came across this
tl;dr
>Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (CDA) provides immunity to online platforms from liability for content posted by their users.
>This is their attempt to kill section 230 immunity.
>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 dot consumerfinance dot gov slash f slash images slash cfpb_headshot-russell-vought_DA8Ama7 dot original dot png
>
>This man has already publicly stated his desire to have pornographic content, violent video games, and other types of content "harmful to children", derezzed 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.
>
>invidious dot projectsegfau dot lt slash watch?v=0noIS9lmR0Y
>i dot imgur dot com slash CxpcUOs dot png
>theintercept dot com slash 2024 slash 08 slash 16 slash project-2025-russ-vought-porn-ban slash
>
>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 dot com slash BillAckman slash status slash 1898747162306937184
>
>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.
>