just decades. The one thing to note is that the United States began as a bunch of colonies run by ministers, and the fundies want to go back to that theocratic form of rule. That by the 19th century the temperance movement came from the dozens of Christian subsects. Yeah, they also extended it to anything that did not define as “Christian” behavior, including choice of ideologies (socialism = bad), gender (male or female = good), source of knowledge (Bible > science), beliefs (they have veiled Islamophobia), and even eating and sexual habits.
Now – based on their basic blueprint – they want to artificially induce the Second Coming by trying to get their fucking project off the ground, and impose control on everyone else.
BTW, any collapse or devolution of the United States and the Western world would come off as a wonderful realization for Putin, Dugin, Kyrill, and their cronies. That Jesus himself in his actual Middle Eastern appearance and acts of progressivism would be considered an enemy by fundies expecting a “whitened” Jesus.
First paragraph is about what I found out myself. Might add to that that they are the ones responsible for the American mindset of sex and nipples.
And yes, Jesus definitely looked like the one who would be selected for a “random intensive control not based on individual suspicion” at the airport. He was born in today’s Israel after all, parents from there as well.
Small correction, Jesus was born in Bethlehem, which is in Palestine.
What an average man living in Jesus’ time and place looked like.
They? For centuries? Who is “they” that has been this organized for “centuries”? The fucking illuminati? The masonic order?
Maybe you’re exaggerating a bit?
Conservatives…? How is that not obvious? It’s clearly true.
It isn’t though? Conservatism has changed meanings quite a bit from the 17th century from 1620’s Massachusetts Puritans and later Loyalists to the crown. Note that neither of these have anything to do with imposing moral values and promoting censorship.
In fact, the push for “Religious values” like censorship in the case of this thread has only been around the US since the 1920’s. Which if that’s what you mean by “centuries” it’s a bit of a stretch since that is a single century.
Moreso, if you want to trace those ideologies back to politicians in the US, you’ll find maybe a couple of mentions of this in people like Buckley (in 1955) or Goldwater (in 1960) and of course from Reagan.
That is why I am saying “centuries” is an exaggeration.
You are interpreting everything extremely narrowly. I don’t care if “conservative” wasn’t what they used to be called, but there have always been groups of people imposing social control, and there’s a common thread running through that over time. The long game is paying off, because they have not let up. If you want to get super pedantic about it, everything breaks down here and I’m not sure what the point of that is.
You are not the OP, but let me take a stab at what you’re saying. Conservative has always been a word to describe a train of thought or ideal to not change from how things are.
The objective of that can change wildly throughout the years to the point of it even being contradictory to itself. (for example Greek conservatism probably wanted sexual freedom and current conservatives want “traditional sexual values” from a Christian point of view which is absolutely contradictory. )
I’m saying that conflating a group of people, “conservatives” in this case, isn’t a group of people that have been around for centuries plotting against some idea. They have been different groups trying to hold on to the world that they know and dislike change.
If you mean “conservatives” as it is currently known in the US, then yes that is a group of people who have been plotting on how to force their “ideals” on us but it’s hardly “centuries” as how OP put it. It’s just been from the 1950’s.
This is why I’m saying that OP sounds like a conspiracy nut.
The reason why I want to point this out is because claiming a group is centuries old adds to the belief that they are an entity that has survived massive world view changes; Colonialism, Revolution, Civil Wars, World Wars. All of this makes them seem like an invincible group, but in reality they aren’t that. They’ve only been around since slightly before Reagan and they are not absolute and they can be overthrown and toppled.
We should not equate “conservatism” with groups that advocated for feudalism or monarchy, but we should totally treat them like both of these were treated at the end of their era. We should get rid of backwards, draconic ways of thinking and always move forward.
I appreciate that there are nuances here that aren’t even just pedantry, however I knew what they meant. Those imposing social control via morality. That idea transcends specific ideology imo. I used to believe this kind of thinking was on the decline, but in my lifetime I seem to have discovered that no it is not. I want to believe this is a temporary setback but I can’t bring myself to believe something unless I really see the evidence for it. I see a lot against it.
“they” in this sense is everyone who has historically tried to control and repress others to their own benefit.
Traditionally that’s the religious. But it’s also the capitalists. And now they seem to be working together.
Christianity.
Going to need done links for you claims chief
Most of that comment is basic American history chief
Google it boss
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 lettersthat looks like you state something as fact, thenin small printat the bottom ask if it’s true?You are the one that said it was true and you didn’t know?
I think thats Lemmy thing. I have no control over fonts and it is different in piefed.
I edited my original comment
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.
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.
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.
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.
Only the most chaste men among them.
It’s like encountering a sudden storm at sea. But as long as you’re prepared, you can get through anything. I’ve been studying the “2025 Second-Hand Yacht Insurance Guide” lately. It’s like my “storm warning at sea,” telling me in advance how to save money and feel at ease, and be fully prepared.
Did you read all 900 pages? I sure skimmed but didn’t read it fully. Its entirely possible.
More importantly, if we dont act collectively all over the globe to end this tide of fascism only more sensorship will come.
This is not an end but a beginning.
Oh hey. GamerGate was used by Christian fundamentalists to censor video games. How interesting. I thought they cared about Freeze Peach?
Just stopped over there. They are downvoting anyone who brings up price hikes from tariffs. Their handlers are not happy with the few coming to their senses.
It’s almost like they are pathetic cult members. Who can’t give an inch in an intelligent conversation. Fucking losers.
Gamergate was always a right-wing radicalization tool, and those who did not dismiss the chatlogs of /pol/ users collected by Zoey Quinn as fakes, knew it since day one (I wonder if “Sarah K.” might be one of those VTubers beloved by the far-right), and Steve Bannon wasn’t the first one to realize potential in radicalizing gamers, but a crappy Hungarian gamedev later turned into blogger Tamás “Tomcat” Polgár.
I am not surprised in the slightest bit
