Olives @olives@qoto.org

I think I'll have a new post out within the next few days. Probably.

The VR paragraph isn't going to be radically different. It's mainly going to be explained in more detail.

Other than that, it's going to tap into the idea that human rights are universal and human rights around artistic sexual expression.

Maybe, more things will come up which might make their way in.

If you already understand these things, it's unlikely to be a big update for you, although maybe interesting regardless, but it is an important step.

Remember that the post operates as a holistic whole, rather than being one of those posts which focuses on one particular point, so each point is useful to it.

After that, I'll see what more I can do to supplement it. It's already fairly well fleshed out though, that is part of why I'm not really in a rush to push out an update.

I mean, obviously, someone should be free to write something dark, freedom of speech, but when it comes to getting regular people to read something, that might be an obstacle.

That is also part of why I like things like Ferguson's review. It gets the point across. Someone did the analysis and wrote down the results. Or top-down overviews of crime. I don't think getting too dark really adds anything to it but it might come with a greater risk of reader attrition.

Obviously, it's impossible to make people happy all of the time, and it would make it harder to get my points across, if I did that, or to broach particular subjects, but I might as well avoid doing so superfluously.

I try to balance the vibes in the post to avoid it feeling too dark. I know there is a bit of a problem where someone might write about dark and disturbing things in an academic tone and someone might not be comfortable reading that.

One of the things I spare you when drafting posts is going through the entire two thousand year history of sex crimes involving children, which someone put in for whatever reason, so that someone can get to a potentially useful bit of information.

Now, I understand that someone might not like it when "someone from the U.N." talks about some sort of censorship, but I'm going to cite one to make the opposite point.

Something I found interesting was how they don't like being called "far right" and the like. They insist on being called "normal".

When a far right extremist Brit tries to get across how "reasonable" they are and simultaneously talks about how good it would be if all the people in Gaza were dead.

I was thinking of just introducing human rights in the next post, but you know what, I'll also cite the Special Rapporteur about artistic sexual expression.

It's been hectic over the past few weeks, and I wanted to see how people reacted to the existing science post, so I haven't written that much for a new post yet.

Mainly, I've expanded on the VR paragraph somewhat, and I've added a point about human rights.

I do avoid bringing up criminals being abused by evil doctors in the post, because otherwise I have a feeling that someone will forget that the point of the post is to fight censorship, rather than to dig into that injustice and to fight that.

Is there anything in particular which I should cover in terms of civil liberties?

Television is a broadcast medium, often with a more limited number of channels. Also, depending on how many TV sets someone has, they might have watch whatever they're watching with a bunch of other people.

The Internet is a marketplace of potentially limitless numbers of people offering content and someone can look for whatever content it is that they like (and avoid that which they don't like).

Between Australia and the U.K., the U.K. is actually the worse one. Australia has more of an issue of archaic standards but the U.K. actively looks to create new problems.

For instance, one of the proponents of internet censorship in Australia went on about *television* from decades ago* and even how television is pre-recorded. He seemed confused as to what this new technology was.

I think Mother Run 3D has been banned before, so I don't know why it appeared again. Maybe, they pushed a new version, that got assessed, then got banned too.

https://www.refused-classification.com/censorship-timelines/game-iarc/
More games banned by Australia.

https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.mother.run.tomatogames
Mother Run 3D. A game about eating vegetables and giving birth to babies.

https://usagixr.com
Some sort of scientific VR drug game was banned for drug references.
#auspol #FreeSpeech

All they do is look at what minorities are doing, play that up as something spooky, then punish them more harshly. How is that racist?