Anyone know if this is true or not?
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.
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.
deleted by creator
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.
If we didn’t have religion we’d find something else to divide us and hold us back. Text editors or something.
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.
Was it nationalists carrying out the crusades? Diddling kids? Demonizing LBGTQ? Seems like a convenient deflection.
The existence of good does not justify the evil, and there has been way more harm than good in the name of gods, abrahamic or not.
I do not dispute that. I am stating that this power grab is Christian Nationalism. If you read my comment, about half-way through I said Christians are a problem, but not the problem right now.
I also would argue that MLK Jr. did much more good than any evil.
All religions are evil.
Right on man. Fuckin’ Buddhists. Probably don’t even use Linux.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
deleted by creator
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”
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
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.
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 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.
deleted by creator
Fiction has been an enemy of power since writing began
x for doubt
Since there are downvotes, what are the earliest fictional texts and what did they do in regard of power?
Gilgamesh literally becomes king. He changes the power paradigm to put himself on top and thats the oldest text we have.
What came first, kings or the stories about kings?
I think kings came first, and the story supported their power.
Completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand.
Even if, why shouldn’t something doubtful be pointed out?
But in this discussion it’s relevant. That White Jesus, do we believe that it is facts? Power is using fiction to create a following first. Then those followers prevent an opposition from forming.
Now why are stories about sex told? There seem to be many reasons but one could be to encourage people to have sex. So the opposition tries to make people experience reality with other people while Conservatives try to keep them in their fictional, isolated world.
In other words, fiction is not only an enemy but also a friend of power.
Conservatives HATE GAMING. Not the online chuds and 4channers who hate women, they’re barely even conservatives…
They sure sound like conservatives to me.
deleted by creator
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.
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
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.
Those photos are of Shah-era Iran, when the West was propping up (including providing weapons, training and funding to) an unpopular authoritarian that had been installed by the UK and US when the previous democratically-elected government dared to attempt to nationalise the oil industry, which was owned by BP. Under the Shah, traditional Islamic dress was outlawed, which is why everyone’s in 1970s clothes. If you disagreed with the Shah, the secret police would take you away and kill you.
Eventually, a coalition of leftists and religious leaders overthrew the Shah. The religious faction then assassinated all the prominent leftists and switched the secular authoritarian dictatorship for a theocratic authoritarian dictatorship. Under the Ayatollah, traditional Islamic dress was mandatory, which is why women in contemporary photos from Iran always have some kind of headscarf unless it’s in a news report about a protest that someone got executed for. If you disagree with the Ayatollah, the Revolutionary Guard will take you away and kill you.
So Iran’s had laws forcing women to wear only the clothes approved by a dictator both with and without help from the West.
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.
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.
Going to need done links for you claims chief
Most of that comment is basic American history chief
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.
