this post was submitted on 17 Jun 2023
31 points (100.0% liked)

/kbin meta

4 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
 

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.

Pinging @ernest as well.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Highsight@kbin.social 30 points 1 year ago (4 children)

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).

[–] cyberian_khatru@kbin.social 10 points 1 year ago

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.

[–] lemonflavoured@kbin.social 9 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Petite / young-looking but not obviously underage

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.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Inamin@kbin.social 6 points 1 year ago

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....

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Eggyhead@kbin.social 16 points 1 year ago (5 children)

HARD DISAGREE

Another community having the possibility of posting something you don’t approve of when nothing is actually illegal, nobody is actually getting hurt, and you could just have blocked that community (or even just offending users) for yourself in the first place is just a really dumb reason to force the whole instance to defederate from it.

It’s up to Ernest what happens, but I’m not on board for unnecessary censorship of cartoons, of all things. I honestly worry for you.

[–] Bloonface@kbin.social 21 points 1 year ago

It is actually illegal in some jurisdictions, including mine.

[–] lemonflavoured@kbin.social 15 points 1 year ago

It probably is illegal in some jurisdictions, that's the issue.

but I’m not on board for unnecessary censorship of cartoons

Said by every loli loving paedo.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Shortcake@kbin.social 14 points 1 year ago (1 children)

go to https://kbin.social/d/lemmynsfw.com and hit the block button if you don't want posts from there in your feed

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] 0xtero@kbin.social 13 points 1 year ago (12 children)

As long as kbin domain blocking tools work, I can choose to block their content - and I will, because 1) it's pretty fucking vile 2) it might be illegal. But I don't need it to be defederated, I'm happier if I have the tools to deal with this (and other similar stuff).

I wish we could remove the The "Random Post" / "Random Thread" boxes from the front page. Those seem to display NSFW material quite often - I don't really have any need for "random content" especially since I can't control the source.

[–] masterspace@kbin.social 15 points 1 year ago (2 children)

But I don't need it to be defederated, I'm happier if I have the tools to deal with this (and other similar stuff).

I'm sorry but this is asinine. We're not talking about blocking too many posts about Taylor Swift, we're talking about new users of kbin getting fed illegal child porn in their feed.

Kbin should defederate immediately.

[–] 0xtero@kbin.social 5 points 1 year ago (2 children)

This is not about CSAM though. It’s about specific fetish (which isn’t illegal globally as far as I know)
ernest needs to worry about the legality of the server and his users holistically.
I need to worry about the content I’m browsing. Ernest can’t worry or know about local laws in every country. Hence, I need to be able to block domains that I deem unsuitable.

If ernest decides he needs to defederate to keep his users safe, then that’s fine by me, it’s his call. But I want to be able to moderate my own content (tools exist, but seem a bit buggy https://codeberg.org/Kbin/kbin-core/issues/118)

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Kichae@kbin.social 10 points 1 year ago (1 children)

If it "might be illegal" than there actually might be a legal responsibility to defederate. Federation is not links to content, it's mirrors of content, and anything you're seeing while browsing kbin.social is being hosted here.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Trebach@kbin.social 10 points 1 year ago (2 children)
  1. it might be illegal.

Sounds like an existential risk to the server to federate with them unless they tighten things up then. @ernest is beholden to both the laws of where his server is hosted and where he lives, which I believe are Germany and Poland. If he violates either, there goes the instance and/or him.

[–] 0xtero@kbin.social 4 points 1 year ago

Certainly. The instance must abide by the law of the country it’s hosted in. And we users must abide by the laws of our respective countries.

I’ll let ernest and instance mods to worry about the legality of the instance, but I’d like to be able to to control the content that ends up in my browser - domain blocking is a hammer, going forward it would also be nice to get keyword blocking and other tools.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Nankeru@kbin.social 4 points 1 year ago

I think we should keep the decision on the users what they want to see or don't want to, as long as its legal - similar to the piracy magazines or others.

Maybe block it by default, but allow users to opt-in / remove the block?

By the way:

You can see all threads from an instance by using the following URL on Kbin (not on Lemmy):

https://kbin.social/d/[instance-url]

^ the /d stands for domain.

e.g.: https://kbin.social/d/lemmy.ml

On the same page, you can block the whole instance.

load more comments (8 replies)
[–] exohuman@kbin.social 7 points 1 year ago

As much as I enjoy the idea of an adult community, it has to be adult in both idea and implementation. Allowing depictions of underage people (especially in the age of AI) is plain stupid. I’m blocking lemmynsfw and suggest you all do the same.

[–] Acetanilide@kbin.social 5 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Question from a new user, to block it do i actually have to click into it or is there another way? I've read all the comments and don't need clarification on anything else (except maybe if Ernest decided to defederate already); I definitely want to block it.

Thanks in advance!

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] argv_minus_one@beehaw.org 4 points 1 year ago

Close to? There are jurisdictions where that is straight-up illegal. In those jurisdictions, anyone who so much as loads a page containing such a post is guilty of a sex offense, because the uncensored image is in their browser cache and therefore in their possession.

So yes, if they're allowing that content, then they need to be defederated with extreme prejudice.

load more comments
view more: next ›