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 –
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.
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")
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?
err.... are we looking at the same picture?
no the question is "Is the sexualised depiction of children illegal in your jurisdiction". To which the answer is yes, yes it very much so is. You can argue semantics till she's 762. To the average person, that is very much so a depiction of a child despite whatever some lore states on a twitter image. and if that is getting sexualised, and you think that is ok, then the moral corruption is within you. Its just that you can't see that from within.
lmao, a paedo calling people who voted for Biden morally corrupt, the fucking irony.
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.