[ANGRY RANT WARNING]

https://twitter.com/FurryNetwork/status/736396691394297857

Because fuck artistic freedom and screw sticking to your guns, right? We gotta appeal to a bunch of spoiled, wining, entitled furries who couldn't be bothered to simply type a few words into a blacklist/put a filter on.

"Butt cubz pornz depict sexualized children." And snuff porn depicts sexualized death/murder, gore porn glorifies violence/mutilation, rape depicts glorified rape, torture porn glorifies torture, etc, all of which on a moral/legal standpoint are just as bad as "cub porn", yet no one calls for their banning, nor tries to compare them to the real world equivalent. "Because those aren't real, they're fictional!" WELL SO'S FUCKING CUB PORN, YOU CLOSE MINDED, IGNORENT FUCKING TOOLS.

Before you say it, I know, they had to do what was in the site's best interest/favor, and what's best for a site is appealing to the "majority", and looking good in a public sense, but in this case it was less the "majority" and more the vocal minority that wouldn't stop screaming and crying until they got their way.

Did you see mountain of IB journals and twitter feeds of people declaring that they'd stop using the site if they banned explicit cub? (Not gonna say not at all, cause of course there may be a few, but for the most part) No, because those artists are so used to being demonized and screwed over at this point they gave up the moment the whole debunkle started. But for most everyone else, what did they do? Calmly voice their opposition to such content being posted on the site in any way(for whatever reason)? Of course not, one half started going to every social media outlet they could find and rallied up drones to start slandering the site's name for allowing "child pornography", and the rest (most of which don't have/would have never made an account anyways) started bombarding their twitter with messages of "if you keep allowing this, i'm not using your site".

As upset as I am with the outcome, I guess I can't really put the admins on blast for this, they were in hot water while dealing with a bunch of babies that were threatening to sink their newly formed ship, so they took the path of least resistance, at this point I just hope this whole mess doesn't... further tarnish their reputation.

In the end I guess crap like this just goes to show how toxic this community/fandom really is...

https://support.furrynetwork.com/topics/969-remove-rape-snuff-gore-anal-bdsm-facesitting-and-other-immoral-content-on-the-website/#

and now they disabled commenting.

Qmannn said:
Eh, unexpected, but I can't say I really care. The double standard is ridiculous, but, if you really want to see the stuff, InkBunny isn't going anywhere from what I can tell, e621 has had it for so long that I'm not expecting a purge, boorus specifically created for this fetish exist, and Japanese websites still allow it, albeit censored, but many artists, particularly western ones, completely disregard the rule.

My issue with it is less not being able to see it there, and more the, yes, double standard of the whole thing, and the actions of one side of the community leading to the choice.

I am more than fine with this. In fact, I am very pleased.

Well, there's always Inkbunny for the cub stuff anyway.

Aeruginis said:
I am more than fine with this. In fact, I am very pleased.

Some things aren't worth it.

As OP points out, this is a fine attitude as long as you also ban things like snuff, torture, rape... If you don't, it's just hypocrisy

savageorange said:
As OP points out, this is a fine attitude as long as you also ban things like snuff, torture, rape... If you don't, it's just hypocrisy

There is not a double standard here (which is what this would be, not hypocrisy). Porn depicting very young characters and children isn't at all on the same level as porn depicting other hardcore fetishes. Even if it's bloody, gory, torturous rape depicting adult characters, to me it is different than cub porn. I have little sisters and I am rather forcibly reminded of them when I see most cub porn. I've also read books on child abuse, sex trafficking, and slavery, and the things I've seen and heard have affected me quite deeply.

And yes, it's just a fantasy, not real, and so on and so forth—but some fantasies are more dangerous than others, and some things, though apparently "harmless," are not worth it.

That exemplifies the bad reasoning (or more accurately, feeling) that OP is talking about.

Just because you feel especially bad about it does not mean it deserves special treatment. Feelings are not an argument, so feeling differently about it is not an argument either.

Cub stuff discomforts me too, sometimes a lot.
That doesn't mean I have a single rational argument for banning it. All that is is an emotional reaction.

If you can't show your work, it doesn't count;it's not reasonable. And IMO that is the principle criticism that can be rightly levelled at the agents of this change: They didn't provide any good argument, they just shoveled shit. Which is essentially what you are -- politely -- doing.

The FN announcement, OTOH, did manage to make some sound points (I think I disagree with the OP on this; 'Professionalism' and 'Legality' both describe good points.). Overall they make a passable, but not actually compelling argument, largely because it's muffled by excessive 'professionalism'

keokitsune said:
https://support.furrynetwork.com/topics/969-remove-rape-snuff-gore-anal-bdsm-facesitting-and-other-immoral-content-on-the-website/#

and now they disabled commenting.

They did that before their decision was reached because it was turning into a shitfest.

It's like they have a God-complex. "I don't like this, remove it or else." Even though FN HAS a blacklist so you don't have to see that type of stuff, they feel like they have to "save everyone from seeing it". And yes, some artists actually think like that.

From dumbass artist in the link:
THE ABILITY TO BLOCK IT DOESN'T EASE MY CONSCIENCE.

KNOWING PEOPLE ARE BROWSING THAT SITE TO LOOK AT CHILD PORN, FICTIONAL OR NOT, ONLY ATTEMPTS TO FILL THE DEPRAVED SEXUAL VOID IT WAS DRAWN TO CATER TO, AND IS NOT COOL. IT'S SICK.

IT ENCOURAGES EXPLOITATION AND SEXUAL FETISHIZATION / FANTASIZING OF YOUNG CHILDREN. AGAIN, IT'S SICK. IT DOESN'T MATTER IF IT'S NOT "REAL CHILDREN", THE VISION AND FANTASY IS STILL THE SAME.

News flash: NOT EVERYONE THINKS LIKE YOU. By this stupid logic, what if I say "knowing that people are browsing furry sites to look at furry porn, fictional or not, only attempts to fill the depraved sexual void it was drawn to cater to, and is not cool. It's sick." And some furry artists have the NERVE to say "cub porn will only lead to child molesters". But furry porn won't lead to bestiality and animal abusers, right? Or gun lovers will turn into mass murderers, right? These assumptions are so far off it's literally hilarious. My God, people are idiots. And those SJW's say that they're "open-minded". Hypocrites.

Art is about freedom of expression. No matter what topic it's pertaining to. Many people don't like straight porn, should we ban that too? Many people don't like porn in general, should that also get a ban?

Why not a furry artist site where users can create a blacklist and people get whacked for not tagging fetishes?

This cub issue does have "one" benefit in my sight: we know where to look or avoid. With the other fetishes, we now have to scour across (in my count) five sites just to find the majority, and even then it's still a shoot in the dark. i'll list one as an example and say go look for "diaper" on five different sites.

The tag, while findable, must adhere to each site rules, for every site... But now that only one site outright allows Cub, you only have to look through one. If FN did this with other fetishes, again with diaper, it's going to both damage them, and help people who look for said fetish by removing a site.

So, in shorthand: them removing Cub helped the people who look for the fetish, and hurt themselves in the process. If they rinse and repeat, to become "a better site", they'll damage themselves worse, all the while aiding those who specify their fetish. If they try to become the "clean" furry site, then they won't have a name, just a blind public with nothing left that isn't provided better on another site. This is why E6 is better: we won't judge, and we have no competitors as a result.

Chaser said:
Why not a furry artist site where users can create a blacklist and people get whacked for not tagging fetishes?

Actually, that's what it was supposed to be, according to their blog. Users could suggest (Add their own) tags for images, which unless removed by the artist I guess would stay? The default blacklist hadn't been released yet, though, which caused people who were flocking their during the Fur Affinity outage to see cub porn, and they freaked out. Rather than just saying "Fuck this I'm not going here, give me Deviant Art instead!" they decided to whine to the admins.
What about So Furry? Weasyl? There are plenty of other options if you're just trying to run to somewhere stable.

It's a good start. Next logical step is to ban furry art. Nobody wants to share site with disgusting freaks that fuck animals.
/s

Siral_Exan said:
This cub issue does have "one" benefit in my sight: we know where to look or avoid. With the other fetishes, we now have to scour across (in my count) five sites just to find the majority, and even then it's still a shoot in the dark. i'll list one as an example and say go look for "diaper" on five different sites.

This is a good point. It makes me think about the artists' position in this, where if they make some content that is not permitted by their 'main/preferred' site, they are obligated to either not upload it at all, or create an account on another site and manage uploading, commenting, etc at least some of their stuff there. Doesn't that make posting mainly or entirely on more-permissive sites like InkBunny look increasingly attractive, from the PoV of 'I don't have to juggle restrictions'?

So, in shorthand: them removing Cub helped the people who look for the fetish, and hurt themselves in the process. If they rinse and repeat, to become "a better site", they'll damage themselves worse, all the while aiding those who specify their fetish. If they try to become the "clean" furry site, then they won't have a name, just a blind public with nothing left that isn't provided better on another site.

Reminds me a heck of a lot of evaporative cooling of group beliefs ; you might be interested in that article.

Chaser said:
Why not a furry artist site where users can create a blacklist and people get whacked for not tagging fetishes?

Because their butts are on fire with the feeling of kill!

j/k

Qmannn said:
If you're going to claim that this isn't a double standard and that some fantasies are somehow "more dangerous than others" (implying that there are dangerous fantasies to begin with), please provide actual arguments.

Personally I think there are dangerous fantasies, but they are usually most dangerous to the person having them. Becoming attached to things that are impossible, for example. Having a far narrower image of yourself than others have of you. Etc.

(IIRC there is research indicating that prevalence of pornography inversely correlates with prevalence of rape. This may mean that having 'imagination aids' (ie porn) is overall beneficial to society -- or it may not (other important things, like quality of relationships, and whether such thoughts are worth the time to entertain at all, were not considered))

How shocking, everyone's darling child actually ended up being a twat. How unexpected . . .

dont worry i summed up your post in fewer words

Aeruginis said:
Ban it cuz my feelings

I don't like cub artwork, but I also think it's dumb to ban it.

Honestly I don't much like FN from what I saw of it. It feels to me like a furry Facebook (which, for the record, I don't use either). Basically I got more of a "social media" vibe from it than an "art site" vibe.

Which, I guess, is a pretty weak reason to not use it, since I haven't really looked into it in any true detail, but this isn't endearing me towards the site.

IMO the strength of the case against cub is only a little stronger than the case against truth: "It makes me feel bad, don't expose me to feeling bad." + possible analogy to RL behaviours. But as others and myself have stated, if you reason with any integrity from analogy to RL behaviours, you are also obligated to ban fictional things of comparable moral weight (keeping in mind that your feelings do not lend things any additional moral weight; If anything, using appeal-to-emotion arguments like 'think of the children' only demonstrates intellectual corruption)

FN's gallery presentation is pretty much like an average image viewer IMO (looks quite like my fav, sxiv, with a little polish added.. made more 'smartphone-ish' too perhaps). Otherwise it's like FA, TBH (ie. I dislike the interface for non-gallery things, just like I dislike the non-gallery interface in DA, FA, facebook ...).. so I guess I agree with your comment? I find those things dislikable because they tend to shove a lot of faces in your face ;)

Honestly I think FN's gallery presentation is easier on the eyes than e6, particularly the fade to black on thumbnails. I'd like to see the thumbnail fade here too.

from blog.furrynetwork.com/2016/05/28/content-policy-changes-may-27-2016/ : "Furry Network is a site which is intended to aid the fandom’s growth and evolution, and to lead to a better future for the community as a whole"

is that before or after people start whining about something until you cave into their demands?

i would say the "creative freedom" factor down at the bottom of that page now has a hole in it. "creative freedom except for..."

oh well, we still have inkbunny and e621. and i would say both of which are quite unlikely to change any time soon on this kind of matter. :)

support.furrynetwork.com/topics/870-remove-allowing-cub-pornography-on-the-website/ : -72 rating on one comment saying "Censorship of art has never improved the quality of art. While allowing artists freedom of expression has resulted in masterpieces."

i guess some people like censoring.

treos said:
i guess some people like censoring.

Yeah, they fucking love it as long as it censors something they personally hate and allows them the power to dictate what a group of people *other* than themselves are allowed to do.

If you happen to mention how you could use the same absolutely completely shit-tier logic the majority of them used to crusade for cub art getting banned to "justify" the banning of any number of other topics they're apparently cool with like ferals/bestiality/vore/gore/rape/snuff/FURRY ART IN GENERAL/etc, They'll stick their fingers in their ears while chanting "la la la la" at the top of their lungs like the fucking intellectual champions that they are.

I don't even care that FN banned cub, nor can I really blame the admins for making that business decision in an effort to make their site more popular... I'm just pissed that these SJW-grade idiots who don't deserve to be outside of tumblr are getting the satisfaction of "winning", even after using such completely horseshit "arguments" like ITS ICKY THO, ITS WRONG BECAUSE IT JUST IS THO, GUYS ITS TOTALLY GONNA BE USED BY IRL CHILD MOLESTERS TO HELP THEM MOLEST MORE CHILDRENS(fucking LOL btw) THO, and are probably busy circle-jerking each other over having successfully lobbied to get the great corrupting evil that is fictional pixels arranged into cub art removed from FN... and they're going to attribute it all to their obviously flawless moral reasoning too, which is just going to make them think they're correct all the more.

It's fucking annoying to see absolute morons get their way in this manner.

Personally I couldn't give less of a fuck that it's gone, but there's the matter of censorship going on here, regardless of content. I find cub porn disgusting, sure, but can a site really just do this and ignore an entire genre of furry artists?

and yeah if you begin banning cub then yeah, why not begin banning snuff, scat, vore, rape, etc, etc, etc.

Crispix said:
It's fucking annoying to see absolute morons get their way in this manner.

At some point you've gotta gain some acceptance that morons gonna mor, and pity them for their smallmindedness, see that they are genuinely losing out, rather than raging.
Being ready to tell them something factual and challenging eg 'you really think you have a single clue about this subject, don't you?', is also good, but only if it actually comes up (eg. THEY talk to YOU about this stuff)

(fictional pixels? Is that like when you write fiction about someone drawing digital art ? ;)

You guys completely miss the point of the "business" part of the decision. Furry Network wants to earn money by offering a commission service through a merchant that gives otherwise non-existent securities to both the commissioner and the artist. With this simple truth out of the way the issue becomes rather clear: how many merchants would allow their service to be used to create art that resembles child pornography in front of an actual judge?

It's completely irrelevant what any one of us feels about the thematic because most of the judges don't give a fuck, thus it had to go. It would have taken one person to whine to the merchant about FN peddling CP through their service and the thing would have been shut down faster than a reactor in case of an earthquake.

Aeruginis said:
And yes, it's just a fantasy, not real, and so on and so forth—but some fantasies are more dangerous than others, and some things, though apparently "harmless," are not worth it.

No, there are studies showing that easily accessible porn either reduces the appearance of rape, or simply has no effect.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2032762

The only exception to that is porn accessible to young and impressionable teenagers that suddenly believe the rape porn is real and okay, but that is real porn and not fantastic like cub stuff. Could also be solved or prevented by parents actually doing their job and raising a kid proper.

There is no pleasing everyone:

https://twitter.com/FurryNetwork/status/736396691394297857

I still can't fathom how this was ever a point for debate.
...
It explains that your staff didn't have the mind to ban this sort of deplorable content from the get go. That's disturbing.
...
EXCUSE ME 'WINNERS'? The sexual exploitation of children is not a game

Damned if you don't, damned if you debate.

Lance_Armstrong said:
Damned if you don't, damned if you debate.

He's probably just upset that he has nothing to argue about anymore.

There's already INKBUNNY for cub, I'd rather have at least one site where the front page isn't completely covered with cub.

No political platform.

But I'm sure he'll find one by next week, no need to worry ;)

NMNY: thanks, that was the study I was thinking of.

Bowen_Whitehooves said:
There's already INKBUNNY for cub, I'd rather have at least one site where the front page isn't completely covered with cub.

FA and Weasyl don't allow it, so that's two already. Plus most of the smaller sites. And now FN.

Bowen_Whitehooves said:
There's already INKBUNNY for cub, I'd rather have at least one site where the front page isn't completely covered with cub.

The only site I know that was completely covered with cub was cubcentral. Even on IB there's less than 25% cub images on both popular and recent images. What are these other sites completely covered with cubs?

NotMeNotYou said:
You guys completely miss the point of the "business" part of the decision.

So, when are you planning to apply "business" part of decision to e621?

Granberia said:
So, when are you planning to apply "business" part of decision to e621?

Did you see the huge part about how FN uses a merchant system? We don't use a merchant, we don't have to care about this.

That's like asking an ice creme vendor how a shortage in fries is affecting their business; it doesn't.

All your cub porn are belong to us

I'm glad e6 sticks to its guns regarding the content on the site. If you don't like it, you blacklist it, and the only thing that stops content on here is the law (copyright and new pirated content) Which is how it should be. Let the user customize how they use the site and have the most adaptability and options for them, thats how e6 does it :)

Crispix said:
stuff

something else that bothers me is things like this line from the 2nd page i linked: "It also makes furrynetwork an illegal website to browse in some countries because of the strict regulations of anything remotely cp."

hello, inability to differentiate fantasy from reality. cub porn is not child pornography. well, not human cp and its fiction anyway.

Qmannn said:
Inkbunny is the only major western furry website that allows cub porn. If it allowed human porn as well, it'd be the only major western website that I'd be able to think of to allow underage characters of all types since Hentai Foundry banned underaged characters not too long ago.

well, IB, does allow underage humans in pics. the only thing is they have to be hosted somewhere off site then linked to. seen aogami (who seems to have been uploading lots and lots of stuff lately or so my submission notifications show) do that all the time. so they kinda do, if indirectly.

Bowen_Whitehooves said:
There's already INKBUNNY for cub, I'd rather have at least one site where the front page isn't completely covered with cub.

As has been mentioned: Weasyl and Fur Affinity both ban cub! SoFurry only bans it if the cub is human, though.

Qmannn said:
I'm not sure I'd consider fantasies to even be self destructive unless the person becomes delusional and starts confusing reality with fiction.

Inkbunny is the only major western furry website that allows cub porn. If it allowed human porn as well, it'd be the only major western website that I'd be able to think of to allow underage characters of all types since Hentai Foundry banned underaged characters not too long ago. There's a low chance you'd have the problem of a front page filled with cub artwork outside of IB.

Also, I just blocked all sexual content tagged with "cub". Blacklisting just that one word caused the entire front page to be filled with nothing but non cub porn. There's probably some stuff not tagged with it and some their artists may refuse to accept tag suggestions, but Inkbunny actually requires things like cub to be tagged and users can be reported for failing to comply with this rule.

I can tolerate furry cub, but when you throw human cub porn into the mix I would definitely be using the blacklist or demanding a blacklist be added. Kind of glad SoFurry has that human-cub ban.

NotMeNotYou said:
That's like asking an ice creme vendor how a shortage in fries is affecting their business; it doesn't.

But I like having icecream to dip my french fries into! Without fries I'd have no reason to buy the icecream :(

treos said:
well, IB, does allow underage humans in pics. the only thing is they have to be hosted somewhere off site then linked to. seen aogami (who seems to have been uploading lots and lots of stuff lately or so my submission notifications show) do that all the time. so they kinda do, if indirectly.

On the actual IB images, naked humans have to be heavily censored. KitsuneYoukai accomplished this by just having a complete black sillouette in place of humans.

Bowen_Whitehooves said:
There's already INKBUNNY for cub, I'd rather have at least one site where the front page isn't completely covered with cub.

Thank you.

And FELLAS, I wasn't trying to say why they should get rid of cub porn; I was just expressing why I'm glad they did. I'm not going to get into my technical reasoning, or how the porn culture is destroying society (especially young society), or what happened at that Florida high school this week. This is a freaking porn site, and my words shall fall on ears that are too heavily invested in the medium to care.

good take the cub porn off furry network so people will actually join

I doubt FN would ever had gained a loyal following/a significant userbase if they allowed cub, since it is very polarizing issue.
So, good.

I don't even know if I should bother at this point, but I'll repost my 2 cents anyway.

reposted:

I'm pretty sure the outrage has far more to do with their staff at first going "we're not banning this for the sake of creative freedom", and then literally a day later, they pull a 180 and outright ban it "to protect minors", despite being a site that is only suppose to have only 18+ members to begin with.

https://i.gyazo.com/2dfd336f4fc9a5a2d673f2f443a87eb0.png
And seriously? The people who pushed it to get banned are using such massive cop-out justification. They are not protecting minors, they are protecting themselves. At least be honest about it.

When creating the website, they should have known if this would have been an issue or not, and had firm rules set on cub porn from the get-go, completely avoiding this issue. They didn't learn from their predecessors at all, and that's their fault, not the communities.

However this sudden 180 proves that they will easily give into pressure and censorship, and that their "stands" don't actually hold much weight. Because of this issue, it's only a matter of time when something new that is viewed as "overly offensive" pops up, and the users can't trust the site to not suddenly ban that too, to protect their image instead of creative freedoms of the users.

Basically, users can not trust the staff anymore to keep their word, and that is really not something you want to happen with a new site in it's infancy like this.

Tanukiyasha said:
I don't even know if I should bother at this point, but I'll repost my 2 cents anyway.

reposted:

I'm pretty sure the outrage has far more to do with their staff at first going "we're not banning this for the sake of creative freedom", and then literally a day later, they pull a 180 and outright ban it "to protect minors", despite being a site that is only suppose to have only 18+ members to begin with.

https://i.gyazo.com/2dfd336f4fc9a5a2d673f2f443a87eb0.png
And seriously? The people who pushed it to get banned are using such massive cop-out justification. They are not protecting minors, they are protecting themselves. At least be honest about it.

When creating the website, they should have known if this would have been an issue or not, and had firm rules set on cub porn from the get-go, completely avoiding this issue. They didn't learn from their predecessors at all, and that's their fault, not the communities.

However this sudden 180 proves that they will easily give into pressure and censorship, and that their "stands" don't actually hold much weight. Because of this issue, it's only a matter of time when something new that is viewed as "overly offensive" pops up, and the users can't trust the site to not suddenly ban that too, to protect their image instead of creative freedoms of the users.

Basically, users can not trust the staff anymore to keep their word, and that is really not something you want to happen with a new site in it's infancy like this.

One user's comment is not the reason they changed things. As Nimmy said, they chose to ban it because they can't get the merchant security to work for them if they allow cub.

Furrin_Gok said:
One user's comment is not the reason they changed things. As Nimmy said, they chose to ban it because they can't get the merchant security to work for them if they allow cub.

It's like you failed to read. That's a fine excuse, but the outrage was because they had JUST promised to not to do that a day prior. Whatever there reason, there word on things is worth exactly zero right now

NotMeNotYou said:
Did you see the huge part about how FN uses a merchant system? We don't use a merchant, we don't have to care about this.

That's like asking an ice creme vendor how a shortage in fries is affecting their business; it doesn't.

They could always do a donation system like Inkbunny uses. It also appears that at one time Inkbunny had a print system.

BinaryHedgehog said:
They could always do a donation system like Inkbunny uses. It also appears that at one time Inkbunny had a print system.

It isn't as simple as using donations over a merchant system, and merchant systems are vastly more reliable.

Last I checked the print system on IB never actually worked.

CamKitty said:
It;s like you failed to read. That's a fine excuse, but the outrage was because they had JUST promised to not to do that a day prior. Whatever there reason, there word on things is worth exactly zero right now

No, the stance was "we'll have a look at all arguments and then come back with a decision" not "you whined the loudest, we do what you say". There went a vastly different data into that decision than who whined the loudest on twitter.

Financial decisions aside, if Furry Network is to become the next big fandom hub, it'd be best if it stayed away from cub.

If you guys want your niches, go to a niche site. I have several snuff/gore artists who I love, but I'm willing to find them through other avenues if FN's extreme content policy goes against them.

If anybody's being whiny or entitled, it's the minority fetish-group trying to force FN to accommodate them.

Knotty_Curls said:
If anybody's being whiny or entitled, it's the minority fetish-group trying to force FN to accommodate them.

I'm sorry. Are you talking about absolutely-never-drawn-porn-of-any-kind-ever Tartii and the sheep she talked into siding with her on this debate and bullying a site into submission or the relevant artists who never had the chance to have their voices heard on the other side of the debate?

Just want to make sure I know which minority fetish-group you're referring to.

Peronally, FN banning explicit cub isn't much of a loss since there's always Inkbunny and e6 to satisfy your cub needs like I said in a previous post (though I hope people who drew cub there also uploaded their works on those two sites). However, I find those who claim 'cub porn turns people into child molesters' extremely dumb and stupid because by that logic, bestiality art should also turn people into animal fuckers and this is coming from someone who draws cub (though I'm taking a break from it)... The hypocrisy is strong on that argument and this double-standard is pretty ridiculous if you ask me.

Let's just hope that Inkbunny won't fall into a similar fate anytime soon...

The problem I had is that it seems hypocritical that site that wouldn't do censorship just did censorship.

BinaryHedgehog said:
The problem I had is that it seems hypocritical that site that wouldn't do censorship just did censorship.

When did they say they would allow cub?

Furrin_Gok said:
When did they say they would allow cub?

https://twitter.com/FurryNetwork/status/735910404434460673

Before all this junk started, they openly welcomed cub.

treos said:
something else that bothers me is things like this line from the 2nd page i linked: "It also makes furrynetwork an illegal website to browse in some countries because of the strict regulations of anything remotely cp."

hello, inability to differentiate fantasy from reality. cub porn is not child pornography. well, not human cp and its fiction anyway.

Thing is that inability to diffentiate fantasy from reality is codified into law in some cases, so people have to deal with it anyway. In the link BrownBear just posted , "Ecchi Nemi" gives an example of how 3d art (but not 2d?!?!) of loli/shota is banned in Germany. Calax implies that either 2d and 3d, or just 2d, loli/shota are banned in Austria.

Like you say, loli/shota isn't cp, and cub isn't exactly loli/shota, but they are close enough that we really should expect that they come under the same laws until legal precedent is established otherwise.

BrownBear: That doesn't constitute support for cub. It's a standard dodge: 'extreme content' means whatever subset of extreme content they decide is OK to have on the site.

savageorange said:
Thing is that inability to diffentiate fantasy from reality is codified into law in some cases, so people have to deal with it anyway. In the link BrownBear just posted , "Ecchi Nemi" gives an example of how 3d art (but not 2d?!?!) of loli/shota is banned in Germany. Calax implies that either 2d and 3d, or just 2d, loli/shota are banned in Austria.

Like you say, loli/shota isn't cp, and cub isn't exactly loli/shota, but they are close enough that we really should expect that they come under the same laws until legal precedent is established otherwise.

BrownBear: That doesn't constitute support for cub. It's a standard dodge: 'extreme content' means whatever subset of extreme content they decide is OK to have on the site.

Given that the topic was brought about due too, and in direct response to a mention of cub porn, yes, said "extreme content" was referencing cub porn, of which they openly allowed prior to all this.

I get the feeling you're coming at me like you think i'm trying to argue why cub porn should be allowed, so lemme go ahead and close that up, i'm not, and at this point I could care less about the whole issue. All i'm doing is answering his question.

SirBrownBear said:
Given that the topic was brought about due too, and in direct response to a mention of cub porn, yes, said "extreme content" was referencing cub porn, of which they openly allowed prior to all this.

I get the feeling you're coming at me like you think i'm trying to argue why cub porn should be allowed, so lemme go ahead and close that up, i'm not, and at this point I could care less about the whole issue. All i'm doing is answering his question.

Eh? No, my comment was about you using a broad interpretation when an extremely narrow one was called for. Thanks for the context, but I still believe that an extremely narrow interpretation was called for, and that narrow interpretations should be used for all statements from an 'official' source.

EDIT: ie. they mean exactly what they say, and nothing beyond that. If what they say is sufficiently vague, they mean nothing at all.

SirBrownBear said:
https://twitter.com/FurryNetwork/status/735910404434460673

Before all this junk started, they openly welcomed cub.

Ah, thanks. Though, wanting the support of the merchant thing is understandable, and I can't hate them for changing their mind to support the business side of their site. Businesses do what they must to keep afloat, and Dragonfruit having more funding means they can better afford to keep all of their aspects up and running, e621 included.

So, were the FN cub porn ban votes FAKE I stumbled apon this, and gave it a read. The one phrase that really stuck out for me was "And if that ain't practical enough for ya, then just realize if the votes were faked, Varka would be missing out on a lot of money from us horny cub artists for nothing."

Specifically because it reminds me a lot of my prior statement: they're hurting themselves for getting rid of a fetish, and people are benefiting because they no longer "need" to go there. But, I'll leave this to interpretation now.

That would not surprise me even slightly. The scores I was seeing just on individual comments in that issue were weirdly high.

Qmannn said:
I'm not sure I'd consider fantasies to even be self destructive unless the person becomes delusional and starts confusing reality with fiction.

I didn't catch this before, but my reply is: if the person is isolated, that can happen very easily.

(OT: I misread a thread title on the main FN support page as 'Ability to turn off endless trolling.'. If only....)

Siral_Exan said:
So, were the FN cub porn ban votes FAKE I stumbled apon this, and gave it a read. The one phrase that really stuck out for me was "And if that ain't practical enough for ya, then just realize if the votes were faked, Varka would be missing out on a lot of money from us horny cub artists for nothing."

Specifically because it reminds me a lot of my prior statement: they're hurting themselves for getting rid of a fetish, and people are benefiting because they no longer "need" to go there. But, I'll leave this to interpretation now.

We ignored all anon/fake votes in our decision. The interface clearly shows where the votes came from, and the ones with legitimate accounts against cub still crushed the people who were for keeping it.

I'm honestly surprised that so many people can have it in them to care about this decision so much.

Qmannn said:
Inkbunny is the only major western furry website that allows cub porn.

*Cough* SoFurry *cough*

Fenrick said:
I'm honestly surprised that so many people can have it in them to care about this decision so much.

Eh, IME people usually care about censorship, if they actually recognize that it -is- censorship.

NotMeNotYou said:
We ignored all anon/fake votes in our decision. The interface clearly shows where the votes came from, and the ones with legitimate accounts against cub still crushed the people who were for keeping it.

So, in other words, nothing about this has really changed, including the fact that you guys are more than willing to bend over and take it up the ass by a small group of popufur bullies, blackmailers and overall SJW's.

There was nothing fair or right about this "vote" at all. Wanna know why? Because I'm a registered user and I didn't even know about it until it was over and I can bet my bottom dollar that a lot of other users didn't, either. It was QUIETLY announced and kept open for one day only so that there would be as little resistance as possible for the Community to act on it. You all gave up even before the "vote" was tallied.

Manasgael said:
*Cough* SoFurry *cough*

Hey, either somebody is actually reading my comments, or happens to have the same ideas while also ignoring me like everybody else!

Seriously, why is everybody ignoring it? Is there a stigma attached to them I don't know about?

Novalight said:
So, in other words, nothing about this has really changed, including the fact that you guys are more than willing to bend over and take it up the ass by a small group of popufur bullies, blackmailers and overall SJW's.

There was nothing fair or right about this "vote" at all. Wanna know why? Because I'm a registered user and I didn't even know about it until it was over and I can bet my bottom dollar that a lot of other users didn't, either. It was QUIETLY announced and kept open for one day only so that there would be as little resistance as possible for the Community to act on it. You all gave up even before the "vote" was tallied.

My guess is they found out about the merchant's rule during that time and ended it early because of it.

Qmannn said:
stuff

huh, that sounds interesting. i wonder what kind of stuff may come of that.

Qmannn said:
I saw a post about the anonymous votes on IB's front page and a user by the name of DefyConvention posted a link to something I found pretty funny: https://inkbunny.net/submissionview.php?id=1109441

TBH this user reminds me of this character . In particular, as the blurb says: "..very high-Int low-Wis character, which means that he's great at coming up with unconventional plans and not so great at realizing why conventional plans are conventional."

.. Defying convention -for the sake of defying convention- is dumb and special-snowflakey.

Personally, I've learnt to be comfortable with drawing -almost- anything almost anywhere. But that is about self-possession and 'getting offended is a choice that people make, their feelings are not my responsibility', not about 'sticking it to The Man' (again, dumb and self-defeating, no matter how important it makes you feel).

Qmannn said:
I saw a post about the anonymous votes on IB's front page and a user by the name of DefyConvention posted a link to something I found pretty funny: https://inkbunny.net/submissionview.php?id=1109441

Stats
72 views
0 favorites
0 comments

welp

parasprite said:
welp

Hmmmm. There seems to be a singular lack of interest in defiance.

parasprite said:
welp

Aeruginis said:
Hmmmm. There seems to be a singular lack of interest in defiance.

Not surprising considering the linked submission is the only one in the user's gallery, and that at the moment of this writing, they made their account "23 hrs. ago."

Also, they have no profile to speak of. Is it a wonder that nobody is interested?