 |
Amending Inkbunny's Philosophy of Acceptanceby
 |
|
| " |
Acceptance No one has the right to harass anyone for their tastes or the content of artwork they post on Inkbunny. Inkbunny encourages a community where people of all artistic interests can co-exist, focused on furry art and fiction. The community attitude is one of acceptance of the widest possible range of views and ideas, as long as they do not encourage hate and intolerance. Advocacy of real-life paedophilia is not allowed, and such content will be removed. |
| Viewed: | 18,927 times |
| Added: | 7 months, 1 week ago |
| Site News Item: | yes |
| Commenting Locked | |
| " | KinkyRomance wrote: |
| ... yet I know there's been zero people arrested for drawn porn. |
| " | Didn't know about France. |
| " | KinkyRomance wrote: |
| Countries banning clearly fantasy creations are a small minority, afaik. |
| " | Caluuu wrote: |
| .....And not to mention that in some countries in Europe and even in the United States, they prohibit sexual content involving people under 18, including LOLI and SHOTA, even if they are cartoons. Imagine then an incentive for real practice, with the FBI and CIA following these people |
| " |
Will you ban these members? As always, we will act in a graduated manner based on the severity of the problem and issue warnings, restrictions of account privileges – and yes, in some cases, bans – to the extent necessary. Many of our actions may not be visible, because we do not generally publish staff actions against members. We have always tried to treat members as adults and allow users the autonomy to avoid things that they don't want to associate with. Likewise, avoiding staff action in this case should be possible for all, by not engaging in the kinds of advocacy and promotional/self-identifying activity described above. |
| " | If Inkbunny's staff had been on one mind on this issue, it'd be easy. Actually there's a wide spectrum of opinions [on such factors as] whether it matters if it does [cause harm to children] or not |
| " | fibs wrote: |
| This is a good change, but it's worrisome that Inkbunny staff don't seem to be unanimous in it. |
| " | nyasukitty wrote: |
| While I agree with the changes to the rules, comments like this come off as general intolerance. |
| " | GreenReaper wrote: |
| ...What people do on their own site is largely their own business, except inasmuch as it applies to their activities here (e.g. we have in the past taken action when people coordinated or boasted of harassment on Inkbunny via social media). |
| " | GreenReaper wrote: |
| ... because the policy is not about what people are or feel, but how they act on those feelings and present themselves on Inkbunny. |
| " | KinkyRomance wrote: |
| Are you telling me there are people whose IQ is low enough to declare they identify as pedos in public? Like, seriously? Are people this dumb? 😐 |
|
CloudHusky |
|
Zenobius |
|
GreenReaper |
| " | Our interpretation of such content includes the use of overt or covert means to identify as a paedophile |
| " | Kadm wrote: |
|
We do, and have. We'll get a lot less reports as a result of this policy change than people imagine we would, because we already ban a lot of these people. Let's say there are 50 users actively identifying as MAPs on the site (hypothetical, purely for example). If I were to go off a proportion of accounts that I've reviewed and acted on, I would say that maybe two of those account don't end up following the exact same pattern, which is to solicit anonymous, encrypted communication methods from other similarly flagged/described users, while sometimes coyly talking about abuse content using acronyms and jargon. |
| " | penikka wrote: |
| Why does mere self-identification as paraphilic constitute a violation of the rule? It sounds to me like a harmful conflation of attraction and action. |
| " | It also seems willfully naive to pretend that those paraphilic attractions aren’t responsible for the vast majority of content on this site. |
| " | GreenReaper wrote: |
| Because it is this act of self-identification which encourages further acts such as people contacting the poster with the understanding that it may be to trade illicit content. |
| " | GreenReaper wrote: |
| A significant number of furry fans are only interested in fictional fantasy animals, not real-life humans (research suggests over half of furs see human pornography in a negative light). |
| " | penikka wrote: |
|
Where is the evidence of that? Do you believe preventing this so-called “encouragement” is worth harming those simply seeking community, support, love, acceptance for who they are by identifying openly? Identification is not an act. It is speech. |
| " | GreenReaper wrote: |
| "I'm a MAP" is not political speech. |
| " | GreenReaper wrote: |
| Most of those advertising themselves as such were indeed interested in networking with other paedophiles; we saw plenty of evidence of that along the lines of "I like the flag in your icon, got a Signal?" (repeat for tens of PMs). |
| " | GreenReaper wrote: |
| Moreover, the topic of real-life humans in sexual situations is off-topic for a furry art site. |
| " | GreenReaper wrote: |
| Prior to the rule change we were still getting plenty of reports of such accounts but could not take action without having one of the few staff who actually have access to read PMs review the account for further evidence. Now, any staff member can simply say "you're not allowed to promote yourself as a paedophile" and remove the relevant text/icon/etc. |
| " | GreenReaper wrote: |
| The change was not about "making IB look better" or there would likely have been many other changes. |
| " |
Again, awaiting any sort of number here. This new "tens" I think is the closest I've seen, though this of course doesn't take into account the proportion of people simply expressing their sexual identity without any illegal intent. |
| " |
Again, that seems like a roundabout way of dealing with the actual problem, which is people soliciting illegal content. If the problem is that not enough staff had access to PMs, couldn't the change have instead been an announcement that more staff have been given PM-reading privileges in order to take on an increase in illegal activity? I'm pretty sure most users of the site have no idea that there is a distinction between staff who can and can't read PMs. Along with a simple reiteration of the existing rules and any hard numbers about the increase of illegal activity, I feel like that would have been received perfectly fine by the users. Instead you've created this mess... why? |
| " | Kadm wrote: |
| He said 'tens of PMs'. As I told you somewhere else, and you ignored, we won't have a concrete number because that's not how our support system currently works. There's no easy way to retrieve the number of people we've banned over a period for a specific thing. Notes are text, written by us, and not particularly searchable. It's not great, and something I hope to improve in the future. |
| " | Kadm wrote: |
| If I had to say, I would guess that the number would be in the low hundreds for the number of accounts that I've removed for taking this behavior too far in the last year. I removed a few dozen the week before we implemented this. For reference, since we implemented this policy two weeks ago, I believe we've removed two users who couldn't move on and decided their identification was more important than their membership. That's fine. Unfortunate, but fine. |
| " | Kadm wrote: |
| So on balance is the privacy of all users worth less than the identification of a select few? Do we assume the risk of recruiting and training new staff, opening up over a decade of private messages and the personal data they contain, simply to continue to allow the advocacy of harm against real life children? |
| " |
I understand, I only wish that concrete numbers were collected using an improved process before the policy change. I feel like this is how policy usually works in government--first you collect data and write a report on the problem, then you come up with possible solutions. So hopefully you understand how it looks to an outsider as if due diligence wasn't really done here. |
| " |
It's hard for me to say as an outsider how both the system and the staff organization work in Inkbunny so I can't really comment on this, but perhaps I underestimate the amount of work in my proposed scenario. I just really wish there were more of a dialogue with the community about this before the rule change so that some sort of compromise could be reached, due to the extreme social isolation and marginalization that the affected users already face. |
| " | Kadm wrote: |
| That doesn't take into account that beyond recruiting staff (itself not an easy thing), I don't see it as a problem that's sustainable. One thing that I've always said is that Inkbunny is incredibly well put together, but there wasn't much planning towards it operating for over ten years, or with tens of thousands of users per day. You want a scenario where we recruit enough staff to maintain lists of suspect pedophiles, and enough staff to keep an eye on those suspect pedophiles private messages on a constant basis to ensure that they aren't distributing or networking for illegal material. Even if we recruit enough today, it won't be enough in the future, and we'll have to continue to expand staff while constantly widening the number of people that have access to private user data. |
| " | Kadm wrote: |
|
And for what? The vast majority of impacted users have no submissions, and barely comment and participate (and where they do, they often make everyone uncomfortable). When a user seems genuinely engaged in the community, we're going to give them every opportunity to continue to be a user here, but this is the best path forward for Inkbunny. I'm also not sure if you realize, but you call this a mess, but plenty of people immediately understood what this pertained to, and what needed to stop, and despite a few people being upset, an overwhelming majority of contributing members of the website seemed pretty happy with the change. Even here in this journal, the majority of individual responses are positive, and the negative responses are a handful of much more vocal users. Understandable, perhaps, since they feel impacted. |
| " |
I know I'm speaking about the minority of affected users here, in fact a minority inside of a minority, but I feel a safe space for them is really going away where few exist in contemporary society, and that makes me very sad. I'm glad the implementation plan is to be gentle. Maybe users can form communities elsewhere if their accounts aren't completely banned and deleted (I hope you will not also ban such organization). I also hope that you understand, as has been pointed out in this comments section by others, it was already very very risky even within the confines of the Inkbunny community to come out as a pedophile/MAP. And this may also be why many accounts seem to be low engagement or throwaways, but I can't say for sure. It basically jettisons their reputation immediately to all but those who share their identity, and the few otherwise marginalized folks who are sympathetic enough to their plight. But such allies also cannot speak out, and typically can only offer support privately, because of the hostility these people face. So it is just very rare that you will see anyone claiming such identities or any sort of empathy, allyship, or fighting on their behalf. It's dangerous speech to everyone involved. That's why I'm continuing to comment here. |
| " | GreenReaper wrote: | ||||
The former group posting art involving fictional animals isn't a problem - except inasmuch as elements of that art deliberately indicate the affinity of a person behind the character for real-life activities, which is something symbols and coded phrases tend to be used for - you don't have to use them for the work we host, you just say you like cubs, which are non-human by definition. |
|
|
CloudHusky |
| " | rooshoes wrote: |
| I just worry that the rest of the community will misinterpret your statements here as support for the harassment and oppression of paraphiles. |
|
xephion |
|
|
GreenReaper |
| " | 888g888 wrote: |
| 1. wtf do you think the zeta symbol shit is? |
| " | [some] don't see zoos and MAPs as appropriate to lump together; the former is not universally criminalized, and often has lighter penalties |
| " | Mircea wrote: |
| I really don't like seeing concepts like "you aren't allowed to identify as"... |
| " | GreenReaper wrote: |
| I'm sure that shit would be first against the wall |
| " | lockhearts wrote: |
| if someone has a paraphile like this they should be seeking professional help, not gathering on a porn site to proudly indulge in what they see as the thing they have a paraphile of and feeding into their mental illness |
| " | Its a personal preference but I get viscerally angry hearing that song. |
| " | shocu wrote: |
| Then Inkbunny should target those account specifically, not all MAP accounts even if they're not advocating for that. |
| " | shocu wrote: |
| Some of us are just happy to have a place where we can express that part of themselves and are not interested in illicit activities. |
| " | shocu wrote: |
| Then again, target those accounts, make rules staring "no advocacy of illicit activity or networking allowed" rather than "if you say you like kids we'll ban you." |
| " | shocu wrote: |
| As for your second point, I would have an easier time seeing that if I didn't also see people identifying as all sorts of other things on this site. |
| " | people don't file support tickets about how someone was great to them or is a perfect contributor to the community. |
| " | However disappointing it might be not to be able to use those terms to elicit reactions in works for fetish purposes, it's more important to not give those jackasses a platform |
| " | Smolfoks wrote: |
| I understand you, the admins and staff, like to do a hands-off approach to policing the site, but like it or not, you have a duty to protect and look out for the wellbeing of the users/community that formed under you, and I hope you understand how the delayed action in these regards was a monumental failure on this front and will be more quick to take action against blatant threats to everyone and everything this site stands for. |
| " | No one has the right to harass anyone for their tastes or the content of artwork they post on Inkbunny. Inkbunny encourages a community where people of all different interests can co-exist. The community attitude is one of acceptance of the widest possible range of views and ideas, as long as they do not encourage hate and intolerance. |
| " | GreenReaper wrote: |
| Saying you are a paedophile (or MAP, etc) indicates to the vast majority of people that you enjoy sexual content involving real children. |
| " | GreenReaper wrote: |
| For those who do, there is still little to be gained that relates to furry art for their non-furry interests in this area to be known, and the cost is that people start to use Inkbunny to connect with like-minded people and share content related to that topic, which is not something that we want to enable. |
| " | GreenPika wrote: |
| I haven't seen it talked about much here but most real life pedos are not satisfied with furry art and the furrier it is, the less satisfied they are. AI art generators are a real issue when it comes to MAPS. |
| " | GreenPika wrote: |
| NOW I will be the first to point out, that doesn't take into account sudden social changes and resent years have seen a very large shift both in society and in the types of people populating the fandom. |
| " | GreenPika wrote: |
| Though knowing the psychology of the issue, I still stand behind my statement that most people who are real life predators, are not satisfied with furry porn and do not tend to focus much time/attention to it. Especially when they can get material that more suits their interests, whether it be real life or simulated human stuff. |
| " | GreenPika wrote: |
| Ah and the lines are being drawn. Good. One question: Is there a reason we're spelling it paedophilia? |
| " | Dragoneer wrote: |
|
"According to law based in the United States, furry art does not fall under the restrictions imposed towards p*dophilia, and while similar, it is not the same thing. No actual child is hurt by the depiction in the art. Furries do not exist in real life, and as such -- are nothing more than imaginative xenomorphic entities. Given that.... we feel that it is in our best interest as a website NOT to censor cub-related art. If, however, we feel that the any art uploaded to Fur Affinity is based off of a real child, or meant to represent a real child, we will take action against that user and report them to the proper authorities and pull their artwork. The administration behind Fur Affinity does not, and will not, ever support Real Life P*dophilia. We will, however, choose and defend people's rights to freedom of artistic expression and choice." |
| " | NekoStar wrote: |
| Yes, FBI? This guy right here. |
| " | Identifying yourself as someone who wants to diddle kids is a bad thing. |
| " | "Not that i'd do it, but man I have tons of fantasies of mutilating kittens" is also a bad statement, hopefully we can agree on that as well. |
| " | people will assume you WILL act on it someday or at the very least have some questionable files on your computer |
| " | If you are openly identifying yourself as a criminal |
| " | Also clumping all "MAPs" into "wants to fuck kids" disregards reality. |
| " | Chira wrote: |
|
how is this forbidding freedom of speech. and even IF it is what you say. on the internet doesnt exists freedom of speech. because every plattform where you register an account has rules set in place to which you have to abide. for example, if i would insult you here right now heavily would i probably get warned or even getting banned for x days. with your logic would that be "taking freedom of speech away". because you can not freely speak your opinion of someone else. but, this counts for LITERARLY ANY ONLINE PLATTFORM. freedom of speech does not exist on the internet, NOWHERE!!! you have to abide ALWAYS to the plattforms ToS. so, dont talk about "my freedom of speech gets taken away" you never had freedom of speech here on IB nor on any other online plattform to begin with... lol. |
| " | IB to ban or limit the speech of people for being honest about who they are, and for their identity? IB?? |
| " | I like that no one can legally try to stop me if I choose to say I like cubs to random strangers in public. I'm in the US though so your milage may vary. |
| " | Chira wrote: | |||
you did, you literarly wrote
do you even read your own posts sometimes? and before you dare to edit it because peoples like you love to do this and then saying "no, i never did" https://gyazo.com/2b5f45af83a5a8644e4653cba7f968c9 there, you literarly saying "IB is banning freedom of speech" =D sorry but you failed there and to this oh wait edit on my own: the 10 minutes are long over, you cant even edit it if you wanted to =x.
sure, noone can stop you to do this, thats true. but, you would never do that. but! you missed an essential part i´ve wrote. i wrote "expecially when peoples know you" not "to strangers" because if you would do this to peoples irl which know you will they go literarly to the police and you will get to 100% your PC seized and landing infront of the court and your life is over. |
| " | Chira wrote: |
|
oh yea, not to mentition that i doubt that you would dare to freely speak in public about it that you like cub etc. xD expecially when peoples know who you are irl. |
| " | ...avoiding staff action in this case should be possible for all, by not engaging in the kinds of advocacy and promotional/self-identifying activity described above. |
|
TayFerret |
| " | Gat wrote: |
|
So I guess what I'm getting at is I'm curious and wanted to ask the massive massive amount of people who seem to be lurking this post today, are these issues something that someone who's maybe a little too gay would have glossed over? Or is it because I tend to stick to artists people link me to and never really branch out into the recent tab? I'm just wondering if people have a consensus of year when it all went 'wrong' so to speak. I feel so out of the loop. |
| " | the predominant impression conveyed is that the person shown is a child despite the fact that some of the physical characteristics shown are not those of a child |
| " | Inkbunny reserves the right to remove any content or to cancel your account and terminate this agreement at its sole discretion for any reason it deems appropriate. |
| " | As always, we will act in a graduated manner based on the severity of the problem and issue warnings, restrictions of account privileges – and yes, in some cases, bans – to the extent necessary. |
|
|
GreenReaper |
| " | firestar7 wrote: |
|
I'm sorry if I was rude too, |
|
strawbaby |
| " | Our interpretation of such content includes the use of overt or covert means to identify as a paedophile |
|
StrayOpossum |
| " | GreenReaper wrote: |
| If it proves necessary to eliminate the trans flag from the site, so be it! 😼 |
| " | GreenReaper wrote: |
| Cub art is fine, you just can't say "oh, I also like the idea of having sex with human children" here |
| " | GreenReaper wrote: |
| A callout journal which are generally allowed unless they are encouraging people to harass the person in question. |
|
HazzardSlime |
| " | I can't think any possible purpose someone would have in announcing to a bunch of strangers on a furry art website (often repeatedly and in detail), that they are, unequivocally, sexually attracted to flesh-and-blood children, other than to illicit some kind of interaction/support for literal, irl "man/child" "relationships". |
| " | If you disagree with me that the fantasies of cub art and the realities of child abuse need to be very firmly separated, in a manner similar to fantasies about non-consent and the realities of rape or fantasies of violence and the reality of mass murder, then I sincerely hope you are able to seek help before you inflict a lifetime of trauma upon someone. |
| " | hjfduitloxtrds wrote: |
| I don't understand why so many people are arguing against this. Paedophilia is against the law in the USA where IB is based, therefore to ensure complete compliance with all applicable federal and state laws, IB must prevent any discussion about real life situations involving minors, cp, or any discussions of any other illegal sexual conduct or situations. It's not brain science. |
| " | hjfduitloxtrds wrote: |
| [...] Cub art is not against the rules, as it features fictional characters. I really don't see the problem here. |
