this post was submitted on 17 Jun 2023
163 points (87.2% liked)
/kbin meta
639 readers
1 users here now
Magazine dedicated to discussions about the kbin itself. Provide feedback, ask questions, suggest improvements, and engage in conversations related to the platform organization, policies, features, and community dynamics. ---- * Roadmap 2023 * m/kbinDevlog * m/kbinDesign
founded 1 year ago
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
There is nothing dramatic about it. Defederating from problematic instances is nothing new for federated platforms.
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
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?
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.
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'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.
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.
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!
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. What I'm not going to do is impose my personal views onto others
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
The lengths people will go to to defend paedos is striking.
The venn diagram of pedo supporters and alt right is almost a circle.
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.
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.
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.
this isn't problematic. there's literally nothing illegal about lemmynsfw. since there is nothing illegal on there, it's not problematic. that simple.