Collective Shout, a small but vocal lobby group, has long called for a mandatory internet filter that would prevent access to adult content for everyone in Australia. Its director, Melinda Tankard Reist, was recently appointed to the stakeholder advisory board for the government’s age assurance technology trial before the under-16s social media ban comes into effect in Australia in December.

  • n1ckn4m3@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    29
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    7 hours ago

    “Face backlash” = about 160,000 people signed a petition saying they disagreed with it, then went about their daily lives and totally, 100% without a doubt continued using their Visa or Mastercard credit cards.

    They don’t care, there are no alternatives. They can do whatever they want.

    • ipkpjersi@lemmy.ml
      cake
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      5 hours ago

      Exactly. We need thousands of people calling them non stop disturbing them for hours on end, not just signing petitions.

  • CorruptCheesecake@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    53
    ·
    edit-2
    8 hours ago

    Who’s behind this sudden wave of age verification bullshit, Schrödinger’s parents? The ones who shove an iPad in front of their 2 year old and berate school teachers for not being poorly paid babysitters who raise their kids for them? And yet they claim to care SO MUCH about the well being of children that they push these obscene and draconian policies on the rest of us? What a bunch of fucking hypocrites, but that’s typical for conservatives.

    • lowleekun@ani.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      35
      ·
      8 hours ago

      Governments and some religious nutjobs.

      They only pretend to care about children. It is about power and control. Always has been, always will.

  • MiddleAgesModem@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    35
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    10 hours ago

    “The internet has no borders. Women and girls everywhere are impacted by male violence against women and misogyny in general which we believed these games perpetuated,” she said.

    Yet the fictional violence against men and boys is A-Ok!

  • FosterMolasses@leminal.space
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    123
    ·
    edit-2
    14 hours ago

    While Collective Shout solely targeted games it said violated policies held by payment platforms, Itch.io’s move to temporarily remove all NSFW content resulted in games with LGBTQ+ themes being removed.

    One petition signer who is a member of the LGBTQ+ community said they were concerned that banning sexual-based games would be the start of cracking down on LGBTQ+ content.

    There it is.

    • Eximius@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      20
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      14 hours ago

      if the LGBTQ+ games were not sexual in nature (why does it not say?), then that is quite damning and I approve of this conspiracy theory.

      • chaonaut@lemmy.4d2.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        30
        ·
        11 hours ago

        It’s not all that much of a conspiracy theory as those pushing this line at the payment processoers openly advocate that since LGBTQ+ references sex by way of sexuality and gender, then that is sexual content, and is therefore inappropriate for children. This, of course, completely ignores heterosexuality and cisgender because they consider queer people existing to be harmful to children. And trying to get through to them about how important age-appropriate sexual education is in combating child abuse is an exercise in frustration.

      • thanksforallthefish@literature.cafe
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        42
        ·
        13 hours ago

        If you google Tankard-Reist you’ll find it’s not a conspiracy theory - she has actively tried to block queer representation at every level in every way for decades

      • katy ✨@piefed.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        24
        ·
        12 hours ago

        politicians have literally said that the reason for censorship bills about the internet are specifically to go after lgbtq spaces.

      • Potatar@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        11 hours ago

        How can you know a game is LGBTQ+ if they don’t talk about sex/gender? They look like normal humans to me, which differ in sexual preferences only? Example: How can you say this guy is gay without knowing his sexual preferences?

        • sexybenfranklin@ttrpg.network
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          11 hours ago

          There is a difference between talking about sex and gender and something being sexual. If a shopkeeper mentions his husband, I can extrapolate that he’s at least bi, but that doesn’t mean the game is sexual.

          • MBech@feddit.dk
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            8
            ·
            11 hours ago

            In some jurisdictions, something being LGBTQ+ is inherently sexual. Places like Florida have a very psychotic view of what makes something sexual, and bans media for containing LGBTQ+ themes.

          • MiddleAgesModem@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            10 hours ago

            While that makes sense to logical people, there is a rabid right-wing movement in the US that in intent on defining any acknowledgment of LGBTQ+ is inherently “sexual”.

  • poke@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    8 hours ago

    While the pressure on the credit card companies should still work due to conversations behind closed doors, my understanding is that those companies are not actually payment processors. Payment processors are a bunch of companies/banks, some you likely haven’t heard of (one is PayPal though, feel free to make your voice heard to them), and they are taking legal responsibility for the transactions themselves, and thus actually have incentive to police transactions. Credit card companies themselves, not having those legal liabilities, would much rather people just spent their money everywhere as long as there was low risk of cards being stolen or misused.

  • ToadOfHypnosis@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    112
    ·
    15 hours ago

    So sick of conservatives forcing their beliefs on others. Filter your own content, use parents controls, don’t ban everything you don’t like because of your arrogant belief in made up morality. Morality is relative and religion does not give your opinions weight.

    • explodicle@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      9 hours ago

      everything you don’t like

      On issues like these, conservatives will discover the magic of actual reasons. It’s only “things you don’t like” when we’re talking about banning hate speech or something.

    • OrteilGenou@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      15
      ·
      13 hours ago

      Yeah but Jesus definitely preached love thy neighbor, do unto others as you would have them do unto you, and also, ew gay people not in my back yard.

      I’m pretty confident on two of those anyway

  • Sterile_Technique@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    146
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    20 hours ago

    What’s even the argument here? Steam already has parental control options, age gates, and content filters… if you don’t want your kids seeing that shit on steam, then, like, don’t let em?

    …meanwhile, let’s just continue shoving blatant gambling down minors’ throats in the form of lootboxes.

    • Echo Dot@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      64
      ·
      16 hours ago

      This group isn’t interested in protecting children they’re just interested in pushing their own beliefs on everybody else. The easiest way they can do that is to pretend that they’re interested in children. Which I’m sure some of them are, but not in the capacity that anyone wants them to be.

      It’s a classic right-wing tactic. Because nobody wants to be against a law that protects children.

    • Lebensmittel@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      91
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      20 hours ago

      The argument is control. Religious zealots are all about controlling society and subduing people to follow their rules (that they themselves tend to break all the time)

      • Sterile_Technique@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        19
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        19 hours ago

        That’s their goal for sure, what I mean is how are they pretending to justify it?

        There’s usually some on-paper benevolent veneer to wrap their hateful bullshit up with.

        For example, they hate trans people, but they don’t campaign on that out loud - they justify that hated under the guise of shit like protecting bathrooms.

        But this is fucking Steam - access to that bathroom is already under lock and key behind an armed guard. They can’t just pull the “think of the children!” card when the children already have a myriad of protections.

        …or maybe they can, considering what just happened. We live in stupid times.

        • Lebensmittel@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          23
          ·
          18 hours ago

          They precisely can and they kinda just did. “Think of the children” is the magic phrase to shut down critical thinking and give you carte blanche to do whatever you want.

          • ApatheticCactus@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            9
            ·
            16 hours ago

            Not always. School shootings happen and suddenly crickets on gun control. “Think of the children” only applies to moral outrage, not tangible physical threat prevention. Also applies to school lunches and any other actual tangible thing to ACTUALLY benefit general child welfare.

        • stratoscaster@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          12
          ·
          18 hours ago

          They are quite literally lying about the content of games like GTA V. They pulled the whole “the goal of the game is killing women” schtick

        • mriswith@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          17 hours ago

          That’s their goal for sure, what I mean is how are they pretending to justify it?

          The same way they always do: “WONT SOMEBODY THINK OF THE CHILDREN!?!?!?!1111”

        • Beero@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          14
          ·
          edit-2
          19 hours ago

          They want a nanny state to do their parenting for them, cus they are shit parents who spend their time petitioning the government about things they could just fucking unplug.

          • FosterMolasses@leminal.space
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            14 hours ago

            Bingo. They’re just projecting their failures as inadequate parents because they didn’t realize how hard child rearing would be after knocking up their high school sweetheart and buying a white picket fence. It’s always the same case.

    • rottingleaf@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      17 hours ago

      And the reason sexual things had to be filtered was that they are harmful and skew kids’ perception of healthy sexuality.

      Gambling wasn’t considered healthy even where and when marrying a toddler was normal. After all, a traumatized person with unhealthy sexuality does generally understand they are traumatized, a person taught that addiction is normal - not.

  • Opisek@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    65
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    19 hours ago

    “[Elon Musk] said he wanted to get his own X payments platform «going soon»”.

    Surely that’s going to solve the problem. There’s absolutely no censorship on Twitter. /s

    • Echo Dot@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      15
      ·
      16 hours ago

      Oh it’ll be interesting to see how he manages to make a worse payment processor than PayPal. I wouldn’t have thought it was possible.

    • rottingleaf@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      15 hours ago

      When there are enough competing parties, the argument of “I live in country A and I don’t care about B’s special services reading my messages”, where A and B are in a state of adversity, starts working.

      By competing parties I mean not just A and B, but a plethora of snakes in that pit.

      So - do it Elon. It’s fine.

  • ordnance_qf_17_pounder@reddthat.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    127
    ·
    22 hours ago

    Feels like we’re going back to the 90s/00s “Christian parents against video games” moral panic era. But this time, they’re being appeased more heavily.

    I despise conservatism. It destroys everything it touches.

        • Echo Dot@feddit.uk
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          10
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          16 hours ago

          It’s amazing how they have a book that tells them to love everybody and somehow they’ve taken that, and turned it into oppress everybody.

          • madcaesar@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            6
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            12 hours ago

            Ugh… This shit again…

            The fucking Bible is FULL OF FUCKING HATE. Hate for women, hate for blacks, hate for gays, hate for the “other”.

            I’m really sick of people trotting out two lines from that book of fairytales and doing a pikachu face “how could people read this and be evil?!?”

            Easily, because the Bible is filled with vile shit. Because it’s made up bullshit that let’s you argue every side of every point because it’s a amalgam of garbage written by idiots with the occasional line of wisdom sprinkled in.

            • Katana314@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              10 hours ago

              Kind of like how we love watching old Tom and Jerry cartoons, but would generally prefer to lightly forget how those cartoons contained frequent racist caricatures towards indians, island natives, black people, etc.

    • Echo Dot@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      16 hours ago

      Just as long as they get rid of dungeons and dragons. Everyone knows that’s the real danger in our society.

  • FauxLiving@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    229
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    1 day ago

    Keep the pressure on.

    Collective Shout got them to change their position and they’re a small group. We are legion, as the kids say

    • Booboofinger@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      5 hours ago

      That’s something we all have to remember. We have to be just as vocal as these idiots or they take over. They are not the majority, they are only the most vocal.

      • Echo Dot@feddit.uk
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        19
        ·
        16 hours ago

        That’s really what I don’t get. Why make it impossible for people to give you money. That doesn’t seem to be the way capitalism is supposed to operate if something is popular then you should allow it.

      • reactionality@lemmy.sdf.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        14 hours ago

        They’re the ones at risk of losing money if they get sued by reintroducing said content. You’re not going to stop using the payment processors because there’s literally no other option. This is performative.

        • Cethin@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          4 hours ago

          Sued for what? They aren’t stopping illegal content from being sold. That, as is implied by the word “illegal”, was already not allowed on these stores. They’re stopping legal, but potentially (not my opinion) objectionable, content from being sold. There’s no legal risk for allowing it.