Censorship is not debatable.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - Evelyn Beatrice Hall
I originally wanted to make a longer post; there were a lot of angles I wanted to explore, and maybe I still will at some point. However, for now, the only way I feel right saying this is to keep it short and to the point. Censorship is not debatable.
Everyone has their own definition of what is and isn't ok. What is or isn't too far, or too sexual, or too depraved, or too obscene. Everyone has their own level of comfort, and their own traumas, their own phobias. There is no solid definition of what should be censored that a majority of people can reasonably agree on. If you're reading this right now and trying to think of specifics, you've already missed the point.
There is no bureau of contexts, there isn't a person sitting in a government office stamping the seal of approval on the story that talks in detail about being a rape survivor while denying the story that contains the implication of rape. There isn't a person writing the "cartoony swirly-eyed hypnosis mind control is acceptable when conducted between cartoon animals" clause. There is all or nothing. Each time something is censored, it creates a precedent that is used for the next thing, and the next thing, and so on. If there's still something you're thinking about that you feel should be illegal, chances are there's already a law against making it.
The content you consume is on you. You are responsible for what you listen to, watch, read, and play. It is OK to set your own boundaries for content you refuse to engage in, and it is OK if things make you uncomfortable. Ideally, you should try and challenge your views and push those boundaries when you can, but at a pace you are comfortable with. With children, it is up to the parents to make these decisions. In an ideal world, a parent should be able to discuss serious topics with their children, which includes media. Shielding a child from every possible "offensive" thing in the world until they're 18 has and will only continue to create 18 year-olds who have their entire world view shattered suddenly, and are unprepared for topics like consent or communication.
If the point of censorship was to protect children, then the same care and attention would be given towards homelessness, school shootings and violence, mental health, hunger, parental resources, and poverty.
Being uncomfortable with a subject should not give anyone the authority to censor it for others. Telling people not to engage in an idea does not make the idea dissappear. It is a pointless effort that only serves to punish "dissenters" and innocent people. A comtemporary example of this is how FOSTA-SESTA, a law meant to curb sex trafficking ultimately made it more dangerous for sex workers by removing access to online safety resources while actually limiting the tools used by law enforcement to seek out victims of sex trade.
I personally follow a simple rule. In a real life scenario, all parties engaged in an activity should be able to consent and have done so. It's that simple. Art is different, art is fantasy. Once again, you may be thinking about certain things when I mention fantasy, again, I will argue that censors don't care. They don't care about exceptions; they don't care about context. Fantasy or not.
Censors don't care if feederism is a consentual act of bodily harm. They don't care that the A in ABDL stands for "adult." And they don't care when their actions put groups like queer youth at dangerous risk.
The last one is significant because like Steam or Itch, the censorship on their end is almost like an overreaction. The laws are so vague, broad, and confusing that it becomes safer to comply and ban everything. With the UK age verification law, American companies are forced to comply and set up invasive age verification tools, as well as adopt a "supervision plan" on how to handle vaguely defined problematic content. What is to stop any country from implementing similar laws that everyone needs to comply with. The UK isn't the only place; there are plenty of laws pending or getting pushed to accomplish the same thing. It may be easy to circumvent these tools, but that will just lead into the next step.
At the end of the day, censorship only ever exists to serve an agenda. It is used to punish people for ideas. You may reasonably be sitting here thinking it is OK when a racist get censored, and I am going to agree. But it doesn't make the racism go away. Are you against the genocide in Gaza? You may be considered an antisemite! Do you draw knots in your furry porn? Sorry buddy, you're a zoophile. Do you think trans youth should have access to gender-affirming resources? Wow, I didn't know a pedophile was reading this.
"If you want to overturn the Online Safety Act you are on the side of predators. It is as simple as that."
Censorship isn't debatable because everyone's views on acceptable content vary too widely to have an honest discussion about it. It's incredibly easy to shut down anyone trying to discuss it by jumping on any particular offensive idea and reducing it down to the most vulgar interpretation, which also means it is incredibly easy for a bad actor to spin any criticism into an admittance of wrongdoing. It has to be an all-or-nothing perspective, at least for now, if we have any chance of establishing that content creators need to be able to explore what they want and people are able to explore the content they want to see. If we don't jump on this now and put a stop to overzealous censorship, we won't have anyone left.
You are allowed to choose your content, and you're allowed to have your opinions on the creators, but they should be allowed to create.
The internet was made to be a free exchange of ideas and information. Let's keep it that way.
â[I]tâs not just the books under fire now that worry me. It is the books that will never be written. The books that will never be read. And all due to the fear of censorship. As always, young readers will be the real losers.â - Judy Blume