MULTIVERSE has defederated fedinsfw.app for hosting child pornography

[kingofras@lemmy.world]

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.

[ada@piefed.blahaj.zone]

lbz and pbz were defederated from lemmynsfw for hosting communities like that, and we are defederated from fedinsfw for the same reason

[kingofras@lemmy.world]

What’s with the downvoting?

[dfx4509b@lemmy.wtf]

I just blocked that instance on my end.

[acesfullofkings@feddit.uk]

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.

[acesfullofkings@feddit.uk]

probably something to do with the inflammatory accusation that they “host child pornography” when they do nothing of the sort

[whaleross@lemmy.world]

Happens every time gooners are afraid their porn will be limited.

[lemmyposter212@lemmy.world]

Holy wow, WHAT?? We do not permit CP. Full stop.

As [email protected] said no one under the age of 18 can be posted and they have to be verified as such. Genuinely it seems like the only issue is the name, which can be changed to clear up any confusion.

I also agree with this that [email protected] said:

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 > 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.

and

You/they are accusing them of “hosting child pornography” on the basis that they have nude images of proven-overage adults.

[robbo@feddit.uk]

There’s an interesting discussion to be had around stuff like the fauxbait community. But if you approach it in such bad faith as screaming “CP!! CP!!!” it just comes across as ragebaiting to try to invoke the same sort of “but think of the children!” misdirection that we’ve seen so much of in governments recently.

Look, that sort of content isn’t to my taste but I will defend its right to exist. It’s legal. The people posted there are adults. There has always been a thriving category of “barely legal” content - look at reddit’s “legalteens” or pornhub’s constant barrage of “18 year old does this” and “barely legal loses V” etc. Same product, different name. It sounds like the only objection is the relabelling of 18 year olds as “fauxbait” instead of “legal teen”, which I agree is distasteful but that doesn’t make it CP. You can look elsewhere if it’s not to your taste but you can’t deny that it’s legal content.

I agree with the others about needing a clear distinction between what is legal and what isn’t, and we can debate all day about whether 18 is the correct line to draw, but for now you can’t call posting 18 year olds and 21 year olds “child porn” just because they have small bodies or are close-ish to the legal boundary. That is approaching the discussion in bad faith.

[Guest]

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.

[acesfullofkings@feddit.uk]

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.

[Guest]

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.

[grail@multiverse.soulism.net]

Yes, the name should be changed. The pictures on that community would be completely legal to look at if they were not described as fauxbait, but when they are posted with that framing, they become a crime to look at in Australia (And Finland, according to a Finn on Matrix)

[canyon201@lemmy.world]

lmao it is so funny that Rimu will hardcode penalties for any piefed instance that federates with the tankie triad but has no problems with people using his software for child porn
really shows his priorities

[goodeye8@piefed.social]

You’re just taking offense to the community being called fauxbait? So if the community is called tiny titties it’s all good?

[Guest]

If somebody posts a swastika, and uses it to critically talk about the nazi history, or the fertility symbol aspect of it, it’s not the same as if you’re posting it without comment in the context of a debate about racism, or in a PoC forum, etc.

Context matters and changes what it is we’re looking at.

Is it desirable to platform a community that basically says “jerking off to underage girls, but legal”? To put it another way…

I would like to imagine fedinsfw as something beyond the boundaries of ordinary porn sites. It can be so much better. And I say this regardless of this aspect we are talking about, though, just to keep in mind.

[Guest]

Im not sure why these people want this kind of thing here. It’s just weird and creepy and trying to justify it makes you look weird and creepy.

[Guest]

Unless all the guys arguing against you in this thread are teenagers, then they’re just trying to justify their own creepy behavior.

[grail@multiverse.soulism.net]

There’s an argument to be made that this content satisfies a need for some mentally ill people, and I did believe in that argument when I was younger, but hopefully we’ve all learned from the Epstein files that demand for this kind of thing can be created from scratch in formerly normal people.

[Guest]

Maybe. But for anyone reading who might be changing their minds. I’m not trying to step on anyone’s toes and guilt trip them or put them down.

Because right now, we can look forward to how good fedinsfw can actually be.
It just seems like the fediverse has a beautiful opportunity to re-imagine internet pornography. And it’s realising this opportunity that I am arguing for.