cross-posted from: https://multiverse.soulism.net/c/soulism/p/51754/multiverse-has-defederated-fedinsfw-app-for-hosting-child-pornography
Hello MULTIVERSE users and off-site visitors alike. We have recently defederated fedinsfw.app due to ongoing child pornography concerns which the fedinsfw admin team are aware of, and do not intend to address. Before I explain the key issue, I’d like to define a few terms:
- In Australia, Child Pornography Material is legally defined by the Criminal Code Act 1995, section 473.1 as:
(a) material that depicts a person, or a representation of a person, who is, or appears to be, under 18 years of age and who […] is engaged in, or appears to be engaged in, a sexual pose […]; and does this in a way that reasonable persons would regard as being, in all the circumstances, offensive;
[…]
© material that describes a person who is, or is implied to be, under 18 years of age and who […] is engaged in, or is implied to be engaged in, a sexual pose […]; and does this in a way that reasonable persons would regard as being, in all the circumstances, offensive; or […]
Jailbait is a slang term for pornography depicting subjects who appear to be of age (adults), but are in fact underage (children; adolescents)
Fauxbait is faux jailbait - pornography depicting adults who appear to be children who appear to be adults.
According to the legal definition of child pornography material here in Australia, fauxbait is child pornography material, because of the implication that the actors depicted represent underage persons. And frankly, we here at MULTIVERSE agree with the law here. Fauxbait is disgusting. Legally and in our opinion, pornography depicting adult women who appear as adults is completely fine. But if someone posts a picture of an adult woman and calls it “fauxbait”, we are disgusted and the law is interested. Reality is not objective - the same legal picture of an adult person becomes illegal child pornography when it’s posted with a particular framing.
fedinsfw.app hosts a community, [email protected], which is for Fauxbait. I have contacted the admin of the site, @[email protected], both privately and in public, pointing out that the community breaks the site’s rules 1 and 8. The admin disagrees. Although they dislike the community, they don’t believe it breaks the rules, and do not wish to violate their impartiality by banning the community.
We here at MULTIVERSE have no such impartiality. The admin inaction on child pornography violates our Rule 3 on Restricted Violence, in that it’s fucking nasty. It’s degrading to the women being posted to call them fauxbait, it’s dangerous towards the users to expose them to risks of committing sex crimes, and it has the potential to desensitise people to child porn, making them more likely to re-offend in worse ways. We are joining the growing movement of instances defederating fedinsfw.app, and we ask if your instance has not, that you speak to your admins and ask them to do the same.
eh, I checked the linked community. They have a rule that posters must link to the model’s verification that they’re overage on every post:
Age verification info for models required; OnlyFans, Fansly profile links are acceptable.
Seems fine to me. This sounds like a whole lot of virtue signalling and pearl-clutching.
There’s a very clear line in the sand to me: don’t post anyone underage. Posting overage girls is fine to me no matter what they look like. Should the “small boobs” community also be banned because people might mistake a 25 year old with As for a 15 year old? Come on.
What a whole lot of nothing. You/they are accusing them of “hosting child pornography” on the basis that they have nude images of proven-overage adults.
Ragebait title too.
It’s not just about the age of the performers, though. I also think most people here care more about actual harm than legality.
To me it looks like it’s about platforming the indulgence of the sexualization of minors. In a fictional sense, but still. Should they allow written rape fantasies of minors?
I’m gonna lean towards that this is rather normalizing and harm producing than helping people. I would love to read science on this, but this is not my field, so hard to research myself.
I just looked at the actual posts in the community, since I didn’t before. Most of them don’t even look that questionable tbh, although a couple do. But they’re all just naked people posing for the camera. It’s not like they’re dressed as school girls or anything. And every post has the age verification as required by the rule, and most of the images have company watermarks on them. They’re professional shots, not amateur candids. There’s nothing about the posts that implies that the models are underage other than the title of the community. As someone else said, they could be listed as “legal teens” instead and I doubt anyone would bat an eye.
I also think most people here care more about actual harm than legality.
Well this post is specifically about the legality, trying to frame it as illegal content. But, that aside, I just don’t see the “actual harm” being done. If visitors are fully aware that they’re looking at adults, and every post explicitly reaffirms the age of the specific model shown, then I don’t see the harm there.
Should they allow written rape fantasies of minors?
No, because that’s illegal.
this is rather normalizing and harm producing
I just don’t agree with the slippery slope argument. It comes down to saying that “well if they’re looking at 19 and 18 year olds, then next thing is that they’ll be looking at 17 year olds and then 14 year olds!!”. Like I said, there’s a clear line, and getting close to it isn’t the same as crossing it.
Alright, I don’t care about the legal argument. That’s for other folx to deal with. I care about a nice more or less ethical porn site.
And btw. Multiverse also agreed with the law, and I can see why.
I get the point of slippery slope arguments. So here’s the potential harm I see, which I think you’d agree with is passing a point on the slope we don’t want to cross: normalizing indulging in the sexualisation of minors, or just straight up normalising the sexualisation of minors.
If the community calls itself fauxbait, the mental process is one of sexualisation of minors, even if it isn’t what’s depicted. Just like a written story is just ink on paper and no performer is hurt, it’s about the mental process.
They are not looking at these adults and thinking about fucking an adult. Just like the brain would do with a fictional story.
lbz and pbz were defederated from lemmynsfw for hosting communities like that, and we are defederated from fedinsfw for the same reason
TIL a significant minority of Lemmy/Piefed users like to look at or reserve the right to be able to look at pornography where the actors bear resemblance to children. And the best arguments they have is FReE sPeEcH and iTs NoT iLleGaL.
Yuk.
I understand the ease of downvoting, but the lack of well laid out arguments gives this entire platform a very yukkie vibe to me.
There are at least 3 comments with well laid arguments (hint, they have way more up votes than the post). You have answered to none of them.
I’ll just quote you to yourself, as we’re pretty much on the same page:
If you approve someone, you don’t need to explain yourself, you would just say “I agree with this guy”. There’s no substance to it.
However, if you downvote, you are saying “this is wrong”. Which is much different. When you accuse someone of being wrong, you should explain yourself, otherwise you’re being a dick.
It’s fine if someone already answered with what you were going to answer. You can just upvote that guy and move on.
EDIT: I’m absolutely in awe that this comment specifically gathered so many downvotes. And this is a good example of what I was referring to. Lots of people downvoted, and 0 ppl said why.
You may think that those upvotes explain the downvotes, but they really don’t. And they don’t to a small majority of the people, so perhaps you can help out. A good start would be:
You’re getting downvoted because
Or
I’m downvoting your post/comment because
Or if you feel the upvoted comments are indeed addressing my concern “legal porn that looks like CP is morally extremely questionable and either won’t help the growth of Lemmy or would attract people I rather not associate with”, you can copy paste it.
I also want to state this is occurring at a time where we are discovering pedophelia run all the way to the white house.
You went through my comment history and quoted me, to just not read the whole quote.
Here, I’ll help you:
It’s fine if someone already answered with what you were going to answer. You can just upvote that guy and move on.
As I said, there are already 3 top comments explaining to you why you’re being downvoted. I don’t need to explain myself when I mostly agree with them, I just upvote them.
If everyone had to explain every downvote, we would have hundreds of comments on each post, and most of them would say the same thing.
I think we’ve exhausted this discourse. Peace
What’s with the downvoting?
probably something to do with the inflammatory accusation that they “host child pornography” when they do nothing of the sort
Happens every time gooners are afraid their porn will be limited.
