The mods there have decided to allow underage looking content, skirting close to CP. Unless we want such disgusting stuff on our feed, I think we should defederate from that instance.
characters who are petite/young-looking but not obviously underage are ALLOWED because as an instance the votes decided that banning all of it was destructive, and differentiating between them can be impossible.
So, it seems like an anti-witch hunting measure, which has ironically caused a massive witch hunt for the instance as a whole. These guys don’t seem to in any way support pedophilia (thank God).
What an odd way to initially phrase it. Saying “underage-looking nsfw” is such an underhanded wording that it makes me feel like they were trying to stir up a shitstorm against their own userbase. The followup is way better “we’re allowing weebs, no loli, some of you might still think it looks underage but we’re leaving it at the mods’ discretion”. But the damage is already done.
That still might actually be illegal in some jurisdictions. The wording of the British law on it bans “pseudo photographs” of people who are underage, and the definition used would probably cover that.
This seemed odd to me, so I went to investigate. A clarification was posted 2 hours ago. Stating very clearly that:
loli/shota are BANNED and not okay in any way.
IRL kids are BANNED OBVIOUSLY because no shit.
characters who are petite/young-looking but not obviously underage are ALLOWED because as an instance the votes decided that banning all of it was destructive, and differentiating between them can be impossible.
So, it seems like an anti-witch hunting measure, which has ironically caused a massive witch hunt for the instance as a whole. These guys don’t seem to in any way support pedophilia (thank God).
What an odd way to initially phrase it. Saying “underage-looking nsfw” is such an underhanded wording that it makes me feel like they were trying to stir up a shitstorm against their own userbase. The followup is way better “we’re allowing weebs, no loli, some of you might still think it looks underage but we’re leaving it at the mods’ discretion”. But the damage is already done.
That still might actually be illegal in some jurisdictions. The wording of the British law on it bans “pseudo photographs” of people who are underage, and the definition used would probably cover that.
I think Canada has a law against it?
Yep, and so does several other countries.
I wonder if their community vote will hold up in a court of law? I can’t help but think that yay@lemmynsfw is out of their depth here…
He also called them “pleasures” in the initial post. That’s a really weird way to phrase it 🤔