Tonight at 7 pm Central/8 pm Eastern, there is a free workshop/training to help people learn how to make book résumés for highly targeted books. These would then go on the Unite Against Book Bans website.

Quote from the UABB website on what a Book Resume is:

Book Résumés help teachers, librarians, parents, and community members defend books from censorship. They detail each title’s significance and educational value and are easy to share with administrators, book review committees, elected officials, and board members.

Their goal is to create a process for sourcing these résumés from the community because the ALA cannot keep up with demand (and is drowning with budget cuts).

The registration link for the training is here:
https://givebutter.com/R0SVw9

I figure that for each new story that hits a site like Reuters, theres at least a few that don't get chosen, hitting the editing floor so to speak (like scenes of a film falling to the editing room floor). Doe anyone know where these might be reported?

Like, an rss feed of some editor somewhere that lists the stories they passed over.

I’m jumping off of the controversy about the release of Harper Lee’s Go Set a Watchman mentioned here.

Regarding the question: it means that something stood in the way of that particular book “getting out” but, for better or for worse, it did. This could be the author’s direct wishes, government or publisher censorship, it being found or leaked, etc.

• What are some of those books?
• Are they worth looking into?
• Does the fact that we weren’t “supposed” to read them change how we understand or appreciate them?
• If the author themself didn’t want their works published (such as Kafka), what do we have to take into account when deciding to go against those wishes?
• What do we gain/lose by respecting/ignoring those wishes?

Also, I’m open to answers that involve parts of books rather than the whole books themselves, since I know there are many books out there that were partially censored or edited and have since been restored.

Something I have been thinking about lately is how sexual content online seems to be proliferated and normalized much more than it used to be. I'll give a couple of examples.

While I do not use the big social media sites (Instagram, Facebook, TikTok) very often, I've seen questionable content while others are scrolling, as well as conversations both online and offline with others who do use them. Nearly all of these sites contain profiles of people who are primarily there to market an OnlyFans account or similar. And these profiles are pushed to various demographics, seemingly moreso to males.

Reddit has a very questionable history with this type of content. But outside of that, any subreddit that allows submission of photos of people will often include these models trying to promote themselves, and they frequently make it to the top of the subreddit. (Some reddit users make fun of this in subreddits such as r/UNBGBBIIVCHIDCTIICBG, which stands for "Upvoted Not Because Girl, But Because It Is Very Cool; However, I Do Concede That I Initially Clicked Because Girl").

Twitch is a livestreaming platform that primarily hosts streamers who are playing video games. Streaming other events or "just chatting" has grown in popularity, which I have no complaints about. But there has been a lot of controversy about sexual content on the platform. To address this to some degree, Twitch added a "Pools, Hot Tubs, and Beaches" category for people who are streaming in that specific context. But OnlyFans models do not stick to that category, and can easily be found in "Just Chatting." And I can personally say that regardless of how many times I select "Not Interested" on these streams, I continue to get suggestions for them.

Even generic chat applications (such as WhatsApp and Discord) are plagued with bot accounts that are either representative of an actual model or part of a scam, but in both cases, try to lure users in with sexual content.

I do want to say I have no issue with adult content when it is in the appropriate venue. Sites dedicated to pornography are completely fine for consenting adults. What I take issue with is how this content has expanded far beyond dedicated sites.

Society has reached a point where we hand off internet-connected devices to children at a very young age. Chromebooks are used in schools very early in education, and smartphones are given to kids early in life. It already seems to be common knowledge that social media use results in self-image issues in youth. These issues will likely be accelerated by social media not only showing a false image of how people live their lives but also the lengths they go to appear sexually appealing.

I'm not proposing some overreaching "save the children" censorship legislation is needed. But it's hard to imagine how this trend can be turned around. It produces a ton of clicks, which is all these user-posted content sites (and advertisers) care about. Is there anything that can be done, or is this just the new internet?

Thinking about the recent incident where the devs for Skullgirls (current devs, not original devs) went and changed a bunch of artwork and other content for the fighting game, which released in 2012 after being Kickstarted. Aside from removing the sexualized imagery of an underage character, probably a good call, what about the other things they've decided are in 'poor taste' in 2023?

Should we be going back and editing games, or even movies, tv shows, and books to reflect more modern sensibilities? Is a game like Skullgirls even worth preserving its original content?

My opinion is no, unless it's something that is now illegal, I don't really enjoy the precedent that's been set lately where we go back and correct past mistakes in media. However, I also see the argument about removing media that may encourage racist or sexist thinking or put down minorities, but is it useful to see the media as it was and see how far we've come? Is that useful enough? Should only the original creators make that decision?

Just thought this was interesting. Tag as desired.