heya gamers !!
so i'm considering setting up a collaborative zine for both newer and experienced writers, artists, graphic designers, coders, critics and the like!🌚
i'm hoping to promote accessibility for women and marginalised groups in gaming!
pls dm me/email if interested!
The whole point of art, in fact the point of engaging with another person's thoughts in any capacity, is to expand your very limited individual perspective on the world, not to live in a tiny box perfectly catered to your adolescent personal tastes
Pope Leo to Artists; “We live in the age of search engines that offer us thousands of instantaneous answers. Yet, no matter how powerful they may be, they merely return what already exists and tend to give us what we already want. In the age of technology and consumerism, the great danger is not only censorship but also homogenization, and not merely imposed silence but the noise that makes it impossible to listen. Art is a different kind of ‘search engine,’ It does not proceed by indexing but by inquiry.”
A woman on campus confronted Gillio Lopes, of the Cornell 7 rapists in the. That takes fucking courage
How is this dude still at Cornell university ??!!! What’s the reason piece of trash ??!!!
Jonathan Newell is having his first name and photos scrubbed from the internet share it widely. Winston Lee fled to Korea has been found there. His korean name is LEE JUN HYUNG 이준형. Hold them accountable. Pictured: JONATHAN NEWELL who sent the “free p*ssy” message
Keep circulating the faces of the rapists being protected by Cornell university, and the faces of the school administrators doing the protecting and fostering that toxic culture there. They're just as culpable and none of them deserve a day of peace until Jane Doe gets justice.
I have been talking about this for a year. Lobbies and countries have been trying their best to censor videogames, creative content and the internet as a whole with the excuse of “protecting kids”.
People were just blindly ignoring the issue because it targeted NSFW content back then.
They are attacking the privacy and free will of adults with the excuse of protecting kids.
This has to stop.
All hands on deck! This is the biggest threat to Stop Killing Games yet!
The EU #KidsAct could end #StopKillingGames by collapsing the EU gaming market and making private and community servers illegal!:
https://t.co/bVgInkrrOx
"The best thing you can do is spread the word...The people who write this crap do not like it when the public at large knows what they're trying to do to you" - @accursedfarms
Don't just take our word for it, here's the EU Kids Act to see for yourself. Ross also has more links in the description of his video:
https://t.co/i5CRzvPRKY
https://t.co/scEM6JFjjh
Remember when we warned you all a year ago when the Online Safety act in the UK came into force and everyone was saying it would be only for adult content.
We warned you these types of laws would be going after games, streaming, chat services, search engines, app stores, AI services, forums, media services, social media, adult content, etc.
They are coming for the entire internet gloabally.
I wish people could properly correlate how the UNs agenda 2030 and the dozens of countries pushing these laws in alignment with it are part of the same exact plan to surveillance, censor and control everyone for "safety" and "sustainability".
Technical analysis to explain why the UK government is using the word "comprehensive".
TL;DR: "Comprehensive" means identity verification for everyone so children can be banned. When adults are banned they can’t return.
Identity verification is designed to kill online anonymity. When accounts are tied to real people, behaviour can be tracked, scored, predicted, and permanently restricted. Apply that across social media, games, messaging and app stores and you’ve built population-scale surveillance under the banner of child safety. Privacy is destroyed. Parents lose control. The government gains the power to exclude identified people from civic online spaces.
Here’s my breakdown of Culture Secretary Lisa Nandy’s speech along with my technical analysis:
🇬🇧 "We will be the first in the world to introduce a comprehensive social media ban for children".
💡 Everyone knows the UK is not the first to introduce a social media ban for children. So what does she mean?
💡 For that statement to become true, the government would need to mandate something that hasn't yet been said out loud in Australia. A "comprehensive" social media ban means everyone has to verify their identity.
💡 She’s effectively saying "We will be the first in the world to introduce identity verification for everyone". There’s no other technical or legal explanation.
🇬🇧 "where abusive content is not just removed, but removed forever".
💡 The only way to achieve that is to ban repeat offenders permanently. That requires knowing who wrote or shared the content. Technically, that means linking people’s identities to what they post and share. Once an account is tied to a real identity, creating a new account with a different email address no longer works. If you’re banned, you’re excluded for good.
🇬🇧 "Women’s rights are human rights, and human rights are non-negotiable".
💡 I agree. But the government wants to use that as a trojan horse to take away everyone’s right to privacy, including women who wish to remain anonymous. Privacy is a human right, which by their own admission is non-negotiable. They want to decide when human rights are accessible.
🇬🇧 "But, friends, shouldn’t we be ashamed that decades of violent indifference has come to this? Having to remove our children from social media altogether because we cannot protect them from harm".
💡 Any parent who believes their child is unsafe on social media can restrict social media using the parental controls built into today’s smartphones.
🇬🇧 "Because our online spaces live in the palm of our hands and the cables that run under our feet. They’re a civic space, like any town hall or high street".
💡 The UK government arrests around 30 people every day over communications offences involving things posted online. If the government gains the ability to permanently exclude identified people from online services, people will censor themselves.
(In Australia, Ireland and the US, they use "robust" age assurance to mean identity verification because no government wants to say what they really mean.)
💡 Please know this.
Culture Secretary Lisa Nandy and the rest of the government and their advisors, are not technically savvy enough to understand basic technical aspects of this subject.
I advised the British government and its main child-safety advisers during the first Parliamentary Inquiry into Online Child Protection in 2012. That process led to opt-out filtering across UK telecom networks and ISPs.
They’ve been looking for ways to force identity verification for years. I know because I challenged them about it directly during formal in-person meetings and private briefings in London.
My BBC Newsnight interview at the time showed me demonstrating how poor parental controls were. Unfortunately, we didn’t discuss what I thought of the government’s approach to default-on pornography filters, which meant adults had to actively remove restrictions to access blocked content.
💡 Smartphones today give parents the technical controls governments claim they need legislation to provide. Parents can block apps, block websites, restrict content, approve downloads, control purchases, and set time limits and curfews for their own children. They’re a hundred times better than they were in 2012.
💡 That removes the child safety justification for banning social media.
💡 A digital identity system kills online anonymity.
Removing anonymity is a core technical requirement for governments to gain digital surveillance because once identity is linked to activity, behaviour can be monitored, analysed, predicted, and controlled.
If the UK government rolls this out across social media, games, messaging, app stores and other online services, it creates the technical foundation for population-scale surveillance and control.
Countless schools and many parents already use mobile based parental controls. Banning social media for everyone’s children takes rights away from guardians and parents.
If I was on Newsnight today, I wouldn’t demonstrate weak parental controls like I did in 2012. I’d demonstrate how good they are now and ask why the government feels the need to ban social media instead of educating parents about the controls they already have.
---
I’ll publish my full technical analysis of Chat Control today. Writing this here to hold myself accountable. I’ll summarise it here, but Substack gives me the space to break down the entire system properly.
Plain English. No jargon. Free.
.@Cornell arrested 22 students for protesting a genocide but seven students who drugged and raped a woman for seven hours were made to write essays about it.