this post was submitted on 25 Jun 2023
4 points (75.0% liked)

Lemmy NSFW

11894 readers
5 users here now

Updates about lemmynsfw.com

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Result

I'm not removing it. Not because the result of the poll is like that, but because I'm tired of being called a child abuser by people. Even if they are right or wrong. My apologies to those who think otherwise.


As you know, we've had a lot of drama about age in last days. And I'm so sorry to open a new one. I hope I don't use the wrong word this time :)

You can see current rules below, which suggested by @throwawayforratings@lemmynsfw.com in here.

  • 1: No sexual depictions of real people under the age of 18. Period.
  • 2: No sexual artwork of fictional characters who are canonically under the age of 18. (eg, Sailor Moon, Rei Ayanami, Lisa Simpson, etc.) This includes “aged up” versions of such characters.
  • 3: No sexual artwork of fictional characters who unambiguously appear under the age of 18, regardless of canonical age. This includes, but is not limited to, “3,000 year old dragon loli” type characters. The basis for this will be behavior and physical appearance. Admin/mod’s decision is final.
  • 4: Sexual artwork of fictional characters with no canonical age and ambiguously youthful appearance is allowed, at admin/mod’s discretion.

The problem is rule 2. In the current hentai communities, if we look at canonical age, it's around 30% underage. However, looking at the images, not all of these contents appear as underage. Check out some of the reports:

These characters are all canonically underage, but only last one (and maybe 3th) looks underage. This makes moderation difficult. Anyway, I wanted to ask everyone because I'm very indecisive about this. IDK how Reddit handled these.

Do you think we should remove the 2nd rule and examine it under the 3rd rule or should the rule remain?

https://strawpoll.com/ajnEOA2PBZW

Also we're looking for an admin

We are looking for someone who is especially knowledgeable about hentai, who can take care of this business regardless of the outcome of the decision. I sent an offer to @securitas@lemmynsfw.com regarding this. Looking for another admin too.

top 41 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] sfw@lemmynsfw.com 8 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Hot take: it's better to have a dedicated hentai instance hosted by someone else.

[–] gavi@lemmynsfw.com 3 points 1 year ago

I think this might be the best path to go with. Might be best to focus more on real life nsfw stuff, with drawn stuff secondary to alleviate the headache.

[–] Snowflake2901@lemmynsfw.com 6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Here's my issue. Where I am characters who are canonically under age depicted in a sexual manner, regardless of appearance, are considered child porn. If we get rid of rule two I will be deleting my account here immediately and seeking out naked fun times somewhere else where I don't have to worry about my presence on a server hosting what my jurisdiction considers child porn being considered damning.

Edit: accidentally said rule three instead of rule two

[–] paradox@lemmynsfw.com 5 points 1 year ago

It’s clear that this is a difficult issue. I think a lot of the controversy here is coming form the wording of the rules.

I think these rules set better standards while being much clearer and simpler to act upon:

  1. No sexual depictions of people (real or fictional) under the age of 18. Period.
  2. All sexual depictions of fictional characters must unambiguously appear as 18+.
  • Ambiguous depictions include but are not limited to:
    • “3,000 year old frozen in perpetual youth” type fictional characters
    • “Aged up, but not really” depictions of fictional characters who are below the age of 18 in their source material
  • The basis for ambiguous content will be behavior and physical appearance. Admin/mod’s decision is final.

These rules make it very clear that depictions of people, real or fictional, below the age of 18 is explicitly banned. They also give admins/mods a little more discretion on ambiguous content. Eg, “aged up” fictional characters that are very clearly depicted as adults (eg, 65 year old Lisa Simpson) can be allowed with these rules.

[–] iorale@lemmy.fmhy.ml 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I know this is over but let me add something:
If it's not illegal for the region your server is located, then there's no technical or legal problem; otherwise don't ask the community, just do what makes you feel comfortable, if another instance was created where some kind of content is problematic, then it's up to them to move it or defederate, not your problem.
People are never going to be happy, they will always find some reason to whine and cry when it comes to porn/hentai, their main reason being "legality" and "morality" but will browse piracy instances because that's completely legal, no gray area at all.

It's your instance and limiting it to what you think it's right it's enough, other instances with issues will defederate anyway because they want to be able to browse in public or with kids around them without the NSFW filter activated (because that makes fucking sense) so they don't miss all the gore, violence and graphic news the federation has to offer (because that's totally acceptable).
I'm all for making the communities as specific as possible so everyone can filter them out on their own, as the capable adults they are supposed to be (if they are not adults... well I'm sorry their parents don't care about them and allow them to do whatever).

All that said, the idea is not allowing content that seems underage, I think that's good enough and covers the "3000 y/o loli" type of content because if you try to please all the "good christian kids" who try to insult you into doing their bidding, you'll never be over with it and might as well close the whole instance; people just love throwing the "pedophile" insult at the first opportunity because they know it worries others of being labeled something they are not.

Make the rules as you see fitting, the community mods should be able to comply with them, make their own and enforce them; whatever the users want usually comes last because 90% of the time the user doesn't know what they want, they just know they want it, even if it goes against what one could expect in a NSFW place.
Don't be afraid of being defederated, right now it's a hot topic because Beehaw users learned they can and now everyone and their mother wants to defederate; just let them, when they isolate themselves they will be happy and so will be the rest of the federation.

[–] yay@lemmynsfw.com 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

If I am going to do everything on my own, then there is nothing differs here from other centralized platforms. Although everything would be cleaner with your way. I believe that I should not be provoked by people's words. I guess that's my problem.

[–] iorale@lemmy.fmhy.ml 3 points 1 year ago

I mean... in a sort of way it is centralized, just fragmented in small parts that talk to each other and we're being allowed to use them to interact; the community will always have opinions, maybe good or bad, but when they try to force an instance to become "theirs" without being the hosts, that's where I would draw the line.

And agreed with the later part, that's how they get to you.

[–] gavi@lemmynsfw.com 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I'm pretty knowledgeable about gay stuff, specifically gay art and gay characters prominent in gay art if that is something you need in of when it comes to admin-wise.

[–] yay@lemmynsfw.com 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Absolutely, if you want to help, of course I'd like you to join us. Can you pm me from Matrix? so I can add you to the group.

[–] pm_me_upshorts@lemmynsfw.com 3 points 1 year ago

Keep the rule.

If there's anything ambiguous, just remember that it's better to remove stuff that's not pedos content than leave stuff up that is.

[–] usernotfound@lemmynsfw.com 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Honestly, I'd keep canonical age out of it. For example, I don't know who the person in photo #2 is, but looks old enough to me. If it turns out that it's an "aged up version" of someone that's canonically 12... So what? In the picture they're not 12, and that's what counts.

So in my opinion 1, 3 and 5 look too young, while 2 and 4 are fine imho.

[–] usernotfound@lemmynsfw.com 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

~~If it were up to me, I'd drop Rule 2, but increase Rule 1 so that they look like at least clearly in their twenties.~~

Correction: Drop all the rules (who cares about the canonical age of a fictional character), and replace it with this one: only allow images of character that clearly look like they're over 18. In case of doubt, delete.

[–] StarNyte@lemmynsfw.com 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

have a vote

results are sitting at 75%/25% for remove/keep

keep the rule anyway because bullied by the minority

lmao

[–] yay@lemmynsfw.com -1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Even if I'm right and the poll results are on my side, I will always be in a gray area. To make things easier, even it doesn't match with my actual opinion, I have to draw a harder line.

[–] StarNyte@lemmynsfw.com 5 points 1 year ago

Well since you're drawing a hard line you might as well ban the !ranma34 community, the MC is canonically 16 after all and the banner is her naked. https://ranma.fandom.com/wiki/Ranma_Saotome

[–] MikeyMongol@lemmynsfw.com 3 points 1 year ago

Keep the rule. Even though it may be silly at times, it will keep us from being defederated by some of the more prudish instances.

[–] SushiMage@lemmynsfw.com 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I think that the issue with rule #2 is how much effort it requires from the mods, are they expected to know every character background out there?

At this point, if a smell test is not enough anymore, probably a blanket ban on drawings is the only way for admins to not get threats every other hour, imho obviously

[–] mr_nswf@lemmynsfw.com 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Just voted. But I wanna say with this rule translated from cartoons to real people, a user posting couldn't even post a picture of Sarah-Michelle Geller in the role of Buffy the Vampire slayer. The character Buffy is a underage teen, but the actor is like 23 or something. This is just a way to translate to the people who don't look at hentai who think like this.

So that in of itself is stupid. Remove the rule, have mods be more active in removing drawn stuff with like the mentality of "better safe than sorry" I would say.

And it seems people aren't reading what you are writing, Yay isn't saying lets allow pedos in here. He is saying lets use moderation more instead of banning a post with a picture of a milf version of Kim Possible.

Simply put.

Also you could have mods have a link to the rules above in all "boards" rule pages with rule34, cartoons and hentai. Maybe add an example like you have done with the links above but write something like "this and that is allowed, but this isn't" and maybe plainly write "loli isn't allowed" that will shoo most of the creeps away.

Maybe change Rule 2 to not include the aged up versions of drawings. That is simply what I am trying to say.

Now this is some high octane common sense. Fully agree!

[–] paddedperson@lemmynsfw.com 2 points 1 year ago

Personally i think the rule should be removed, as long as the other rule regarding all characters appearing over 18 stays in place. Its very difficult to find the canonical age for all characters people post to hentai subs, and if the instance gains traction that will only get harder. Also the cononical age rule in my opinion brings up more problems than it solves due to "3000 year old dragon loli's" which in my opinion are obviously loli bait and should be banned, but would technically be over the canonical age line.

so i look at hentai similar to cosplays, if the person cosplaying a character is 30, i see it as that character at 30. If at 14 year old were cosplaying a 30 year old, thinking about them sexually would be predatory and trash.

One of the other issues, is there are fetishes that are less controversial (Itty Bitty Titty Comitty) that depending on how you define sexual characteristics are actually riskier legally/ethically than an age adjusted character (let alone more controversial fetishes like ABDL,Size Differences, etc)

I think at the end of the day, as long as the admins are staunchly against CP, we should be able to see if any communities are posting it. CP in my opinion is very much like porn in that its hard to define but you know when you see it.

[–] HappycamperNZ@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I would say "mod discretion" and just ban what a reasonable person would call under 18. Based on the images, #3 is suspect but others clearly come across as adult. We all know Lisa simpson is under age, others are 16 or 17 (Gewn?) but can pass as adult. If noting else, put the ownership on the poster and reporter - in the report from underage ID the character, or if the cant the job is on the poster to provide a link to age.

If a mod gets rid of it, take it in stride and remember why they are - there's enough source material without pushing our luck.

[–] Mnemnosyne@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 year ago

A rule based on 'canonical age' is nonsensical. They're fictional characters.

Not to mention rule 2 and 3 when put together are incoherent. Either 'canonical age' is relevant and rule 3 should go, or it is irrelevant and rule 2 needs to go.

Since the appearance of a character is more important than whatever number an author decided for age, then rule 2 makes sense to remove.

[–] knjhu378HNJ@lemmynsfw.com 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I think from a legal point of view, you could possibly toe a line and go by 'good faith' etc. etc. I absolutely would not want to be the one on the hook for any edge cases as an instance host/admin, not in a million years.

But morally I struggle to see a strong argument for not taking a strict line. There are enough adult characters to fantasise about if that's your thing. Leave the ambiguous shit for the dark corners of the web.

I suspect that any attempt to try and find a compromise here will lead to the instance being quite rightly defederated so that users of other instances don't have to have apparently underage sexual imagery turning up when they view the 'All' tab. I can deal with porn turning up in my feed if I've ticked the 'Show NSFW' box. But seeing drawn CSAM (that's what it is, brass tacks) is gross.

[–] xiaoyang4@lemmynsfw.com -1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I think rule 4 should be omitted and for rules 2-3 to be worded more vaguely ("no sexual artwork of fictional underage characters"), with the intent that moderators will use their discretion to remove artwork that they feel is in violation.

EDIT: Mainly I think "aged up" versions of characters should be allowed, just because sometimes it's super obvious that they're aged up. For instance fan artists drawing Anya x Damian ships from Spy x Family often age them up (obviously aged up (SFW)) and it's self-evident that the artwork takes place in the distant future.

[–] 50R@lemmynsfw.com -1 points 1 year ago

Keep the rule, those that have these urges don’t belong on this instance (or any for that matter).

The same goes for gore, snuff, brutal etc. content. It’s doesn’t have a place on such a well known instance as this.

Look more at it from this perspective: it’s illegal in many countries, don’t put the people who use/own this instance at legal risk. I see many posts from this instance on other (SFW) accounts, I would think that you wouldn’t want to draw legal attention or get defederated for a minority of questionable legal content.

[–] mr_nswf@lemmynsfw.com -1 points 1 year ago

Its seems I didn't read the rule properly, So i added what I wanted to change with the rules at the bottom of my original post. Dont remove it, but change it.

[–] eric5949@lemmy.world -2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Frankly, I am digusted by the fact you'll consider it.

Edit: when half the platform defederstes you don't complain.

[–] yay@lemmynsfw.com 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

Why do people look for a reason to be disgusted? Lots of people have messaged/posted about it. And I'm just asking this to the community. I don't make any decisions on my own. Isn't that democracy?

[–] usernotfound@lemmynsfw.com 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I honestly think the people complaining don't understand the word 'canonical', causing a giant misunderstanding.

Case in point: @pm_me_upshorts@lemmynsfw.com said in another thread that he's fine with characters as long as there's no doubt about their age, yet here he claims everyone in favour of abolishing the rule is a pedo.

[–] yay@lemmynsfw.com 2 points 1 year ago

At this point, im sorry but, fuck who understands what. This is too frustrating.

[–] eric5949@lemmy.world -1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Because if you're going to allow child porn, because let's be clear here thats what it is, you and everyone who makes that deciscion are disgusting people. Idk what's so hard about "child porn bad." But if you want to allow that material on your server and encourage child abusers and potential child abusers to feed their fantasies with it I suppose it's your instance but you will be 100% in the wrong and committing an actual crime in some countries.

[–] usernotfound@lemmynsfw.com 2 points 1 year ago

Just to be clear - you think a naked drawing of an adult Lisa Simpson is child porn? Because that's what we're discussing here.

load more comments
view more: next ›