Olives @olives@qoto.org

@freezenet Practically speaking, these things involving blocks or self-blocks makes them censorship in all but name.

@freezenet Unfortunately, they started flooding the classification database for IARC with Fortnite maps earlier this year, so that might make it harder to find cases relating to Google Play and others.

@freezenet https://refused-classification.com
A website which documents Australian censorship, such as video game censorship, censorship of films, books, and more.

https://www.refused-classification.com/censorship-timelines/game-iarc/
Censorship on things like Google Play. A "RC" rating basically means a ban.

What this website shows us is that Australian censorship over the past decade has been a *disaster*.

https://undocs.org/en/A/HRC/23/34 The Special Rapporteur in the cultural field questioned censorship of pornographic content here.

You are also underestimating the amount of censorship that the world has had. A good example of this has been countries like the U.K. which censored porn with offensive themes. Once upon a time though, the British admitted that their brand of censorship is practiced by very few countries.

"It’s very obviously illegal material which is why free speech proponents didn’t raise much concern around it."
Ironically, there were concerns a couple of decades ago in the U.K. that blocking sites would lead to further censorship. And then, there was further censorship half a decade later.

@thejapantimes This article is misleading though because it clearly involves people who created images depicting particular people.

@waifu I wrote about Bluesky last year (and I think again half a year ago).

In a nutshell:

1) Dorsey didn't like being seen as the bad guy who took down people's accounts. He wanted to have his cake and to eat it too.

So, he promised federation, even though that has turned out to be a grift (if someone is being moderated for a petty reason, that doesn't change that) and has never come which brings me to the next point...

2) Policy was a mess and looked like it was written by someone with absolutely no policy knowledge. Going by the discourse, it doesn't look like it's gotten better. It might be one thing for a noob admin to come up with for their five friends but this service purports to be a general social network.

When I previously covered it, one part seemed to be directly lifted from conspiracists who don't like dark subjects... The problems with policy probably involve the next point...

3) They made the mistake of starting it as some sort of "club" for Silicon Valley type people and others. They should have opened it up from the outset.

Because, they spent a fair bit of time marketing to these kinds of people, you might see takes from a couple of Silicon Valley pundits who are more optimistic about it, even though if you dig into it, the site looks practically awful.

Now, it's harder to pivot to being a general social network, which is what it was supposed to be from the beginning. It feels "over professional".

4) It cosplays as a non-profit, rather than a company, but it is actually a company, except without the good parts of being a company.

@th3rdsergeevich @waifu @phnt It would be nice, if someone joined because they were actually interested in a platform, rather than joining it because they dislike one particular guy.

@anicasts I doubt you are missing much.