We should defederate from lemmynsfw
LollerCorleone@kbin.social to /kbin meta@kbin.social – 164 points – You are viewing a single comment
LollerCorleone@kbin.social to /kbin meta@kbin.social – 164 points – LollerCorleone@kbin.social to /kbin meta@kbin.social – 164 points –
Access to content should not be difficulted by puritan views. If people enjoy gore and create an instance about gore in movies showing very explicit (yet fictional) images of dismemberments and stuff in movies it should be banned too because is morally questionable?
If you can't distinguish between fiction and reality it should be a you problem not the whole instance you are inhabiting problem
What do you think about this? (sorry the article is in Spanish, but there is no English article)
https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ni%C3%B1os\_en\_la\_playa
It's a painting exposed in an important museum
Access to content should be based on LEGALITY though. And it turns out this is ILLEGAL in a lot of places.
Michelangelo's David is pornography in a lot of places. let's forbid it everywhere
Let's flip that argument: should we all abide by American standards? After all, nudity is ok in a lot of places in the world, why should we blur chests?
Tons of countries ban underage looking things, even digital art of it. Countries with bans include Canada, Australia, the UK, France, South Korea, Ireland, Norway, etc.
And, uh, Poland. You know. That place where ernest is from, and whose laws he's beholden to.
Why not just create a separate account for nsfw stuff? Why would you need it on the front page of your main account while scrolling anyways?
We're not talking about pornography laws that were enacted with no basis in harm reduction, we're talking about child porn laws that were enacted to not encourage and normalize pedophiles and pedophilia.
Some laws are justifiable, some are arguable, and some are completely unjustifiable, throwing out an unjustifiable one in contrast to a firmly justifiable one is not debating, it's childish nonsense.
lgbt people are illegal in the middle east. should we ban lgbt people too?
Underage fictional content is banned in first world countries like South Korea, Ireland, Norway, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and France. Do you really want to lump the very real discrimination that LGBTQ people face with someone's desire to get off to a 5 year old, sorry - 5000 year old school girl?
loli/shota don't refer to underage fictional content.
I think this loli/shota hate can indeed lead to real oppression yes. I'm an adult, I look like a minor. Do you believe it should be illegal for me to send nsfw photos of myself to people? To have a relationship with another adult? simply because I look underage? This is the sort of thing we're talking about here. Should I be banned from posting pics of myself simply because of the way I look?
lemmynsfw already explicitly stated they ban underage content. so to bring up underage content is dishonest.
I think this confusion comes from the phrasing of the original post, which was ambiguous about allowing underage content. Also, there's a difference between being an adult and looking teenage, and looking like a literal child (which I doubt you do). But regardless of appearances, you're a real person whose age we can verify. And yes, I'm a proponent of verifying people's ages.
An ambiguous image of a person that looks 10, but whose creator insists she's a 5000 year old dragon, doesn't hold up in many courts. Many international courts say "nice try but that's a 10 year old". And I don't disagree with them. Overall I just don't get it? Why the need to have that stuff on the major NSFW instance? By all means, put it on a side instance that can get blocked and banned, and if you really need to see it, either join a Lemmy that's super lax or roll your own.
Again, loli does not refer to age. You're confused. There are underage and underage looking anime characters. some who are loli and some who are not.
this isn't "they're a child and I just say they're older". non-loli anime children look different from loli anime adults.
lemmynsfw is clearly banning underage content and content that looks underage.
no matter how much you wish to try and twist words, the reality is that "oppai loli" is a thing that exists, and simply cannot refer to a child. to say that such is a child just shows you do not understand biology.
In terms of legality, I agree that if the server host is somewhere with particular laws, it's understandable that those laws must be followed. Perhaps lemmynsfw's ruling leads to illegal content for wherever kbin is hosted. In that case, I think it is fine for kbin to defederate.
Loli/shota do not refer to age. And lemmynsfw afaik has not allowed illegal content.
I looked underage for most of my adult life thus far, guess what I did? Dealt with it and enjoyed my life, I didn't insist that we should be able to freely publish nudes of myself so that pedos can jerk off to them.
Hell we're not even talking about free society here, if you look underage but are overage you're still free to exhibit your body in whatever art exhibit you want, digital or irl, that doesn't mean kbin should allow potentially illegal loli content to show up in users' feeds.
Did you not read my comment? I just said that if it is indeed illegal where the server is hosted, then defederating to follow such laws is understandable and okay.
If it's not illegal though? no issue.
I'm confused by your definition. When googling Loli, you get the lolicon Wikipedia page which has an image of girls that look... I'd say maybe 10? And Loli is named after Lolita, who in the book is like 12? I'm not seeing anywhere linking the definition of Loli to women that look clearly 18+ in any way. I'm not even seeing strong ties between Loli and girls that look 16.
My argument is that to appease the large number of countries that ban drawn lolicon, the biggest NSFW instance should take a safe stance and ban that content across the board. I don't care if other instances serve the needs of those who love lolicon, I'm happy to personally block any that pop up even if my instance doesn't. But the biggest NSFW instance can distances themselves. This is clearly a contentious issue and it is one that the international community hasn't made a firm decision on.
Here's a handy guide. Notably you'll probably be interested in uzaki and hestia who are clearly mature (have large breasts). all of the loli characters in the image are canonically adults, most of whom are natural ages (no 5000 years shit) and clearly look like adults. The only one that even remotely looks like a child here is hayase. Under the "not loli" section we see a list of canonically underage characters. most of whom are teenage and have either teenage or adult physiology drawn in a non-loli style.
For reference here is a child with two teens.
As you can see, loli is not an age. There are child characters in anime, including underage-looking adult characters, who are loli. However, loli does not exclusively refer to these sorts of characters. When I read lemmynsfw's rules, it's clear they would ban nsfw imagery of the child character in the second image, of a character like hayase, while allowing the rest.
I'd like to understand where you are coming from though. In the first image, do you think all of those characters "appear underage"? Do you think they should all be banned?
Edit: both pics are sfw.
The entire point of loli is that they look underage, and the whole loli industry is held up by paedos lmao
Speaking as a weeb, the comment with the link is probably the best comment to try and understand where Otome-chan is coming from. (I tried replying to it, but threading breaks this many levels deep)
The bigger problem is that "loli" has become an appropriated term. It means different things to different people, and it's almost impossible to reach a rational consensus about it between in-groups and out-groups. To people outside the anime community it just means "pedo
baitwank material", and anyone who argues is "clearly" splitting hairs and trying to defend an unjustifiable fetish. (Edit: To be clear here I didn't mean pedo bait in the "borderline" context that Otome-chan interpreted it below. Editing this in because I don't want to belabor this topic with another reply.)I like shortstacks. I don't think normalizing pedophilia as an acceptable fetish in polite company is okay, keep that shit to yourself. I don't think the person I'm replying to endorses carte blanche pedophilia on kbin. Hardliners are still going to insist that these concepts are mutually exclusive, but I think that's as far as the discussion can usefully go.
In practice there's two kinds of lolis IMO. there's the stereotypic kind which is similar to chibi characters. there's pretty much unanimous consensus that these should not be involved in nsfw. then there's the "pedo bait" kind as mentioned, which is basically the anime equivalent of "recent 18" (but at any age). short, flat, youthful, not overtly a child.
it seems obvious that lemmynsfw has banned the former, and allowed the latter.
As for pedophilia: my stance is this: pedophilia is a mental disorder and those people should get medical treatment and help, CP of real people should be banned entirely and illegal. It is never okay.
Is this image some sort of gospel? In that case, there's no visual or stylistic difference between Hestia and Naruse. Even Rory looks the same as the others. So clearly this image is piss poor at communicating some sort of clear visual definition of Loli.
For the record, out of the lolis, I'd count the first five as looking underage, not just the first one. This is largely due to their giant heads, tiny bodies.
Now here's the image Wikipedia uses for lolicon: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/89/Lolicon_Sample.png/1280px-Lolicon_Sample.png
I think the consensus is that for anyone who is not a Loli connoisseur, lolicon is pretty much defined by Wikis view of it, not some random image that doesn't really clarify much about true Loli characteristics. I have no problem with hentai of adult or ambiguously adult characters. I'm just saying that if you're gonna call it Loli, people are gonna expect the image I linked to.
no? I just did a quick search, found it to be a useful guide, and shared.
yes they are indeed quite similar. hestia is borderline loli at best, but the point remains. Oshino is perhaps the best example of a typical loli character in that image.
Because you're failing to understand what loli actually is. First, there is a spectrum of appearances and styles. But second, that it's really not about age. It's a similar sort of situation to "chibi" which are also not children.
Yes so the characters shown in that pic do fall under "loli" but loli does not only refer to characters that look like that. loli characters can look like adults. they can look underage. they can be adults. they can be underage. they can look like a mix of underage and adult. Wikipedia's example is perhaps the most "extreme" usage of the word, which makes sense since it's trying to provide an example of the concept unambiguously. though a variety of examples are really needed tbh.
I mean you're free to think as you please. but it's clear you'd consider any man who dates me to be a pedophile which is obviously laughable.
Sure then I think it's a communication breakdown. When most people speak of nsfw imagery of lolis and say it's fine, they're talking about stuff like this (sfw example). undeniably a loli, not obviously a child. might be a teen or adult from visuals. The example wikipedia has is the other "popular" type of loli character, who typically do not show up in nsfw content except the most extreme, are considered 'looking underage' and pretty much banned from most nsfw stuff and lemmynsfw clearly has banned it.
To me, lemmynsfw's post seems to suggest the image I shared is allowed, while the image you shared is not. Is this not the interpretation you got as well? When people react harshly, to me I think it's because they are probably looking at that wiki image thinking that's what lemmynsfw is allowing (when it's not).
"loli" refers to both types.
This has nothing to do with banning and everything to do with filtering. Especially at this early moment when everyone lacks the ideal tools and functions to curate your iwn content across the Fediverse.
For now, you can always access both kbin and lemmy from a third instance thats federated with both, regardless of their direct federation to each other. When more tools exist for users to curate their own experience we can always federated up again.
Ireland is a third world country, literally
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third\_World
And Ireland remained neutral, like other countries Finland, Sweden, Switzerland or Austria, making those countries third world countries, literally
Saying or implying third world countries are underdeveloped/poor countries is just a really bad stereotipe and shows your inculture
Yeah ok, I really love that Reddit's crappy pedantry about stuff that doesn't matter is bleeding into the new world. First world, to most of us not using 50 year old definitions, means countries universally accepted to have decent human rights. The topic reeled into the Middle East's laws surrounding LGBTQ people, which is a shit argument when talking about banning underage looking content which happens even in countries with great LGBTQ rights. Let's not pretend that the world is this fantastic equal place where the human experience is just dandy across the board.
Also I'm from a third world country! Yugoslavia was the founder of the neutral Non-Aligned movement. That makes it, by most definitions, third world.
If you know what the words mean why are you being so stubborn about it?
Why are you derailing an argument about adult underage content with definitions of the phrase first world?
They compared jacking it to underage-looking cartoons to playing video games - I think they're a nonce in denial lmao
Comparing the defederation of an instance for allowing underage sexual content with the very real discrimination faced by LGBTQ+ people is one of the shittiest takes I have seen.
lemmynsfw explicitly stated they don't allow underage content.
Yeah even fictional suggestive content is illegal in Canada. And I'm glad!
I have no idea about the context of that painting, but I don't think the children are being sexualised in it. The under-age content that will be posted on lemmynsfw (fictional or not) will definitely be sexual in nature, and that is deeply problematic and might also be illegal in several countries. They can do whatever they want with their instance, but the users of kbin.social shouldn't have to be looking at such content.
lemmynsfw said they don't allow underage content though. so that's unrelated to their ruling. their ruling applies to adult content, not underage.
The linked post is saying they will allow non-irl underage-looking content.
That is illegal in Canada.
https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/c-46/section-163.1.html
that applies to people, not drawings.
I'd encourage you to read what I just posted because drawings would fall under "other visual representations"
it's talking about depictions of actual people, not fictional characters.
If you're going to be that level of pedantic then it's clear you already have an idea in your head and don't care to be informed.
this excludes loli/shota.
Looks like drawings of people to me
OK, more concretely then, sexualised drawings of people who are or appear to be under 18 are illegal in the UK.
This is an odd hill to die on if you're not interested in looking at sexualised drawings of people who are or appear to be under 18.
I could say all humans look under 18 to me, and thus all porn is banned.
ultimately, loli does not refer to actual human beings. it does not refer to an age. loli characters can be undeniably adults and appear as such.
Surely, if a character is canonically an adult, appears as an adult, is unmistakably an adult, and are not based on a real person, then they can't possibly fall under what you are saying, yes?
Yeah but that would be bullshit, and frankly your definition (which appears to be being skewed by a desire to look at sexual cartoons of children) would not need to be believed by anyone else.
"Canonically" also doesn't matter because someone saying "actually this person who looks exactly like a five year old girl is a million years old" also doesn't have to be believed by anyone else.
That is why the UK law is "appear to be" - specifically to avoid consumers of child pornography, real or drawn, pulling dumb stunts like that.
so there you have it. you're essentially arguing full actual adults are "child porn". fuck off with that bs.
just out of interest @Otome-chan@kbin.social, in this pic (https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FeOCDVuVIAElq8s?format=jpg&name=large), how old do you think hayase looks? Keep in mind she is 42 (I guess that's what that number means, either that or she is the answer to the meaning of life, the universe and everything. So what would be your stance of sexualised images of that character or a similar one? See, thet problem is, all your justifications come from within your lolita community. Not from outside the community, which is ultimately who you are judged by when this shit comes into thte public sphere.. So you can go around in your little bubble thinking everything is ok because your are surrounded by other's who justify it. Until it becomes public and you suddenly expect people to accept your justifications.
Drawn characters can look like anything, so trying to discern an age out of a drawing is silly. Hayase is an adult loli. Characters younger than her would look different. For reference here she is in context with other characters. notably a typical adult male, and a child. You can see she's very obviously not a child once placed in context. When looking at the lineup, she does indeed "appear younger than the others". The thing about loli characters is that they're like tofu, they change and appear different depending on the context. Hayase looks super young in the lineup, but then in context she appears older and clearly an adult (or maybe later teen).
On characters like hayase my stance is it's understandable why one might ban due to potential legal implications. However, she's an adult, does not appear as a child in context, is not presented as a child, and is a drawing, and should not be legal as per societal laws. Personally I'm not sexually attracted to loli characters (as stated elsewhere my preference is clearly older-looking adults in 30yo range).
The question isn't "do you find loli offputting" it's "do you think this should be illegal". and if I had to say whether it should be illegal my answer is no. There is a lot of nsfw content that I think is offputting, disgusting, AND should be illegal. Yet I do not see others complaining about it, nor do I think people would end up agreeing. For example, bestiality is illegal IRL. yet many people draw bestiality nsfw images. should those similarly be banned? do you think that warrants defederation, and criminality? over a drawing? Yet furries are very common.
tbh, other peoples' morality is not really something I care for. to me, most people are morally corrupt and despicable. look at every single person who voted joe biden, a known rapist, pedophile, and war criminal. and then those people have the audacity to judge me because I said a drawing harms no one? really?
In the age of AI, it’s basically the same thing anyway. People can generate that shit now and it will look real. It’s not okay and it is illegal. It literally uses the word “depicted” which can refer to non-real stuff.
this has already been covered in courts. realistic looking imagery of children counts as cp. drawn anime characters do not.
So... is all My Hero Academia porn illegal in Canada?
They started at 14, and are 16 now as far as I understand.
I never heard anyone call that stuff CP, although it technically would have to be, as long as the artist doesn't somehow clarify "this is art from a future version, where they're all 18, they just look the same because awesome genes" or whatever.
I'm not familiar with that so I cannot say. I've included a link to the law as it is written. If it fits the description, someone intended to be under the age of 18 displayed in a sexual fashion, then yes.
Idk, as kbin.social user I was not looking to such content until you mentioned it. And since I don't follow that instance I will not be looking to such content in the future
You do "follow" that instance because you are part of kbin.social which is federated with it. You could go in and block each of the magazines/threads from there or whatever the term is on Lemmy, and block the users you don't want to see content from, but kbin.social is federated with lemmynsfw, so that content has the ability to show up in your "all" or "random" feeds unless we defederate -which is the question being asked. So you very well could really l easily have that content in your feed in the best future
No, I don't. My starting page is https://kbin.social/sub so I only see magazines I'm subscribed to. And most often than not I have federation turned off, as I find duplicated content annoying and useless
Rather than blacklisting magazines I whitelist magazines and I only see the content I want.
Also, I removed the "random posts" section with uBlock origin (uBlock origin does more than just blocking ads, you can select and remove parts of a website entirely, by doing that the website work load is reduced and also loads faster), so this situation you describe:
won't happen
The only feature I really miss is having content ordered by "newest" by default (something I had on reddit using the third party app "Joey")
You can go make an account on porn instances or whatever for yourself. I have nsfw content blocked, and I blocked the community in question already. I'm not here for porn. There's a million other places you can get your porn.
Me neither (people can see the magazines I follow, that's public), that's why I don't have a problem with NSFW instances doing whatever they want.
I'm not here to impose my personal views onto others neither
With the rapid growth of Lemmy and the fediverse in general, a lot of nsfw stuff isn't getting properly tagged. I don't want to see it. I wish I didn't have to. Saw a giant wang yesterday against my will. So I'd rather it just wasn't allowed, since there are literally a million other ways to get your porn fix. But there aren't a million other active forums for everything else here.
Neal Stephenson did predict it:
-- Snow Crash
The lengths people will go to to defend paedos is striking.
The venn diagram of pedo supporters and alt right is almost a circle.
Paedos should be castrated and thrown into the deepest hole and never leave, as they hurt children. Nobody is defending those people, but drawings are not children, nobody is harmed. That's an important difference
People who seek out sexual representation of people that look underage are paedos, and those that claim "iT's JuSt DrAwInGs" are protecting paedos.
This is your argument:
We should ban violent videogames . Everybody know people who play violent videogames are violent. Peolpe claiming "It'S jUsT a GaMe" are protecting violent people
P.S. I hope you don't like shaved vaginas, btw, people who like shaved genitals are just ill people people who want to see kid-like genitals without any hair i.e. paedos
lmfao, you're reaching so hard to defend paedos.
No, I'm not defending paedos. But, unlike you, I'm not an hypocrite
Nah mate, people liking violent video games does not make them violent. People seeking sexual gratification from underage looking cartoons are definitely paedos, and you're a fucking moron at best if you can't see that. Probably just trying to defend your own proclivities though lmao.
why? where's the difference?
violent videogames are fiction
cartoons are fiction
Just because you enjoy killing hookers in GTA does not mean you are going to start killing hookers in real life as a hobby
Just because you like a cartoon does not means you enjoy its real-life equivalent
it's the same situation, saying one thing is ok and the other is wrong is being an hypocrite.
Are you seriously asking how people getting sexual gratification from underage looking people does not make them paedos? Get the fuck out you absolute shitstain.
Gotcha, finally found the issue.
I can tell the difference between a fictional cartoon character and real people. It looks like you can't. Apply your own advice and go to see a therapist ASAP.
Bro, doesn't matter if they're real or not, if you get sexual gratification from it, you're a fucking nonce. That's why so many countries have laws against it. Fucking hell.
Then I ask again, tell me what's the difference between getting gratification from killing people in a videogame and getting gratification by looking at a cartoon (not people)
you keep avoiding to reply this question.
Paris had a law that forbade women wearing trousers, should that law be applied country-wise first and then worldwide? That law existed for a reason, I guess
If you cannot see the difference between these two situations, you need to go see a therapist you fucking nonce.
Because the link between violent video games and aggression has been scientifically studied and found to not be correlated.
@Gordon_Freeman
@PM_me_your_vagina_thanks
So before those studies came out, you support banning violent video games?
What you are attempting to arrive at is The Gamer's Dilemma, which has also been discussed at a scholarly level.
The normalization of underage imagery, as discussed in the aforementioned dilemma, also discussed scholarly extensively, does have a correlation with increased viewing of imagery that does have victims (correlation does NOT mean that every single person end up viewing the additional imagery, just that there is a correlation statistically).
You asked me if I would have wanted to ban violent video games before the publication of the studies on them, but the thing is that I wait for information and studies before making decisions on things, and the have been studies on this topic.
What exactly is that google scholar search meant to prove? I realize it's been discussed, I just don't have the links off hand.
Yeah there have been studies. They either say "we don't know", or they show it can prevent pedophiles from acting on their urges.
Is exactly the point. There's a correlation between people who look at real child porn to people who look at animated child porn. That's just incredibly obvious, but tells us absolutely nothing about whether it's helpful or harmful.
Go find your shitty twisted instance and sit there with the rest of the 4chan incels if you want, but you don't need that instance federated with anyone else.
If you want legally questionable material, gore, or other shit, you're free to spin up your own instance. Your access to it is not being fettered.
You're just not entitled to access it using someone else's website.
Heh. If we're giving examples from art, probably the most-famous romance work in the English language is Romeo and Juliet.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romeo\_and\_Juliet
That being said, I don't think that a work being part of cultural canon entails that someone needs to personally consider it acceptable to themselves.
They also don't have sex in that play. It's a romance, not erotica
You know what you can do if you want to see that content? Subscribe to that instance or an instance that is federated with it. Easy
Not easy when instances start defederating stuff, forcing users to create new accounts on other instances