Olives @olives@qoto.org

Censoring content because it might vaguely meet some standard of being "worrying" or "offensive" is a really bad mentality to have.

https://www.refused-classification.com/censorship-timelines/game-iarc/
https://afkgaming.com/gaming/general/is-newrp-going-to-be-the-gta-online-of-android
Australia has banned "NewRP". NewRP appears to be a GTA-like game. It is hard to say why it was banned. Perhaps, the game contains drugs, or the ability to play as a criminal rubs the censors the wrong way.

https://www.refused-classification.com/censorship-timelines/game-iarc/
https://www.xbox.com/en-US/games/store/excessive-trim/9P18KH5VVS7L
Apparently, Australia has banned Excessive Trim because it's about a murderous alien (extra-terrestrial) who consumes cannabis.

https://bgr.com/tech/mastodon-thinks-its-new-reply-prompts-will-encourage-better-conversations/ Too much of a nanny for my liking.

Well, I still think the "algorithm might generate something offensive" panic is over the top.

Looking at AI art, and again, I think I prefer human made art.

Interesting poll.

https://www.refused-classification.com/censorship-timelines/game-iarc/
https://www.fortnite.com/@jonah123
https://www.fortnite.com/@techpeelsfn/1566-6242-8813
Australia appears to be censoring Fortnite maps now. As for why, I have no clue.

Interesting how a South East Asian conference has like ten departments of the Australian Government taking part.

Is this a South East Asian Conference or an Australian Conference?

The time loop where the same stupid bills keep appearing.

Flash aaaaaa

https://aseanictforum.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/Report-Back_ASEAN-ICT-Forum-U-Report-Data_Nov2023.pdf

"How often have you encountered worrying or
offensive things when you are online? (n=10,891)"

So vague.

Not that long ago, a Minister wanted to give a minister the power to overrule any court decision they didn't like (when it came to a court deciding the government violated someone's rights).

I can't remember who had this bad idea. It might have been Dominic Raab or Jacob Rees-Mogg (however you spell his name).

I believe it was in response to the possibility that the decision to send migrants to Rwanda might be found to be unlawful.

"Have we really reached a point where we believe our political processes and our courts are incapable of ensuring all arms of the British State obey the law?"

Yes. Though, "law" is a mutable thing, perhaps "rule of law" / individual rights are better terms.

It's not that unusual for them to quietly insert highly controversial ideas into the "terms" (and to use particular language where it isn't immediately apparent what they mean).

These particular "guidelines" actually appear to be from November 2022 (although, still displayed so prominently, so I'll take it as their current propaganda), so take from that what you will.