That unfortunately makes a lot of sense. Funny how scientifically sound proof porn is even really harmful to children is still missing. The only solidly proven aspects I am aware of are "body confidence issues" (as many normal ads and other content can create) and "unrealistic ideas about sex" (which parents need to take care of by explaining things to their kids). That is not enough to justify what these people are doing.

Naa, pedos will only be able to watch underage creators now!

It simply means that the local laws impose a lower age limit on exposure. And no, that does not make it any clearer, because there are countries where simple nudity is already completely illegal for everybody, so it is not "adult content". If you use somewhat sane western standards, you typically end up at explicit sex and that is essentially it. Violence and torture are considered fit for anybody to watch in most cultures, even if that is obviously not the case.

Note that "sex" is often not classified as "pornography" if it serves the context of a story (does not need to be a good story). And if you put in "rape", things get even more murky, as explicite sex in rape and rape itself are typically separate issues. And to make matters more complex, some countries only count vaginal penetration as sex, so anal sex might not be sex and anal rape might not be rape, but non-sexual assault.

So, not, it cannot be "anything". But what it can be is complex and depends on where you are and not all "adult content" is legal in all places. The only standards that are relatively universal are that explicit sex may not be depicted with people under 18 years old in it. But even that one is not clear. In some places, if is fine if the people are actually 18. In others it others they must not look like they are under 18. There are cases of porn-actresses that are over 18 and have their movies banned in some countries because they look underage and they lost in court.

Well, the main take-away is that any type of prudishness and backwards victorianism does not lead to good or consistent rules and does not improve society at all.

The way the attackers in this case are going makes it pretty clear they do not think they would have a good chance going the legal route. Of course, they could be wrong. I do not know a single one of the games that got removed from Steam, so I really have no idea. But they could also end up with a ton of egg on their faces. But the ting is, society should be governed by laws that are subject to democratic oversight, not by payment processors that very much are not.