You Can't Have "a Little" Censorship

Content warning: discussions of sexual themes and sexual content, minor allusions to CSAM, discussions of human trafficking, racism, queer- and transphobia.

To begin, what is "censorship," exactly? In the format we're concerned with, there are two main definitions:

The use of state or group power to control freedom of expression, such as passing laws to prevent media from being published or propagated. (American Heritage Dictionary, 5th ed.)

And:

Counterintelligence achieved by banning or deleting any information of value to the enemy. (ibid.)

Let's exercise some critical thinking skills while we journey back to 2016... D. Trump is elected President of the states on a platform that, at its core, seeks a return to the nuclear family, "traditional" gender roles, a disdain for political "correctness," xenophobia, you name it. Trump essentially sought to reverse every single civil right that had been hard-won (and some that were never officially ratified, such as Roe v. Wade) by several activist groups. And because not many people initially took his ideological standpoint seriously - including fellow politicians - he achieved those initial goals. If you've been here the whole time, watching the trainwreck, I do not need to explain this to you.

However, his initial campaign and the way that the Overton Window shifted during even the first two years of his first term paved the way for more and worse changes. It also emboldened Nationalist, Evangelist Christian, and other far-right ideology that proliferates to this very day in 2026. Ten years have passed (with four being under the not-so careful eye of Biden, but this isn't about how Biden fumbled the COVID-19 response) with a rise of the new censorship, and it's time to take a look back on how we got to this state.

Overton Window: the range of subjects and arguments politically acceptable to the mainstream population at a given time. (Giridharadas, A.; How America's Elites Lost Their Grip)

FOSTA-SESTA/KOSA:

What is the first thing that you think of when you hear the word "puritanical"? For me, I imagine women with pinafore dresses whose hemlines hit at the ankle, neat lace-up black boots, bonnets, petticoats... The list goes on. Puritanical dress means modesty, and it implies an ultra strict religious overtone. Something that would never be allowed in a puritanical society would be a woman (or a non-man) having the autonomy to exchange sexual services for money, much less expose themself in a semi-public space.

"Exposure" isn't really the vehicle we must focus on here, the key word is actually "autonomy." For those of us who do sex work, have done sex work, will do sex work; and whether it's survival sex work or simply because it is work and it pays the bills: autonomy and safety is what makes it possible.

So, of course, attacking sex workers is one of the first things that the Trump administration did.

FOSTA/SESTA is an amendment to article 230 of the Communications Decency Act (1996). It stands for "Fight Online Sex Trafficking Act" and "Stop Enabling Sex Traffickers Act," respectively. The key context that we all know already is the onset of online sex work (which took place as early as the 2000s, but reached more mainstream prominence in the early 2010s), and how it provided a lot of sex workers with a safer way to conduct business without some of the common risks that come with practicing sex work. Of course, there are risks with all work, and online sex work still carries a degree of it. Sex trafficking is a real risk, and this section does not discount that.

On the other hand, banning sexual content and online sex work because it "promotes prostitution" does not lessen the risk of sex trafficking. In fact, not extending protections to sex workers is actually detrimental to life - because there is no way to seek justice in the case that your rights as a worker are not protected. As a result of FOSTA/SESTA being signed into law in 2018, many sex workers lost the right (and the opportunity) to screen clients, advertise, and promote their content safely. They essentially lost their autonomy.

For the rest of us who do not engage in sex work (it doesn't mean you should not care about everything above), the internet got just a little bit more censored. If you as an average internet user were not at risk of being shadowbanned (or actually having your account(s) terminated) before for posting even the lightest "sexual" content, you were left vulnerable after FOSTA/SESTA was signed into law. To put it bluntly, and in the most good-faith way possible: the political leader whom was so concerned about "protecting free speech" turned around and began attacking the same free speech protections that groups he deemed unworthy also enjoyed.

Editor's note: Further undermining the rights of sex workers, women and people with uteruses was to overturn Roe v. Wade (2022), which was never ratified by the United States government. Though this particular blog post is not focused on Roe v. Wade nor the effects of overturning it, it bears mentioning that this action served to further the ideological standpoint that D. Trump initially established: anyone who is a sex worker, woman, or a person whom can bear children doesn't deserve bodily autonomy.

That began to move from sex workers, to racialized folks (most specifically Black individuals), to transgender folks, to non-transgender queer folks, to... kids?

Children have almost never been a protected class of persons, and as persons who do not enjoy the same autonomy as adults do, of course the content that they are allowed to engage with on the internet must be decided by out-of-touch adults behind closed doors. KOSA (Kids Online Safety and Privacy Act) passed in the US Senate in July 2024. It has, at the time of writing, not been signed into law.

KOSA seeks to amend what content that children can engage with in online spaces, and it unfortunately has bipartisan support (in fact, Biden was a big proponent of the amendment moving along in Congress). What does that actually mean, though? Well, it means that whatever the current administration deems unsavoury to kids, that is what will be censored or require age verification. The specific definitions leave much to be desired legally: "harm to minors." That could literally mean anything, whether it's how to make napalm (Actually harmful! Not for kids!) or how to bind safely, how to come out to one's parents, how to begin gender transition, how to become legally estranged as a minor... Do you see what I mean?

Within the context of all of the above, and all that's to come below, KOSA and its legal definitions of safety for children are about the shittiest thing to happen to children's rights in recent memory. Like with FOSTA/SESTA, the actual goal is to reduce the autonomy of children, especially in online spaces - spaces where children often feel is a safe escape and an opportunity to express oneself.

That is not to say the wild-west internet of the early 2000s was particularly better for children or safe. Having grown up in the very same era, and having watched the evolution of the the ways in which children are exploited, I also do not necessarily think that it has gotten much better. However, in terms of internet safety, the best place for a child to learn it is by being provided education and empowerment by an adult or older person that they can actually trust.

Not the government. To boot, while the US Congress was having such a public meltdown about children's safety, other regions (namely the UK) began to follow suit with their own children's internet safety laws.

Paypros & "Ideological" Content:

In more recent years and months, the average internet user has seen an uptick in content bans, shadow bans, account terminations because several legislative bodies (and some who are not technically legislative bodies, but fancy themselves to be) are jumping on the censorship train. Canada and Iceland are the two countries that have the fewest censorship laws when it comes to the internet, but the problem then lies with the US, and all of the companies that are based there who want a piece of the censorship pie.

Even if you are Canadian or an Icelander, if you are accessing an American (or now, a British) website or service, you are subject to at least a few of these newfangled internet censorship laws. It's unfortunately all there in the terms of service and/or the EULA. Seeing as how very few of us (myself included) tend to actually read those word-for-word, it's also very easy to hand over your autonomy and free speech in those circumstances.

The first issue here is those "legislative bodies" I mentioned above. Obviously, the first one to be concerned about is the governing administration of your country. The second is any company who operates or originates within that country. This includes, drumroll please, credit card companies, money/e-transfer services, banks, etc. Any good, product, or service where money changes hands in exchange for a good, product or service. All of those companies fancy themselves legislative bodies because of course, they have to operate under current laws and regulations to keep making a profit off of you, their client base. Here's the kicker: that includes the service you buy video games from, your internet provider, and so, so much more.

Now, what trend are we noticing most often in online spaces, especially online spaces concerned with arts and culture? Fandoms live there. Huge fan spaces where people often exchange money for artwork(s) of their favourite character, an original character, oneself, a fursona, you name it! Huge fan spaces that are often safe places for marginalized people to express themselves and simply exist. But what is the trend we are noticing? I'll give you a second to think. Remember what I said before?

Whatever the current administration deems unsavoury [...]

Ring the bell, because you got the correct answer. "Ideological" content that does not fit in the current administration's perspective of what is safe to expose children to, or the wider public. Which brings me to the second issue: these laws are not being passed without bias. There is a culturally Christian, nationalist (and I would go so far as to say fascist, though some may not agree), White, cissexist, heteronormative bias to the laws that are being passed, because unfortunately, these things do not happen in a vacuum. The social context of a thing usually, if not always, determines the outcome of said thing.

You only need to go so far as to check which voices on the internet are being silenced, whom is having their account terminated, whom the paypros are targeting in their crackdown of "sexual" content sharing, and indeed, what we even determine is "sexual" or "explicit" content. Is it "torture porn," or is it two queer characters enjoying a kiss? We've seen this film before, folks. And beyond that? The AI automods do not discriminate between these two types of content. And nobody wins when one's livelihood is targeted because of paypros submitting to asinine legislation without a second thought.

That is why we cannot tolerate even a little bit of censorship; because the goalposts tend to move so often and so far, that anything a little weird can get you in a vat of shit.

What do we do?:

I do not think there is one kind and concise answer to this question, and I am simply one person with one limited opinion. Here are some suggestions though:

Educating and empowering children to know what content they are engaging with online, and setting healthy restrictions for internet usage. Beyond that? Letting children have their private spaces and autonomy.
Allowing sex workers self-determination when it comes to how they conduct their work and their business.
This is much harder, and requires several steps: reversing the current content laws and not allowing them to proliferate further. Restoring net neutrality.
Protesting at every stage you can, in any way you can.
Educating yourself! What are censorship laws like in your country? Are you happy with them or not?
In terms of social media specifically: This one is fraught and complex as well, and has several sides and opinions. Forcing a platform to contend with what you post, rather than allowing them to dictate what you post is the opinion I personally hold. If your presence must continue on a certain platform, especially if your livelihood is tied to your presence, then make it hell for that administration. (One example in recent memory is the utter backlash on Bluesky for censoring non-sexual nudity.) Self-hosting or hosting with a website that has not yet succumbed to the US or UK governments is another option if you are willing to move (or at least keep an archive of your work).
That being said, if you are organizing a commission with an artist, for example, and you know that they must accept payment through a company that is currently succumbing to censorship laws, do not say or do anything that will alert that company to said activities and potentially get the artist in trouble.
Keep in community with people who are the primary targets of censorship online, including sex workers, BIPOC and non-Black/non-Indigenous POC, diasporic folks, queer folks, transgender folks, women and non-men, etc. Remind yourself that if you are not one of these affected groups, that you must fight for them and with them.
Remember that censorship has evolved to fit with the times. People who are targets of censorship online are often, if not always, targets of censorship offline as well. Take your activism offline to match. Because this extends to other forms of media as well, it's likely already happening in your local library or school district.
In keeping with the above point: educate yourself on, read, and distribute banned books.