Rodger Whitney| New Bern

I was wrong about censorship being just one step lower than murder. It is worse than murder.

The destruction of an idea or body of work that could potentially live for centuries is unacceptable. Now, those who would rewrite history, hide what we were, hide the attitudes that have brought us to this point in time so they do not have to look at the good, the bad and the ugly of humankind's existence have attacked Dr. Seuss.

Over time, attacks on Mark Twain and other classic writers as well as artists and statues have been tolerated. We cannot allow censorship, the greatest threat to a free America, to continue.

Whether by social media persuading people not to view or use products and images and books, or by the removal of artworks, statues or books from a library, Censorship threatens truth...and the ability to learn from the mistakes of the past.

Slavery was a mistake. It is a mistake that has existed with Whites owning Whites, Whites owning other races, Africans owning Africans...a mistake that continues now with sex trades and other equally bad situations. We cannot learn from these mistakes if we do not know them.

We cannot learn about our country if we do not know, acknowledge and understand the struggles of the Civil War, the good of those who tried to end domestic slavery.

We cannot learn about music, art, literature and freedom of the press if censorship is allowed.

Write or e-mail your state and federal legislators. Write and email the business giants that threaten free expression...and contact the publishers of Dr. Seuss and let them know that knuckling under pressure sends a very bad message.

A free country cannot be without uncensored free expression.

Rodger Whitney

New Bern

Link:

Letter to the editor: Censorship threatens the truth - New Bern Sun Journal

The English version of Final Fantasy Legend 2 on the Game Boy was forced to rename opium, so the localizers decided to switch it with bananas.

TheFinal Fantasyseries has had its fair share of censored content, but none are as strange as the banana smuggling operation fromFinal Fantasy Legend 2on the original Game Boy. The first six mainlineFinal Fantasygames were released on Nintendo systems, and they faced some strict content guidelines.

The first threeFinal Fantasygames were limited in the kinds of stories they could tell, due to the limitations of the NES' hardware and cartridges. Once the series reached the SNES era, Square Enix (then known as Squaresoft) was able to tell more expansive stories. The only problem was that Nintendo had strict rules for the games that appeared on its consoles, especially in the era when violence in video gameswas a hotly-debated topic. This was part of the reason why Square Enix brought theFinal Fantasyseries to PlayStation systems, as Sony let the company go further than it ever could before in regards to adult storytelling in games.

Related:Why Final Fantasy 12 Was Censored In Japan (But Not In The West)

The most common form of censorship theFinal Fantasyseries has faced is covering up bare skin, as well as recoloring blood effects, both of which make sense for games that are trying to avoid high age ratings. There is one bit of censorship from theFinal Fantasyseries that is completely ridiculous, and feels like an attempt by the localizers to make fun of a change that was imposed upon them.

InFinal Fantasy Legend 2on the Game Boy, the player can visit a town called Edo. It's here that they will encounter a banana smuggling ring, as well as people who are addicted to bananas. If this doesn't make any sense, it's because it was a purposely comedic localization. According toLegends of Localization,the people of Edo were supposed to be addicted to opium, but it was changed to bananas, likely due to Nintendo mandating that alcohol/drug references couldn't be made in its games. A similar change happened inPokmon RedandBlue, where the drunk old man in Viridian City was changed to needing a cup of coffee.

The jump to the PlayStation allowed Square Enix to make drug references in its games, asFinal Fantasy Tacticsincluded references to opium. The people who want to check out the banana smuggling operation can do so on the Nintendo Switch, asFinal Fantasy Legend 2is part of theCollection of SaGa Final Fantasy Legendset, along with the other two games in the series. All three of theFinal Fantasy Legend games are retro in terms of their gameplay design, and that also includes its localization, which comes from a time when drugs had to be switched with fruit.

Next:Did Final Fantasy 7's Aerith Secretly Debut In Final Fantasy 5?

Source: Legends of Localization

Palette-Swapped Mortal Kombat Ninja Colors MK Never Used

Scott has been writing for Screen Rant since 2016 and regularly contributes to The Gamer. He has previously written articles and video scripts for websites like Cracked, Dorkly, Topless Robot, and TopTenz. A graduate of Edge Hill University in the UK, Scott started out as a film student before moving into journalism. It turned out that wasting a childhood playing video games, reading comic books, and watching movies could be used for finding employment, regardless of what any career advisor might tell you. Scott specializes in gaming and has loved the medium since the early 90s when his first console was a ZX Spectrum that used to take 40 minutes to load a game from a tape cassette player to a black and white TV set. Scott now writes game reviews for Screen Rant and The Gamer, as well as news reports, opinion pieces, and game guides. He can be contacted on LinkedIn.

See the rest here:

The Final Fantasy Censorship That Turned Drugs Into Bananas, Explained - Screen Rant

Editor:

Is the City of Edmonds censoring speech?

Yesterday the city Facebook page posted a nice picture of the waterfront center. To which I commented:

Going to be lovely once they get that highrise hotel built nextdoor

Which drew a quick private message response from the city.

Just so you know, no highrise commercial building of any kind is allowed on the waterfront. The Council simply added hotel to the existing list of the many commercial uses allowed in that zone (including offices, restaurants, retail, marine-oriented uses, etc.), all of which are limited to a maximum of 30 in height.

Seemed strange they didnt respond on the page. Another person had also made a comment to which they received a private message. He responded on the Facebook page that he was not interested in a private conversation and wished to continue on the public page. Some reasonable back and forth went on between the city, me and the other person, which has since been deleted. This is one of them from the city I was able to save before it was deleted:

Jim Fairchild We encourage and allow comments directly related to our posts. We do not wish to hide comments, but do so when they are off-topic or for other reasons listed in our About section.

I was able to save one of my two replies before it was deleted:

City of Edmonds Community and Government fair enough but the counsel just voted to allow hotels in that area or transformation of existing structures. First step. So I feel it is relevant. Feel free to block me or remove my comments it is what I would expect you to do in your attempt to limit free speech.

This is the last private message received from the city.

The first usage policy for the Citys FB page is this: 1. Is not topically related to the particular City-posted content or does not contribute to the intent of the posted content. Your statement about highrise hotels is both inaccurate and noncontributory to the intent of the post simply to showcase the new Waterfront Center.

To which I replied.

Again please feel free to block me or delete my post if you dont think it is appropriate I disagree.

How is my thought of the waterfront center being lovely with a potential future highrise next to it inaccurate or noncontributory?

I think my original comment is still up. But all the other comments including all from the other person have been deleted.

I can only conclude that the city only wants favorable comments and is unwilling to offer a space for reasonable discourse which is in violation of the first amendment. The city either needs to allow reasonable civil discourse or turn off the ability to comment.

I think a public apology is in order from the city. But I doubt it will be forthcoming.

Jim FairchildEdmonds

See the original post:

Letter to the editor: Censorship on the city's Facebook page? - My Edmonds News

Reflections on U.S. Rep. Jan Schakowsky's determination to censor Mary Miller's comments invoking Adolf Hitler's name to make a point, that the later was "right on one thing: whoever has the youth has the future."

A classical definition of evil is that it is the perversion of good, much like rust on metal. It cannot exist without being a leach, has to have something wholesome to hook itself onto in order to twist. Thus, an evil person has to have attributes of goodness (power, intellect, position) in order to even exist and do damage to self and others. In Western tradition, the devil was said to have incredible attributes that he uses for destructive ends. Similarly for the villain Adolf Hitler: What he said was right insofar as it went, as many other writers have said the same truism using slightly different phrasing.

Ought not Ms. Schakowsky assume the high road and give respect to another in one's stated profession? Doubly so for a first-year elected official? How would Ms. Schakowsky like it if a professional linguist or philosopher parsed her mistakes with razor-sharp accuracy for the times she has erroneously overstated something in the past?

Adolf Hitler's evil regime hurt a huge swath of humanity. But so did Josef Stalin and others. Are all evil persons hereby off-limits to quote in order to press home a point? Just where does Ms. Schakowsky's censorship end? Had Ms. Miller quoted Stalin, would she be just as irate?

Lastly, the chilling effects of government officials censoring others when the latter are making a point is quite scary. As in the medical field, a doctor's unintended therapy's bad consequences can overtake the very good that was intended.

Norman Suire

Elgin

Go here to read the rest:

Chilling trend toward censorship - Chicago Daily Herald

A "free speech champion" could be appointed to fight "unacceptable silencing and censoring" at universities under plans put forward by the education secretary.

The person would investigate potential infringements, such as no-platforming speakers or dismissal of academics.

Gavin Williamson's other proposed measures to protect free speech on university campuses include:

Mr Williamson said: "Free speech underpins our democratic society and our universities have a long and proud history of being places where students and academics can express themselves freely, challenge views and cultivate an open mind.

"But I am deeply worried about the chilling effect on campuses of unacceptable silencing and censoring.

"That is why we must strengthen free speech in higher education, by bolstering the existing legal duties and ensuring strong, robust action is taken if these are breached."

The responses from those in the education sector were mixed.

University and College Union general secretary Jo Grady said: "It is extraordinary that in the midst of a global pandemic the government appears more interested in fighting phantom threats to free speech than taking action to contain the real and present danger which the virus poses to staff and students.

"In reality the biggest threats to academic freedom and free speech come not from staff and students, or from so-called 'cancel culture', but from ministers' own attempts to police what can and cannot be said on campus, and a failure to get to grips with the endemic job insecurity and managerialist approaches which mean academics are less able to speak truth to power."

Hillary Gyebi-Ababio, vice president for higher education at the National Union of Students, said: "There is no evidence of a freedom of expression crisis on campus, and students' unions are constantly taking positive steps to help facilitate the thousands of events that take place each year."

She added: "We recognise this announcement as an opportunity for us to prove once and for all that there is not an extensive problem with freedom of expression across higher education."

The so-called culture war has been bubbling for some time.

As far back as 2018, an official report showed that unpopular and controversial ideas were being opposed or discouraged on campuses across the UK.

The Joint Committee on Human Rights study found numerous attempts at many different locations to shut down such debates rather than confront them.

Tory MP Jacob Rees-Mogg was at the centre of a fracas in Bristol in February 2018 as he tried to address University of West England politics and international relations students.

Masked protesters hurled abuse at him and tried to disrupt the event before being removed by security.

At the end of last year, Cambridge University also entered the fray after proposals requiring staff and students to be "respectful" of differing views under a freedom of speech policy were overwhelmingly rejected.

The governing body said it would instead emphasise "tolerance" of differing views. Cambridge alumni including Stephen Fry had been among those who had opposed elements of the new policy, which the actor and writer had described as "muddled".

A Universities UK spokeswoman said: "There are already significant legal duties placed on universities to uphold freedom of speech and universities are required to have a code of practice on free speech and to update this regularly."

Nicola Dandridge, chief executive of the Office for Students, said: "Free speech and academic freedom are essential to teaching and research. Universities and colleges have legal duties to protect both free speech and academic freedom, and their compliance with these responsibilities forms an important part of their conditions of registration with the OfS.

"We will ensure that the changes that result from today's proposals reinforce these responsibilities and embed the widest definition of free speech within the law."

Link:

'Free speech champion' among proposals to fight 'silencing and censoring' in universities - Sky News

One of the main missions of DW is to advocate for freedom of expression and free access to information around the world. One of the growing threats to these tenets is internet censorship. Countries are increasingly blocking access to news sites like DW that provide reliable information and social media platforms that foster dialogue.

In order to allow users in these countries access to DW and other blocked content, DW has been working with Psiphon, a commercial provider in Canada, to create censorship-bypass tools for the needs of free media.

Psiphon offers apps and computer programs that offer different censorship-avoidance mechanisms and utilize a variety of servers, proxy servers and VPN technologies. DW now offers different means for users to utilize Psiphon technology to access content that has been censored.

Since 2020, Psiphon software has been integrated into the DW app for iOS and Android and makes DW content available in countries with limited internet access. With a click of a button, users in Iran and China where DW is blocked can access DW content by activating the Proxy setting in the app.

To do so, click on the menu button at the top left of the DW app, click on "Proxy" and then click on "Activate Proxy" (see image).

Users will find the Activate Proxy button by clicking on the Proxy setting

Please be aware that the proxy uses various technologies that may affect the apps loading speed and that the use of the proxy may violate laws in some countries. The DW app can be downloaded from the Apple App Store (iOS) or the Google Play Store (Android).

Download the DW app.

It is becoming more common for governments to block social media platforms such as Twitter, Facebook and other sites as a means of stifling expression. DW has also been working with Psiphon to provide a tool for access to other content and platforms that are being blocked by internet censors.

For a download link, send a blank email to dw-w@psiphon3.com

If you are experiencing such problems, consider using thePsiphonapp. To add the app to your phone (iOS/Android) or desktop, send an email to dw-w@psiphon3.com for a download link. If you use Psiphon via DW, you will first be redirected to DW's website. From there, you can continue onward to any other website.

The rest is here:

Using DW and Psiphon to circumvent internet censorship - Deutsche Welle

Much has been made by the government that web companies should comply with any order they recieve. In fact, under the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, ensuring the protection of human rights requires firms to ensure that their operations do not result in knowing and preventable infringement of rights.

The UN's Special Rapporteurs on Freedom of Expression have also emphasised that web platforms should review the government orders they receive and ensure that measures are lawful, including being necessary and proportionate, before censoring online speech.

And as any news sector business in India would tell you, there are directives received from a range of government agencies that require narrowing and push-back all the time some of which end up as court cases. So why should the situation be so different for online content?

At the minimum, if any of this goes into litigation as a bye-product of the Union governments dispute with Twitter, then there is good ground that the courts should reconsider the initial hope they placed in the governments restraint, in their earlier Shreya Singhal ruling.

But perhaps at a larger level, we need to ask our elected lawmakers and public officials why web censorship orders should be regarded as acceptable in the Indian republic.

If we do believe that these troubling powers might be needed in truly exceptional circumstances, then we need to ensure they are wielded not by bureaucrats beholden to the government, but by judges and in a manner that is transparent and accountable to Parliament. And indeed, their use should be absolutely exceptional not a regular occasion several times in the year.

(Raman Jit Singh Chima is Policy Director at Access Now, an international digital rights advocacy and policy group, and a co-founder of the Internet Freedom Foundation. This is an opinion piece and the views expressed above are the authors own. The Quint neither endorses nor is responsible for them.)

(The Quint is available on Telegram. For handpicked stories every day, subscribe to us on Telegram)

Read more:

Why Indias Web Censorship Regime is Rotten & Needs Urgent Reform - The Quint

Scrolling through images of the white nationalists who overran the US Capitol last month, I was horrified, if not entirely surprised, to see so much flagrant Nazi paraphenelia. One man wore a sweatshirt reading Camp Auschwitz; another wore a T-shirt printed with the slogan 6MWE, which stands for 6 million wasnt enough, referring to the number of Jews murdered in the Holocaust. Theres no denying Trumps presidency stoked a profound resurgence of antisemitism in this country. Even with a new administration in Washington, antisemitism remains a real and growing threat in America, and the world.

A broad coalition of progressive organizations, activists, and faith communities are working to dismantle antisemitism along with all other forms of racism and oppression. I was incredibly moved by the Muslim communities that lovingly guarded synagogues in a circle of protection and raised money to repair vandalized Jewish cemeteries. Im heartened by those who do the work of rejecting racist politicians who rely on division and fear for their political power. Over and over, its been made clear: we are not alone in this struggle.

But not everyone claiming to work against antisemitism has Jewish safety at heart.

The Israeli government and its rightwing allies are using this moment to double down on their campaign to equate all forms of anti-Zionism the moral, political or religiously based opposition to an ethnic Jewish nation-state in historic Palestine with antisemitism. This is not a sincere attempt to end anti-Jewish bigotry and violence. It is a breathtakingly cynical gambit to limit our ability to hold Israel accountable for its ongoing human rights abuses against Palestinians. And Facebook might take the bait.

In response to pressure from the Israeli government and its supporters, Facebook is currently reaching out to stakeholders to ask if criticizing Zionists falls within the rubric of hate speech per Facebooks community standards. In particular, Facebook is weighing whether Zionist should be considered a proxy for Jew or Israeli.

Facebooks hate speech policy prohibits attacks based on protected characteristics including race, nationality and sexual orientation. Political ideologies, like capitalism, socialism or Zionism are not protected. But if Facebook names Zionist a proxy for Jew or Israeli, Zionism would become a de facto protected category, which would have far-reaching and dangerous ramifications for Palestinians and Jews.

Under this policy, valid attempts to hold the state of Israel accountable through constitutionally protected political speech could be labeled as hate speech and removed from the platform. Palestinians would be prevented from using Facebook like everyone else to talk about their daily experiences, histories and lives because their realities are shaped by Zionist apartheid policy. This policy would censor Palestinian speech, discriminate against Palestinians as a class, and silence nuanced conversation about Zionism.

The discriminatory implications for Palestinians are more than reason enough to reject this policy. But theres another important reason to denounce it. To conflate Zionism with all Jews many of whom are anti-Zionists struggling alongside Palestinians for their freedom and equality is itself a harmful assumption. It is premised on the antisemitic notion that Jews are uniform in our beliefs and political commitments. Even worse, it suggests that all Jews, in America and elsewhere around the world, are fundamentally loyal to a foreign government, and that the real home for all Jews is Israel playing into the vile notion that we are unable to fully become part of the societies we inhabit, that we do not truly belong in our home countries and communities.

This troubling move by Facebook is part of a much larger trend. The tech giants definition of antisemitism takes cues from the working definition formulated by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA), which conflates antisemitism with all forms of anti-Zionism, including boycott and divestment campaigns in support of Palestinian freedom and human rights. While Facebook claims that its current policy is narrower in scope than IHRA, its COO, Sheryl Sandberg, is on record with Adam Milstein a leading proponent of IHRA and rightwing donor who is so extreme, even Aipac distanced itself from him saying that IHRA has guided Facebooks approach, and that their policy indeed goes even further than the IHRA definition.

Any definition of antisemitism that includes anti-Zionism would threaten scholarly inquiry, constitutionally protected political speech, and the ability of non-profits to support projects in and for Palestine, as many human rights defenders, free speech advocates, and academics have publicly stated. This danger isnt theoretical the IHRA definition has already been wielded in attempts to shut down educational events and cancel university classes. Legislators have attempted to codify it into law; a few have attempted to attach criminal penalties to the simple act of speaking out against Israeli apartheid. This definition is becoming a favorite among Christian Zionists, including the former secretary of state Mike Pompeo, who believe that Israels occupation of Palestinian land will hasten the second coming of Christ, at which point Jews must convert to Christianity or die. Theres hardly a more antisemitic idea than that, and its shared by at least 10 million Christian Zionists in the US.

Its imperative that we dismantle antisemitism in all its manifestations, but conflating Zionism with the Jewish people only entrenches it. Facebook should not allow governments to blur the lines between hate speech and political speech, and it must prioritize revisiting existing policies that disproportionately censor Palestinians and other marginalized voices posting about their experiences of racism and state violence. We must all be able to talk about our lives and the issues that are most important to us, while never losing sight of the fact that Palestinians and Jews deserve safety wherever we are.

See the original post here:

Facebook might censor criticism of Zionists. Thats dangerous - The Guardian

When I think of important topics to discuss, politically and socially, I think of censorship especially reflecting on its endless ability to generate controversy.

Can censorship be too much or too little? For me, it really depends.

Is censoring people and content on social media outlets going to be beneficial in the long run?

I am not one to condone violence, and I think extreme and violent hate speech should not be permitted on social media platforms.

Even though I agree with the First Amendment and understand that censorship can be contradictory to that, I think it is important to censor unnecessarily threatening speech on social media.

While we cannot censor all hate speech, because it is a protected right, there are times where I think that speech can go too far.

Radical speech that I believe deserved censorship could be seen through the recent ban on former President Donald Trump from a variety of social media platforms, including Twitter, Facebook and Instagram, due to his involvement in the Capitol riots.

Right-winged supporters of Trump thought those bans were a violation of the First Amendment.

This is simply not true because social media platforms can censor whoever they please and there is not a limit. These social media platforms are private companies, making decisions of their own free will.

Social media platforms are not owned by the government, and there is no law that prevents these platforms from regulating their content. A Twitter account is not a First Amendment right.

According to USA Today, advocacy groups called for Marjorie Taylor Greene a recently elected Republican representative from Georgia who has been a controversial figure lately to be removed from Facebook for telling dangerous lies.

Civil rights and other advocacy groups told Facebook in a statement that it allowed Greene to exploit its platform for many years without taking any action.

Greene has made many controversial remarks on social media, including that the Sept. 11 attacks were all a hoax.

The Georgia representative also liked many controversial remarks on Facebook and has worn facemasks that said Trump Won and Free Speech.

Even though the House of Representatives voted to have Greene stripped of her committee assignments, how does that prevent her from spreading misinformation?

Greene was temporarily suspended from Twitter but did that help anything? While she may have different political views than me, I think the lies she has spread through tweets and other social media platforms need to be removed because I believe her statements can be threatening and dangerous.

But is it necessary to censor everything? What should actually be censored and what is unnecessary?

Being censored isnt what we grew up on, but it was kind of forced upon us due to radical speech in the age of social media. While I agree that everyone's opinions are valid, some things said online are offensive and violent that they need to be censored.

The recent statement released by Penn States Black Caucus about the Zoom bombing during the spring Involvement Fair said anti-Semitic and white supremacist language was used as well as racial and homophobic slurs.

Penn State officials have condemned the Zoom bombing and an investigation is still ongoing. But does taking action against these criminals prevent anything from happening in the future?

According to Black Caucuss statement, these kinds of hateful attacks happen all the time in real life and online. Even though incidents like these have happened before and are still going on today, how can we aim for somewhat of a resolution?

I genuinely believe the Zoom bombing incident was disgusting, and while Penn State could not have anticipated it happening, I am glad there is an investigation that will hopefully bring those criminals to justice.

We can prevent some of these things from happening with a bit of censorship.

I dont think censoring everything is the answer to the worlds problems, but censoring violent, dangerous and discriminatory speech even though it is a right is the next step for productive politics and our social wellbeing as a whole.

If you're interested in submitting a Letter to the Editor, click here.

See original here:

Why I think censorship is important in the age of social media | Column - The Daily Collegian Online

The lovable bear was heavily censored in one version of Kingdom Hearts 3, leaving some fans with lingering questions.

WhenKingdom Hearts 3 launched in January of 2019, it finally gave fans the chance to continue the story of Sora and the assortment of Disney characters by his side. The game introduced a number of Disney and Pixar properties that hadn't been touched on in previous installments, including Big Hero 6,Toy Story, andFrozen. The series as a whole is largely family friendly, combining the talents of Square Enix and Disney into one franchise, but there was one aspect ofKingdom Hearts 3that didn't sit well with the government of one particular country.

In the Chinese release ofKingdom Hearts 3, Winnie the Pooh was completely censored. In every on-screen appearance that the honey-loving bear made, he was covered by a massive white blot that blocked everything but the bear's feet. After the trailer for the Hundred Acre Wood section of the game was revealed, screenshots of this censorship were made public through social media. Instead of just removing the character from the game, which likely would have delayed theKingdom Hearts 3 more than it already was, it looked as if he was just painted over like a stain on a wall. This confused a lot of people in the west when the change was discovered,but Chinese censorship isn't new.

RELATED: Kingdom Hearts' Sheltering Zones Teach the Importance of Magic in the Series

Winnie the Pooh's censorship in China was a decision made by the government to prevent what it viewed as potential instability within the country.Kingdom Hearts 3 was not the first time the lovable bear had been banned from Chinese media, as the character has been a source of contention for quite some time now. The issues around the character began when Chinese citizens began likening Winnie the Pooh to Chinese president Xi Jinping. The comparisons began as a meme all the way back in 2013, when the Chinese president was pictured in a meeting with then-U.S. president Barack Obama.

While some people saw these comparisons as a point of mild amusement, many people in China that object to the rule of president Xi Jinping took the meme and expanded it immensely. Soon there were all kinds of images online comparing Winnie the Pooh with the Chinese president, some of them even photoshopping the president's face directly on to the character. It became one of many forms of protest for some citizens, but it didn't go ignored for long. The Chinese governmenttook exception to these memes and outright banned any depictions of Winnie the Pooh in Chinese media.

Chinese law sees this type of censorship across all mediums, including film and television. The 2018 filmChristopher Robin that starred Ewan McGregor and Hayley Atwell was completely banned in the country because of the stuffed-animal depiction of Winnie the Pooh, andany posts on social media that contain the character have been swiftly removed since this form of opposition began.

RELATED: Kingdom Hearts' Invisible Heartless Are an Odd Omission from Future Games

The video game industry has been subject to China's various bans on different forms of entertainment for years. It wasn't until the last console generation that the country allowed foreign video game consoles to be sold in stores, and even when it became legal, it was with some major caveats. Many aspects of the consoles sold in China are different from the ones sold in other parts of the world. The consoles are usually region-locked, meaning that only games approved by the Chinese government can be bought through online stores and played on Chinese servers.

Because of the amount of time that it takes to place these censors on consoles, this also means that China gets access to new hardware much later than most of the world does. It wasn't until a couple of years ago that a heavily censored version of the Switch released in the country, and Sony just recently announced that the PS5 would be coming to China sometime this year.

Games other thanKingdom Hearts 3have also been subject to heavy censorship in the country so that they can access the Chinese market. Back in 2018,Rainbow Six Siege attempted to introduce changes to some of the game's visuals so that it could sell in China. Instead of creating a version of the game specifically for China, however, the developer decided to changethe visuals in the game for everyone, and the controversy surrounding the decision was staggering. The censorship was changed soon after, and no additional forms of censorship for the game have been announced ever since.

Industry titanFortnite has also been subject to China's rules on censorship, in some cases changing how the game is even played. Instead of games always having one definitive winner, as long as a player survives for twenty minutes, they are crowned victorious along with anyone else that has survived for that long. The Chinese version ofFortnite also has changes for many of the game's skins, especially those that depict skeletons in one way or another as they go against China's censors. These are likely a small price to pay for the game's developer, however, as some mild changes to the game means that one of the largest video game markets in the world gets to access it.

ForKingdom Hearts 3, Winnie the Pooh's censorship was likely a small sacrifice to make so that the game could reach a wider audience. The immensity of the Chinese market cannot be overstated, and when there's money to be made, some companies are willing to make the necessary adjustments. With speculation on aKingdom Hearts 4 ramping up, it'll be interesting to see how the franchise juggles this moving forward.

Kingdom Hearts 3is available now for PS4 and Xbox One, and will be available on PC starting March 30th.

MORE: 5 Old Video Games That Have Aged Incredibly Well

All the Mass Effect 1 Changes in the Legendary Edition

Read more:

Kingdom Hearts 3: The Censorship of Winnie the Pooh Explained - GameRant