well, between the brazil ban and the new updates imma focus more on transitioning my stuff somewhere, you can find me at

Here’s where each of the “All Operating Systems must do age verification” laws are as of today (March 9, 2026): - Brazil (Law 15.211) : Signed into law. Requirements in effect on March 17th, 2026. - California (AB-1043) : Signed into law. Requirements in effect on January 1st, 2027. - Colorado (SB26-51) : Passed Senate on March 3, 2026. - New York (S8102A) : In Senate Committee. - Illinois (SB3977) : Filed for consideration. Note: As of today, March 9th, Operating Systems developers have only 8 days remaining before the Brazilian law takes effect. Related: In order to “incentivize” age verification, The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has announced that they will ignore COPPA violations for software performing age verification.

"... if you are an adult who does not opt in, you then get cordoned off into the teen experience. Explain to me how that has anything to do with children’s safety. The only way to get out of that censored version is by scanning your face."

AOC: We don’t have to talk about this as if it’s a hypothetical issue. Just a couple of months ago, Discord tried to roll out “age verification.” They contracted with a third party to conduct facial scanning — not just of kids, but also of adults. They decided to launch a teen default setting where they would lock users into a teen-appropriate experience. Which, mind you, if you are an adult who does not opt in, you then get cordoned off into the teen experience. Explain to me how that has anything to do with children’s safety. The only way to get out of that censored version is by scanning your face. What’s more shocking is that Discord made the decision to move forward with this after they had been hacked and 70,000 users had their data stolen.

The Kids Online Safety Act is the U.S. equivalent of the EU's Digital Services Act and the UK's Online Safety Act. If passed, it could mandate digital identity, fully deanonymize the internet, and impose significant censorship.

I think the full text may answer some questions, and in addition, I can provide context on how much age verification services are charging. A low-cost verification is about $0.20 per verification, and the estimated percentage of people who want to verify is around 11%. If 11% of the UK population verified at $0.20 each, it would cost more than what Rule34xxx makes with its worldwide revenue. This doesn't even consider the complete loss of privacy. We're looking into a self-hosted verification using age estimation through cameras as an alternative, but I'm not sure how that's going to work, if at all. We would have to ensure it's only kept in RAM/VRAM and instantly deleted afterward. This won't stop at adult content; they are already going after sites with "violence" and "blood." Your games are next. For people in the UK, I highly recommend signing the petition or contacting your representatives.

Change. org removes petition against Collective Shout. Change .org has blocked/removed the petition to end Collective Shout censorship.

Reports of censorship in Japan. It has been reported that after uploading NSFW illustrations to Adobe's cloud service, the account was frozen without prior notice and the appeal was rejected. It is no exaggeration to say that even the contents of the cloud are now being monitored.

Currently people are contacting Visa and Mastercard, en-masse, in an effort to get them to explain why they are banning legal content from being transacted through their systems. These arbitrary restrictions caused companies, such as Steam, Itch.io, and others to pull violent and adult video games from their platforms. They continue to remain silent on the reason WHY they enforced the restrictions on the companies. I surmise they are gagged from speaking through likely threat of regulatory pressure. May I introduce, Russ Vought, a co-writer for Project 2025, Director of the United States Office of Management and Budget, AND Acting Director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. files.consumerfinance.gov/f/… This man has already publicly stated his desire to have pornographic content, violent video games, and other types of content "harmful to children", banned from the internet. This claim he makes is not based on unbiased scientific testing. In a two minute clip posted on YouTube by The Intercept the following transcript, highlighted in yellow, shows his intended starting point (start with children), and then he cuts himself off from explaining the next part of the plan, of violent video games, etc, as that route had failed twice already in the past few decades. youtube.com/watch?v=0noIS9lm… i.imgur.com/CxpcUOs.png theintercept.com/2024/08/16/… Now, as his position in the CFPB, he has ultimate authority over payment providers and banks, and he has likely been abusing this power to strong-arm changes in these privately owned businesses regarding content he specifically had shown his distaste and hatred towards previously. All clearly telegraphed before hand, many years ago. This was ALL done in the guise of protecting the children. Admittedly, it is a very solid tactic, at the core. But, if you use the mantra of protecting the children, it tends to mean that it's just a ploy, usually to further a specific agenda. They are a threat against the United States, nay, the entire world. They are a threat against our democracy, a threat against free speech, and a threat against gamers, a threat against media in general. These are the same people who believe violent video games cause violent things. An entire generation of individuals have been playing Grand Theft Auto, playing Doom, Quake, and other games, but we are not currently, nor will we face a worldwide pandemic of armed car robberies, driving on sidewalks for the fun of it, or people running around with sawed off shotguns killing demons, or raping people, because a video game was made exploring the content. Those in power have been eroding free speech in the law. Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (CDA) provides immunity to online platforms from liability for content posted by their users. They are actively attempting to kill this protection to further their goals outlined in Project 2025, by passing liabilities of their userbase onto the operators via financial regulation threats and pressure, thus killing speech directly, while still keeping in the shadows publicly. "He filmed the crimes and posted monetized rape videos on P*rnhub, earning revenue for him and the site owners." x.com/BillAckman/status/1898… This is their attempt to kill section 230 immunity. You should not be frightened that they MAY come into power, they are ALREADY IN POWER. They are exercising it spectacularly, taking baby steps to erode away your speech, and we've all been asleep at the wheel.

Let's list all the countries trying to force ID, Age Restriction, or Monitoring Systems in the last 2 weeks >USA >Canada >UK >EU >Ireland >Australia Basically most of the Western World is doing this.