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.

    • Death_Equity@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      75
      ·
      8 months ago

      They got together enough people to mass email, that is all it took.

      Companies tend to multiply received responses to represent the total number of people who were to lazy to complain, so Visa and MasterCard saw 1,000 emails as 10,000,000 in their risk averse actions.

      Now 4chan is pissed and have started their own mass email and phonecall campaign, so we shall see where this goes…

    • CarbonIceDragon@pawb.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      41
      ·
      8 months ago

      Probably because they didnt go throught the government, which takes a long time to move on anything, and just put pressure on some profit seeking corporations that just want to get a bother to go away, but which also unfortunately have been put in a position of practical power equal to some types of legislation.

    • Hanrahan@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      18
      ·
      8 months ago

      But how the hell did some Australian Christofascist group get this powerful?

      It’s Australia, we only laugh when China does it, otherwise it must be good if we’re doing it.

      Want to have backdoors to chat apps, done, allow the siezure and forced unlocking of computers and phones at the border, done. Inter refigees in our own offshore concentrarion camps for decades until they suicide and make it illegal to report on, done. Regularly kill our first nations peoples amd have the jailed ? Done. We’re a fucken’ embarrassment!

    • Lebensmittel@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      97
      ·
      8 months 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)

        • Lebensmittel@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          25
          ·
          8 months 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
            10
            ·
            8 months 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.

        • Beero@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          15
          ·
          8 months 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
            3
            ·
            8 months 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.

        • stratoscaster@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          14
          ·
          8 months 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
          9
          ·
          8 months 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”

    • Echo Dot@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      70
      ·
      8 months 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.

  • ordnance_qf_17_pounder@reddthat.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    133
    ·
    8 months 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.

  • FosterMolasses@leminal.space
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    127
    ·
    8 months 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
      24
      ·
      8 months 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.

      • thanksforallthefish@literature.cafe
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        50
        ·
        8 months 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

      • chaonaut@lemmy.4d2.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        39
        ·
        8 months 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.

      • katy ✨@piefed.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        30
        ·
        8 months 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
        4
        ·
        8 months 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
          10
          ·
          8 months 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
            10
            ·
            8 months 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
            8
            ·
            8 months 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”.

    • OrteilGenou@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      16
      ·
      8 months 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

    • explodicle@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      8 months 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.

  • Telorand@reddthat.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    115
    ·
    8 months ago

    Somebody should check their PCs and internet history; after all, name a better duo than Conservatives and Projection.

    • lowleekun@ani.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      56
      ·
      8 months ago

      Governments and some religious nutjobs.

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

    • proton_lynx@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      8 months ago

      Don’t be fooled, that’s not the real reason. Parents that shove iPads in front of their children are not even remotely worried about what their kids are watching online. This is purely about control, has nothing to do with children.

  • Opisek@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    66
    ·
    8 months 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

  • n1ckn4m3@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    41
    ·
    8 months 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.

  • MiddleAgesModem@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    37
    ·
    8 months 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!