It might actually be a resolution problem. On higher-res screens (those are often the bigger ones) the text often doesn't scale with the resolution, making it stay small. Fixes might be a UI scale setting or lowering the resolution.

link? 👀

That would be somewhat funny if it were true, but the actual new info is he had Kallmann syndrome, of which a 'micropenis' can be a symptom in about 10% of cases. So this is dubious history at best, Hitler didn't need a micropenis to be the criminal he was. www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio...

you can just pirate them!

ty!

what game is this? :)

I agree with the conclusion that Israel's genocide is horrible and needs to be stopped, but even waging a war of extermination is different (not better) from the systematic Nazi concentration camp forced labor, torture and execution. I don't think claiming it isn't is a productive argument.

I agree, it should be possible to debate. The position of 18+/consent does not seem to be universally tolerated though, and I've experienced insults from people for thinking such a distinction be reasonable. I'd tell them the same, it's possible to agree against censorship and disagree on morals.

I didn't want to accuse you, I was contrasting two extremes I would not agree with. Apologies if that seemed antagonizing. I would not agree with letting corporations morally police. But I would not agree either with giving all fictional abuse a blank check, see my counterexample.

In your first example, you didn't specifically include hate speech. Would you say it shouldn't exist in fictional creative media? I'd agree. But doesn't that undermine your point of "if it doesn't victimize physical humans, it's OK"? I'd disagree with that precisely because of that contradiction.

As for media only, there's self-hosted alternatives. I guarantee at some point Blsky will police NSFW content because of corporate investors, Mastodon will never. The issue comes in with money and payment processors (unless you want to mail cash, I guess).

I think for some people that does not go far enough. The debate has to be had, but be aware this standpoint is definitely not universal. I agree with you, but there are people who will fight you on these points.

I get the where the sentiment is coming from but what about the opposite example, if a fascist incel published a "rape queer children simulator"? I would say that's in no way OK, and stochastic terrorism is a thing. There's a truth between corporate control and "everything is defensible, actually".

I would see corporate media/copyright industry having a profit motive to promote digital content restrictions, but here I'm kinda missing it.

Is it a lobbying group or is it just an international coordination group of govt bodies? From what I can tell it's basically govt online regulator's equivalent of i.e. IAEA (hence AUS eSafety c. membership) legislating but not lobbying. Don't see a profit motive there, seems a bit conspiracy-y.

Welcome Simon! Glad to be able to follow you here.