Your Daily Broadsheet

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

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.

Video game distribution platforms Steam and Itch.io have been removing a series of video games with adult themes, including sexual content and extreme violence, citing pressure from payment service companies. However, Mastercard, one of those companies, denies forcing these platforms to limit the distribution of such games.

Mastercard released a statement claiming that it has not requested any restrictions on the activities of game creators sites and platforms, despite accusations from Steam and Itch.io to the contrary. The company stated:

Mastercard has not evaluated any game or required restrictions of any activity on game creator sites and platforms, contrary to media reports and allegations. Our payment network follows standards based on the rule of law. Put simply, we allow all lawful purchases on our network. At the same time, we require merchants to have appropriate controls to ensure Mastercard cards cannot be used for unlawful purchases, including illegal adult content.

This situation arose after a campaign by the Australian moralist campaign group, Collective Shout pressurised game platforms to block games referencing  rape and incest.

Game developers argue that the refusal by payment providers to allow people to freely purchase blocked content amounts to censorship. After all, pornography is not illegal, and works that glorify sexual violence are already prohibited.

A string of bands have pulled out of a music festival hours before they were due to perform after Irish folk band The Mary Wallopers said that their mics were cut off for displaying a Palestinian flag.

The Last Dinner Party, Cliffords and The Academic announced on Saturday that they would no longer be performing at Portsmouth's Victorious festival.

The organisers, who initially claimed The Mary Wallopers had their set cut on Friday for using a discriminatory chant, have since issued an apology to the band. They also pledged to make a substantial donation to humanitarian relief efforts for the Palestinian people.

Rock band The Last Dinner Party said they were boycotting the festival saying that they were outraged by the decision made to silence The Mary Wallopers and accused the organisers of political censorship.

Following The Mary Wallopers' set, a spokesperson for Victorious said: We spoke to the artist before the performance regarding the festival's long-standing policy of not allowing flags of any kind at the event, but that we respect their right to express their views during the show.

The festival initially issued a misleading reason as to their actions but a video clearly showed a Victorious crew member coming on stage, removing the flag from the stage and then the sound being cut following a chant of 'Free Palestine.

As bands announced they would no longer perform at the festival, the organisers issued another statement describing The Mary Wallopers as a fantastic band, they said:

We didn't handle the explanation of our policies sensitively or far enough in advance to allow a sensible conclusion to be reached.

This put the band and our own team in a difficult situation which never should have arisen. We would like to sincerely apologise to all concerned.

We absolutely support the right of artists to freely express their views from the stage, within the law and the inclusive nature of the event. Our policy of not allowing flags of any kind, which has been in place for many years for wider event management and safety reasons, is not meant to compromise that right.

We accept that, although mics remained live for longer, sound for The Mary Wallopers' audience was cut as described in the band's video and that comments after that were not audible to the public.

It seems that Ofcom has reached an initial decision to fine the US forum and image sharing website £20,000 + a recurring daily fine for not complying with the UK's unilateral censorship laws.

It seems that Ofcom is attempting to fine the US based website, with no connection whatsoever to the UK beyond that it has readers there, for not submitting to Ofcom's onerous and burdonsome red tape requirements.

4chan has responded in a letter from its lawyers, Byrne and Storm:

4chan is incorporated in Delaware, has no assets or operations in the UK, and that any attempt to impose or enforce penalties will be resisted in U.S. federal court.

American businesses do not surrender their First Amendment rights because a foreign bureaucrat sends them an email. Under settled principles of U.S. law, American courts will not enforce foreign penal fines or censorship codes. If necessary, we will seek appropriate relief in U.S. federal court to confirm these principles. United States federal authorities have been briefed on this matter.

The Prime Minister, Sir Keir Starmer was reportedly warned by the White House to cease targeting American firms with UK censorship code.

Despite these warnings, Ofcom continues its illegal campaign of harassment against American technology firms. A political solution to this matter is urgently required and must come from the highest levels of American government. We call on the Trump Administration to invoke all diplomatic and legal levers available to protect American companies from extraterritorial censorship mandates.

Surely Ofcom's arrogant censorship overreach will surely unravel if 4chan win their case in the US courts. If UK censorship law ends up being restricted to companies with UK connections, then the red tape nightmare will be a massive competitive disadvantage to UK based firms forced to submit to the UK censorship nightmare.

 

Update: It seems Ofcom have announced intentions to fine Gab and Kiwi Farms too

24th August 2025. See article from theverge.com

It has been reported that Ofcom are minded to try and fine 4chan for crimes against UK morality, but it has now been reported that Ofcom also have gab and Kiwi Farms in their sights.

All of the sites are a bit toxic to UK woke sensibilities and maybe are pretty unpopular with US bigwigs too. So presumably it is Ofcom's strategy to target the most toxic of US sites perhaps in order to win their case with a few US judges that may feel that these three websites deserve a little censorship.

Surely this first battle with US courts will set massive precedents, whichever way the decision goes, so maybe it is a pretty shrewd tactic by the internet censors at Ofcom.