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.

    • Echo Dot@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      20
      ·
      1 day 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
      1 day 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
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        19 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.

        • reactionality@lemmy.sdf.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          15 minutes ago

          I’m not saying there is illegal content. Read my comment.

          I’m saying the possibility of there being illegal content only exists if they allow the reintroduction of those titles. They’d need trust in the store moderation, in the lack of bad faith actors, in a lot of things.

          And it would be an absolutely stupid business decision for them.

          I am NOT condoning what they did, nor what they are doing. I am explaining, from their business perspective, why allowing potentially illegal content back on the platform is a non-argument and you cannot convince them otherwise.