Censor Watch

Between Two Worlds is a 2025 visual novel with RPG and fantasy elements developed by Drooskati Games.

The game was banned by the Australian Censorship Board in August 2025.

The Australians censors have not explained their reasons beyond a generic bolierplate statement about censorship rules being broken.

Drooskati Games responded to the ban:

Australia is censoring gaming, even fully consensual, romantic, and respectful content.

Apparently, BETWEEN TWO WORLDS is just too damn sexy for Australians.

Trying to do the right thing, I submitted the game to the Aussie government to get a proper rating several weeks ago. Today, I got my answer.

BETWEEN TWO WORLDS is just too damn explicit and realistic for the poor, innocent, simple Aussies. They are just not ready for romantic, consensual, and respectful sexual situations.

Those who have played BTW can attest to the content within the game. It portrays healthy and honest relationships centered on communication. But that is just too much for Australians, I guess.

I may be required to take the game down for Australians in the near future, so get it while you can!

If you live in Mississippi, you may have noticed that you are no longer able to log into your Bluesky or Dreamwidth accounts from within the state. Thats because, in a chilling early warning sign for the U.S., both social platforms decided to block all users in Mississippi from their services rather than risk hefty fines under the states oppressive age verification mandate.

If this sounds like censorship to you, youre right--it is. But its not these small platforms fault. This is the unfortunate result of Mississippis wide-sweeping age verification law, H.B. 1126 . Though the law had previously been blocked by a federal district court, the Supreme Court lifted that injunction last month, even as one justice (Kavanaugh) concluded that the law is 'likely unconstitutional.' This allows H.B. 1126 to go into effect while the broader constitutional challenge works its way through the courts. EFF has opposed H.B. 1126 from the start, arguing consistently and constantly that it violates all internet users First Amendment rights, seriously risks our privacy , and forces platforms to implement invasive surveillance systems that ruin our anonymity .

Lawmakers often sell age-verification mandates as a silver bullet for Big Techs harms, but in practice, these laws do nothing to rein in the tech giants. Instead, they end up crushing smaller platforms that cant absorb the exorbitant costs. Now that Mississippis mandate has gone into effect, the reality is clear: age verification laws entrench Big Techs dominance, while pushing smaller communities like Bluesky and Dreamwidth offline altogether.

Sorry Mississippians, We Cant Afford You

Bluesky was the first platform to make the announcement. In a public blogpost , Bluesky condemned H.B. 1126s broad scope, barriers to innovation, and privacy implications, explaining that the law forces platforms to 'make every Mississippi Bluesky user hand over sensitive personal information and undergo age checks to access the site--or risk massive fines.' As Bluesky noted, 'This dynamic entrenches existing big tech platforms while stifling the innovation and competition that benefits users.' Instead, Bluesky made the decision to cut off Mississippians entirely until the courts consider whether to overturn the law.

About a week later, we saw a similar announcement from Dreamwidth, an open-source online community similar to LiveJournal where users share creative writing, fanfiction, journals, and other works. In its post, Dreamwidth shared that it too would have to resort to blocking the IP addresses of all users in Mississippi because it could not afford the hefty fines.

Dreamwidth wrote: 'Even a single $10,000 fine would be rough for us, but the per-user, per-incident nature of the actual fine structure is an existential threat.' The service also expressed fear that being involved in the lawsuit against Mississippi left it particularly vulnerable to retaliation--a clear illustration of the chilling effect of these laws. For Dreamwidth, blocking Mississippi users entirely was the only way to survive.

Age Verification Mandates Dont Rein In Big Tech--They Entrench It

Proponents of age verification claim that these mandates will hold Big Tech companies accountable for their outsized influence, but really the opposite is true. As we can see from Mississippi, age verification mandates concentrate and consolidate power in the hands of the largest companies--the only entities with the resources to build costly compliance systems and absorb potentially massive fines. While megacorporations like Google (with YouTube) and Meta (with Instagram) are already experimenting with creepy new age-estimation tech on their social platforms, smaller sites like Bluesky and Dreamwidth simply cannot afford the risks.

Weve already seen how this plays out in the UK. When the Online Safety Act came into force recently, platforms like Reddit, YouTube, and Spotify implemented broad (and extremely clunky ) age verification measures while smaller sites , including forums on parenting , green living , and gaming on Linux , were forced to shutter. Take, for example, the Hamster Forum , 'home of all things hamstery,' which announced in March 2025 that the OSA would force it to shut down its community message boards. Instead, users were directed to migrate over to Instagram with this wistful disclaimer: 'It will not be the same by any means, but . . . We can follow each other and message on there and see each others [sic] individual posts and share our hammy photos and updates still.'

When smaller platforms inevitably cave under the financial pressure of these mandates, users will be pushed back to the social media giants.

This perfectly illustrates the market impact of online age verification laws. When smaller platforms inevitably cave under the financial pressure of these mandates, users will be pushed back to the social media giants. These huge companies--those that can afford expensive age verification systems and arent afraid of a few $10,000 fines while they figure out compliance--will end up getting more business, more traffic, and more power to censor users and violate their privacy.

This consolidation of power is a dream come true for the Big Tech platforms, but its a nightmare for users. While the megacorporations get more traffic and a whole lot more user data (read: profit), users are left with far fewer community options and a bland, corporate surveillance machine instead of a vibrant public sphere. The internet we all fell in love with is a diverse and colorful place, full of innovation, connection, and unique opportunities for self-expression. That internet-- our internet--is worth defending.

Complaint:

The Reprobates seems to glamourise illegal behaviour with its name, accompanied by a mugshot image. The bottle neck also carries an image of a cross-bar gate -- an image clearly associated with counting days in prison.

Code paragraph 3.2(b)

A drink, its packaging and any promotional material or activity should not in any direct or indirect way suggest any association with bravado, or with violent, aggressive, dangerous, anti-social or illegal behaviour.

The company welcomed the opportunity to respond to the complaint and stated that it did not believe that The Reprobates Sparkling Wine was in breach of the Portman Groups Code of Practice.

The company explained that the term reprobates was used in a light-hearted context and referred to mischievous individuals rather than illegal behaviour. The company stated that the term reprobates was similar to rascal, a word which had been deemed acceptable by the Panel in a previous decision, Wolfies Whisky. Therefore, the company did not consider that reprobates created a direct link to illegal behaviour or violence and stated that similar names were commonly used in the alcohol industry.

The Panels assessment

The Panel discussed whether the drinks packaging created any association with illegal behaviour as raised by the complainant. The Panel first discussed the name, The Reprobates, to determine how the term reprobate was likely to be understood by UK consumers. The Panel noted the producers response that reprobate was intended to be akin to rascal, a word that had previously been found to be acceptable by the Panel under the Code. The Panel considered that in contemporary meaning, reprobate was often used in a light-hearted fashion to refer to a person who was mischievous or cheeky rather than as a reference to a criminal. The Panel acknowledged that reprobate could be used to reference someone lacking in principles but stated that this did not inherently create an association with criminal or illegal behaviour. As the brand name was acceptable in isolation, the Panel considered that compliance under the Code would be dependent on the overall impression conveyed by the product.

The Panel discussed the front label, which included a photo of a man dressed in 1930s attire holding up a board which read The Reprobates. The Panel considered the positioning of the man in the photo, staring straight ahead while holding a board, which did appear to be very similar to the classic mug shot position. This interpretation was compounded by the serious expression and rigid stance the character maintained as opposed to how one might usually pose for a photograph with a smile and relaxed posture. Furthermore, directly above the image on the neck of the bottle was the inclusion of numerous lines presented as a tally which was designed to mimic the appearance of carvings. The Panel considered that tallies were often used in the context of a prisoner counting the number of years they had served in prison, typically crudely etched onto a wall or other surface. The Panel noted that such tallies were synonymous with prisoners who were serving lengthy sentences for serious crimes as a way to keep track of passing time.

The Panel considered the name The Reprobates within the context of a mugshot and prison tally count and considered that a brand name which insinuated that a person lacked principles reinforced the impression that the character had engaged in illegal behaviour.

The Panel considered the presentation of the product and noted from the producers response that the imagery had no contemporary relevance. The Panel discussed accompanying guidance to Code rule 3.2(b) and noted that it advised against glamourising crime which linked to contemporary illegal behaviour. The Panel further noted that guidance stated that the severity of crime depicted or referenced could also impact how illegal behaviour may be applied under the Code by the Panel.

The Panel carefully considered the cumulative impact of how criminal behaviour was portrayed on the product packaging and noted that it did not glamourise contemporary illegal behaviour. However, the Panel acknowledged that while contemporary crime was not necessarily glamourised by the packaging, a clear and dominant association with illegal behaviour had been created through the name and imagery which had resulted in what appeared to be a fairly lengthy prison sentence, therefore inferring that a serious crime had been committed.

Taking the above points into account, the Panel concluded that the overall impression conveyed by the drinks name, a mugshot style image and number tally which inferred that a sufficiently serious, if unspecified, crime had been committed to warrant a custodial sentence, created a direct and dominant association with illegal behaviour. The Panel considered that as there was no other brand narrative to contradict these points, or any alternative explanation offered by the company, it was reasonable to conclude that a consumer would interpret the labelling in this manner. Accordingly, the complaint was upheld under Code rule 3.2(b).

Action by Company:

Product discontinued

The Sons of Great Bear is a 1966 East Germany/Yugoslavia western drama by Josef Mach
Starring Gojko Mitic, Jirí Vrstála and Rolf Römer

BBFC animal cruelty cuts were required for 2025 Blu-ray release.

Summary Notes

Whites expel Dakotas from Black Hills after finding gold, defying treaty. Chief's son Tokei-ihto rejects barren reservation after his father's murder. Out of prison, he leads tribe's flight to Canada, confronting murderer Red Fox.

Versions

cut:   run: 91:41s pal: 88:01s

UK: BBFC 12 rated with a trigger warning for moderate violence, discrimination with a trigger warning for moderate violence, discrimination after BBFC cuts: 2025 Eureka Entertainment Limited Edition (RB) Blu-ray at UK Amazon #ad The BBFC commented: Compulsory cuts required to remove scenes of unsimulated animal cruelty (horses being caused to fall using trip wires)..

Shatter is a 1974 UK / Hong Kong action drama by Michael Carreras and Monte Hellman (uncredited).
Starring Stuart Whitman, Lung Ti and Lily Li.  

A co-production between Hammer and the Hong Kong Shaw Brothers was cut by the BBFC for X rated cinema release in 1975. Uncut by 2025 for Blu-ray release  The US release is uncut and MPAA R rated.

Summary Notes

Shatter, an international hitman, is hiding out in Hong Kong after he has completed a contract out on an African leader. Shatter soon finds out that everyone wants him dead, including the crime syndicate, the cops and the brother of the African leader he killed. Shatter teams up with a kung fu expert to try to get the money that is owed to him. Various double crosses and fight scenes ensue.

Versions

uncut run: 90:43s pal: 87:05s		UK: Uncut and BBFC 15 rated for strong violence, nudity: 2025 Hammer Films Limited Edition [US + UK version] R0 4K Blu-ray/R0 Blu-ray Combo at UK Amazon #ad 2025 Hammer Films Amazon VoD [UK] at UK Amazon #ad US: Uncut and MPAA R rated for: 2020 Shout! Factory RA Blu-ray at US Amazon
cut cut:   run: 90m pal: 86m		UK: Passed X (18) after compulsory BBFC cuts: 1975 cinema release From IMDb. The U.S Anchor Bay DVD featured the UK cinema print which was cut to remove a hook impaling and a man being shot and spitting blood during the dock fight.

Australia could use a range of technologies to implement its social media ban for under-16s but all have risks or shortcomings, an ID/age verification company report has found.

The government says its ban, which comes into effect in December, is designed to limit the harmful impacts of social media. The policy has been touted as a world-first and is being watched closely by leaders globally.

Under the new laws, platforms must take reasonable steps to prevent Australian children from creating accounts on their sites, and deactivate existing ones. It is notable that the law lays the onus on social media companies and that children parents and adults are free to try ways to work around the censorship.

The federal government commissioned the UK-based company, Age Check Certification Scheme to test the ways Australia could enforce the ban, and its final report was published on Sunday.

It looked at a variety of methods - including formal verification using government documents, parental approval, or technologies to determine age based on facial structure, gestures, or behaviours - and found all were technically possible. But we did not find a single ubiquitous solution that would suit all use cases, nor did we find solutions that were guaranteed to be effective in all deployments, it said. In fact it also suggests that borderline users may be hassled by multiple methods leading up to the final requirement to handle over full ID verification data leading to a high risk of identity theft.

Verification using identity documents was cited as the most accurate method, but the report identified concerns that platforms will keep this data longer than required and was anticipating sharing it with regulators, both of which would leave users' privacy at significant risk.

Australia - like much of the world - has in recent years seen a series of high-profile data breaches, including several where sensitive personal information was stolen and sold or published.

It recommended that the methods should be multiplied up to create the most robust system, and highlighted that many of the technology providers were looking at ways to address circumvention, through things like document forgeries and VPNs (virtual private networks) which obscure the user's country.

Of course the report does not mention the hassle to adults who have to go through ID verification just to prove that they are adults.