Anyone know if this is true or not?
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.
a lot of people knew this already, yes
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
What an average man living in Jesus’ time and place looked like.
Small correction, Jesus was born in Bethlehem, which is in Palestine.
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?
“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.
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.
Going to need done links for you claims chief
Most of that comment is basic American history chief
Google it boss
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’m all in for banning pornographic content but if their intentions is anything else than that then I am all against it.
FYI: I have no idea what the hell is going on, I don’t follow the news, I just randomly opened lemmy then stumbled upon this post, I didn’t read the whole article, just a paragraph or 2.
Very shocking to me that a conservative would barge in with a strong conservative opinion but not know what’s going on and having barely tried to find out.
Conservative: “I’d like to enable fascist deletion of sexualized identites”
Also conservative: insert shaken mr krabs meme
This is sarcasm, right? Surely you jest.
yes but the kernel of truth is that is a bit shocking that they were self aware enough to admit not having the information, that’s better than most conservatives
I’m all in for banning pornographic content
Fuck off. Just don’t consume it, idiot.
If you are worried about your kids getting exposed to it, be a better parent.
Or better yet, don’t have kids.
I’m all in for banning pornographic content
The issue isn’t so much that they’re banning pornographic content, it’s the fact that there is no possible definition of “pornographic” that people can agree on, and every attempt at trying to do this in the past has always been simply an attempt by lawmakers to legislate what you can and can’t enjoy - IE: state approved media that doesn’t go against power. We had many court cases about this in the US, they always have ended siding against those trying to censor what people can and can’t look at.
“Porn” is like physics. You can call almost anything porn from certain vantage points, so an open-ended policy that allows those in control to decide what’s porn or not allows them to control what you think in a very real way.
The issue isn’t so much that they’re banning pornographic content
I agree with your point but also what the hell, why is this considered a normal well adjusted thing to say…
(second quote from different person)
I’m all in for banning pornographic content
Why? What is the flimsy, unscientific, puritan christian conservative reason and why is it ok for people to force it on everybody else?
Yeah, banning it is wild. I could understand setting it to opt-in, like a lot of websites do for adult content, but removing it entirely is just backwards and hateful.
I don’t know which of us you’re replying to, you seem to be replying to both me and the person I replied to?
I’m saying it’s actually fine if a privately owned company wants to change whatever content they provide, it happens all the time and nobody bats an eye, but this isn’t that, this is an action by a government to broadly crack down on even what private companies can and cannot do. This is a massive problem that isn’t about porn, it’s about government overreach and government censorship, we have constitutional laws about such things… or had, I am not sure if that’s even a thing anymore.
I was replying to both, I understand your point, my point is the beginning of the comment you were responding to defeats itself with stupidity before your logic (which I agree with) has even gotten out of bed and put pants on for the day.
Sounds like reading comprehension problem.
Dang, what a mean cow.
nope :)
it’s not about porn, it’s about setting a precedent to ban any undesirable content, like trans healthcare resources, sources that show our unsavory history as a society, and literally anything they could want.
Also, criminalizing porn just makes people go to the black market for that sort of thing.
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.
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.
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.
I am not surprised in the slightest bit
I’m not even slightly surprised
Funny how all the Yanks specifically blaming this on Australia are quiet now.
Thank god they can’t do shit to TPB and its ilk since those are already illegal anyway.
