A videogame had content removed because it doesn't respect a country's laws or mores. The principle is identical everywhere, only the ideological target changes. As an example Germany banned Command & Conquer: Generals in the early 2000s for depicting Iraq warfare during a politically sensitive moment. The EU bans "hate speech" games. China bans games "smearing China's image." Russia bans "extremism". It's the same state backed censorship mechanism, it is only when it is politically beneficial or when it becomes expedient (such as other nations who we treat as the enemy) it is deemed unacceptable.

The rubber law problem is the issue in all these cases: hate speech, extremism or whatever has no fixed definition. It expands when politically convenient, contracts when pressure shifts. Germany 2003: realistic warfare = too political, banned. Germany 2025: same content = acceptable. Russia's "extremism" law stretches to cover LGBTQ+ content, then anti-war speech, then opposition. The principle doesnt change. This article is not a libertarian "lets defend free speech" as much as a Western-centric activist publication.

You cannot logically claim "Russia's censorship is authoritarian oppression" while defending EU (or funnier, the UK authoritarian) hate speech laws as "democratic protection". Both are state-backed content suppression justified through protective rhetoric. The mechanism is identical. If censorship is legitimate when your preferred values are protected, you've simply chosen your censor, you haven't defended free speech.