this post was submitted on 23 Jul 2023
4 points (100.0% liked)

Blahaj Lemmy Meta

2303 readers
3 users here now

Blåhaj Lemmy is a Lemmy instance attached to blahaj.zone. This is a group for questions or discussions relevant to either instance.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Edit - This is a post to the meta group of Blåhaj Lemmy. It is not intended for the entire lemmyverse. If you are not on Blåhaj Lemmy and plan on dropping in to offer your opinion on how we are doing things in a way you don't agree with, your post will be removed.

==

A user on our instance reported a post on lemmynsfw as CSAM. Upon seeing the post, I looked at the community it was part of, and immediately purged all traces of that community from our instance.

I approached the admins of lemmynsfw and they assured me that the models with content in the community were all verified as being over 18. The fact that the community is explicitly focused on making the models appear as if they're not 18 was fine with them. The fact that both myself and one a member of this instance assumed it was CSAM, was fine with them. I was in fact told that I was body shaming.

I'm sorry for the lack of warning, but a community skirting the line trying to look like CSAM isn't a line I'm willing to walk. I have defederated lemmynsfw and won't be reinstating it whilst that community is active.

(page 2) 41 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (12 children)

I think both instance admins have a valid stance on the matter. lemmynsfw appears to take reports very seriously and if necessary does age verification of questionable posts, something that likely takes a lot of time and effort. Blahaj Lemmy doesn't like the idea of a community that's dedicated to "adults that look or dress child-like". While I understand the immediate (and perhaps somewhat reactionary) concern that might raise, is this concern based in fact, or in emotion?

Personally I'm in the camp of "let consenting adults do adult things", whether that involves fetishes that are typically thought of as gross, dressing up in clothes or doing activities typically associated with younger ages, or simply having a body that appears underage to the average viewer. As the lemmynsfw admin mentioned, such persons have the right to lust and be lusted after, too. That's why, as a society, we decided to draw the line at 18 years old, right?

I believe the concern is not that such content is not supposed to exist or be shared, but rather that it's collected within a community. And I think the assumption here is that it makes it easy for "certain people" to find this content. But if it is in fact legal, and well moderated, then is there a problem? I don't believe there is evidence that seeing such content could change your sexual preferences. On the other hand, saying such communities should not exist could send the wrong message, along the lines of "this is weird and should not exist", which might be what was meant with "body shaming".

I'm trying to make sense of the situation here and possibly try to deescalate things, as I do believe lemmynsfw approach to moderation otherwise appears to be very much compatible with Blahaj Lemmy. Is there a potential future where this decision is reconsidered? Would there be some sort of middle-ground that admins from both instances could meet and come to an understanding?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Reminds me of a lot of the debates around kink at pride/ddlg kink stuff. The latter is really not my thing and makes me uncomfortable, but I recognise that that's a personal thing between me and my partners that I can't, and shouldn't, police among others.

There's also ethical debates to be had on porn in places like Lemmy/pornhub/etc. -- we can't know that the person has consented to being posted, or that they have recourse to get it taken down and stop it being spreaded if they do not.

Then there's the realpolitik of, regardless of ethics, whether it's better to have porn of this type in visible, well moderated communities, or whether it's better to try to close off ethically dubious posting.

It's one I don't really have squared off in my head quite yet. Similarly with kink at pride; I've read about the historic importance of kinksters and recognise that, but at the same time I want there to be a space where queer kids can be involved with pride without being exposed to kink. Is that just prudish social norms talking? Idk; I'm still working it through.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (11 replies)
[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

If I believe the mod of the community in question is telling the truth, Seems like the incident in question was just a misunderstanding. The community name is

spoileradorableporn

I will refer to this as "the first community" in the following text.

The mod of the community copy/pasted the dictionary definition from vocabulary.com, which contains the word "childlike".

IMO, the community in question is not trying to skirt the line of Child Sexual Abuse Material (CSAM). In fact, there is a subreddit of the same name which has absolutely nothing to do with people that appear underage.

That said, the same mod also moderates, and posts to a different community with a concerning name. The spoiler below shows the name and the first three paragraphs of the sidebar as they appear:

spoilerCommunity is now open to posting. Posts not having verification info will be removed.

FauxBait is a place for sharing images and videos of the youngest-looking, legal-aged (18+) girls. If you like fresh, young starlets, this is the place for you!

Just to be clear: We only feature legal, consenting adults in accordance with U.S. Laws. All models featured were at least 18 years old at the time of filming.


Also, I'm not sure if the timestamps can be trusted, but said mod was instated as the only active mod of the first community at the same time that Ada made this post, which would mean that the mod account could not have been the one that wrote the original sidebar of the first community. Not sure what to make of that. For the sake of balance though, said mod does seem to be doing verifications of the age requirements. Also, the modlog for the first community shows two admin removals from at least 10 days before this debacle, both of which err on the side of caution, so at least the admins to seem to care about enforcing their rules.


The situation seems very muddy, but I personally don't think the original incident was that big of a deal (assuming the mod is telling the truth). However, I certainly don't blame the blahaj admins for defederating as it's certainly the safest option. Wouldn't want blahaj lemmy to get taken down :| Also happy to see less pron in my feed; I'm too lazy to block the individual /c/. Personal Instance-level blocking can't come soon enough.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

but I personally don’t think the original incident was that big of a deal

The post I saw looked like an underage teenage girl. It was reported as child porn and looked like it to me before I even looked at the community.

Then when I looked at the community, I discovered it wasn't accidental. The whole point of the community is to appeal to folks looking for people that look like underage teenagers.

That's a pretty big deal.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

The whole point of the community is to appeal to folks looking for people that look like underage teenagers.

It's not though? Only the other community is like that. Still, defederating is probably the best choice indeed.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

For the people like me that don't know the term: CSAM is Child Sexual Abuse Materials. It's the term used instead of CP as "pornography" is more commonly used for pleasure or conveys the idea of consent.

As for the porn that uses people that look under age, it's no different than the anime children that are thousands of years old. It doesn't matter how old they are, they look like children and it's gross.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

was fine with them

That’s surprising since their rules say that not even fictive under-18 content is allowed:

Posting content involving any person who is under 18 is strictly forbidden. This includes real, drawn, and fictional content.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 1 year ago

Thank you so much, that stuff is disgusting as well as people defending it.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (3 children)

For anyone wondering, this is lemmynsfw's take on the situation.

On a personal level, the vibes are off. Their defense seems really defensive and immediately moves to reframe the situation as body shaming. There's a difference between an adult who looks underage posting porn of themselves and a community dedicated to porn of adults who look underage. Reducing the latter down to body shaming seems like unfair framing to me.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Did you check the community in question? I'm quite suprised to hear one could think that's csam. To me it looks just like your typical low-effort onlyfans content. None of the models even looked "barely legal" but more like well over 20 in most cases.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

When I checked their communities most were basically empty?

And I didn't see a community that fits that description.

Edit: I did try to enable nsfw content and tried from other accounts I have on other instances.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Your instance just deferedated from lemmyNSFW. You can't see any new content there anymore with that account.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (2 children)

The community in question listed "child-like" in their sidebar until after this defederation. Gross.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

We vehemently disagreed that that was in fact the point of the community

"The fact that the community is explicitly focused on making the models appear as if they’re not 18 was fine with them."

so this guy is lying

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

"If someone made a community intended to fool people into thinking it was kiddy porn, that would be a real problem. If someone of age goes online and pretends -- not roleplays, but pretends with intent to deceive -- to be a child and makes porn, that is a real problem. Nobody here is doing that."

JFC what a shitty take. Roleplay of CP is still fucking disgusting.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

all Im seeing is you showing me them saying that they're also not okay with it?

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Read it again? They excluded roleplay as the act they find reprehensible

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

An adult role playing as a kid isn’t any different than them role playing as a dog, or a car, or a dragon. Are you going to tell me I can’t role play as a dragon while my partner role plays as a car?

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Role playing as children having sex/being represented sexually is absolutely different from role-playing as a dragon fucking a car. If you can't see that you might want to rethink some things.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

role-playing as a dragon fucking a car.

Is... is that a thing?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

Welcome to the internet!

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Ageplay is absolutely a thing, but the point is they are adults. pretending to be something else, doesn’t change what they are.

It’s creepy, I would certainly not take part. But the bottom line is, in reality it’s just two adults playing pretend.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I can see what you're saying, but it's way past my red line of what I find acceptable, ESPECIALLY on the internet where it can be hard to verify for amateurs. Just seems like giving pedophiles content they can fantasize about.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago

Why would a pedophile be interested in a grown ass adult pretending to be a kid? That’s like saying you’d be attracted to someone pretending to be short by walking on their knees…

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Yeah. I don’t think they’re sincerely trying to “be inclusive”. I think they’re just trying to misuse progressive concepts to their own advantage.

They know full well what they’re doing. The fact that it isn’t legally CP is just a technicality.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I think it’s really strange to call that a technicality. Adults with babyfaces and braces doing porn (which appears to be what this was about, as far as I can tell) is worlds apart from children being abused. Calling that a “technicality” is like saying the difference between a slasher movie and a snuff film is a “technicality.” People who watch slasher movies arent actually wanting to see snuff films deep down inside. And people who find adults with babyfaces attractive arent actually lusting after kids deep down inside.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

They literally said in the post no one looks too young to be lusted after. Major red flag right there.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

I feel this needs to be clarified. The point is that anyone of legal age deserves to be lusted after if that’s what they want. You telling them “you look too young, no one is allowed to find you attractive” is a bit… fucked.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 1 year ago (2 children)

To an extent, but there kind of has to be a line somewhere. I hope beyond hope that they can find fulfilling love and lust, if that's what they want, in their personal lives. I'm all for body positivity in general. I'm just saying I wouldn't be comfortable if Sandra Rae started posting sexually explicit content of herself. Maybe a bit of an extreme example, but they did say nobody.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

What even was the community, I dont see any focused on CSAM, or appearing as it. Was it small breasts?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

According to the comments on lemmynsfw it was adorableporn

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

So is this guy lying? There's nothing about making them look under 18. At least what I can see from my instance, it seems focused on being very softcore, not even a focus on small girls. In fact the latest post I see is from a milf account.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

Honestly without anyone citing the actual post in question it's literally impossible for any of us to make up our own minds on the content. All we have is one admin's word vs another. I haven't personally seen anything even approaching CSAM-adjacent anywhere on lemmynsfw, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. At the same time it does kinda seem like the blahaj admins wanted to defederate anyway and finally found a convenient scapegoat -- it seems odd that one would completely defederate an entire instance over a single post. So I really have no idea what to think.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago

Anyone wanna save me from having to google what CSAM is?

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Thank you. Just the spam in new was bad enough, but CSAM? Holy crap.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (2 children)

To be clear, it is not CSAM. It is legal porn deliberately designed to look like CSAM

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

Would you mind posting chat logs like the lemmynsfw team for transparency sake? Not trying to cause more drama but I think the whole thing just needs to be more transparent. Sorry if this is an out of line request.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

In some jurisdictions that is still considered csam. Even if it's animated or whatever excuse...

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Like when Australia floated banning smaller-boobed women from porn, which is also something that everyone agreed with.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

Only big tiddy goth gf allowed

-Australian government

load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›