Inkbunnys discusting standard around human art. by AeylinFaith < Journal

That is the most cognitive dissonant awnser i've read, the tags in the submission litteraly say:
Anal sex, adult on young

Kissing is a form of intemecy and nipples blured but then claiming its blurred so we can't possible tell if it's sexual is absolutely insane. If given the context one of my reference sheets had the character BLUSHING and that was sexual according to staff.. That's hypocritical.

In the last image it's clear that it's a human pretending it's not is just denying reality.

AeylinFaith

1 month, 1 week ago

link

+ the guidelines state that these rules also apply TO BLURRED IMAGES

Kadm

1 month, 1 week ago

link

Edited 1 month, 1 week ago by Owner

The guidelines say that censored images must plausibly depict a non-sexual situation.

Kadm

1 month, 1 week ago

link

Edited 1 month, 1 week ago by Owner

As one of the other people that replied to you pointed out, the tags generally pertain to the full image, which is not hosted on Inkbunny. The images on Inkbunny don't contain those things. That's something we allow.

Kissing is not inherently sexual. None of the characters show sexual arousal that can be discerned in the image. We have standards built upon Inkbunny's legal considerations, which may be different than your personal view on the subject, but I'm comfortable that all of the images you linked stand up to scrutiny.

Regarding the last image, at the bottom, fleshy characters can be difficult. We generally look at how many non-superficial features a character has to determine if a fleshy character, such as a pig, is human or not. In this case the face is distinctly inhuman (feline), and the character lacks human digits. Combined with other factors, this is enough to distinguish it as non-human. Some of the other images in fact look less fleshy and more furred.

AeylinFaith

1 month, 1 week ago

link

Edited 1 month, 1 week ago by Owner

[mediumthumb]3710892[/mediumthumb] and this one? I find it hard not to see how this is not sexual.

Kadm

1 month, 1 week ago

link

Edited 1 month, 1 week ago by Owner

I won't sit here and handle every violation that you dredge up, but I have taken care of that one. If you have submissions you think are not acceptable, submit tickets to allow the staff to work them.

AeylinFaith

1 month, 1 week ago

link

[mediumthumb]3714055[/mediumthumb] alright but you missed another 27 minutes ago

Kadm

1 month, 1 week ago

link

I am not solely responsible for all moderation on the site. Further, we do not review every submission. We act on submissions that are reported to us, or that we come across in our regular use of the site as users. It doesn't look like you bothered submitting a support ticket so that other staff members could respond more quickly.

AeylinFaith

1 month, 1 week ago

link

Considering you where online at the time just 2 minutes before I would asume that YOU didn't bother to fix it yourself, I'm not obligated file a ticket if I have direct communication to a staff member.

That aside my statement within the journal remains as is considering that as someone who reads the rules and can't understand them would mean that the rules aren't clear enough. Especially combined with the conflicting message one gets by seeing sertain things "allowed/not noticed" and others "Banned" for unclear/conflicting reasons.

I have no personal grudge against you I hope you didn't get that impresion but the whole situation is weird to me. Including the last image wich doens't state it's prompts.. I just don't get the rules and judgement.

Kadm

1 month, 1 week ago

link

It may surprise you to learn that Inkbunny is not my full time job. So I responded to you, and dealt with the item you linked, and then went and did my actual day job for a few hours. I can almost guarantee that if you had put that ticket in instead of commenting it, another staff member would have acted on it in my absence. There was a time where tickets took significant time to get resolved, but most content related tickets are resolved the same day they are received, and often within minutes. Your 'direct line' to me relies solely on my presence.

Something being on Inkbunny does not mean we have 'allowed it' because we do not review all submissions. If you don't think it should be allowed, you report it. And if we think it's allowed, we'll explain to you why, so that you can make better reports in the future.

fibs

1 month, 1 week ago

link

For what it's worth I am totally on the staff's side that you should use support tickets, however inconvenient they might be in their current form, to report contested submissions.

Would be great for the site to have a "Report" button right on user and profile pages that maybe just puts some boilerplate text on a Support Ticket to clarify the issue, but for now you gotta go the long way 'round.

VioletEchoes

1 month, 1 week ago

link

Not everything can be picked up by the staff, there is always things that slip though.
However several of your examples do lean on borderline.
For example, a cropped thumb that only shows the expression is perfectly fine from what I've seen.
The Anna one has a LOT of cleavage and blush, but they are both fully clothed.

The Shikoku one is SO borderline I don't know how to rate it.
Like, it's censored, they are at most kissing, it doesn't go any further than that.
It's... Suggestive. Right on the line of fine or not. But if 99% of the other work is furry, I can see why it would be missed.

As to why some of them have sexual tags, it's because that is what the full picture that is linked off site shows.
The tags are to inform people for blacklists and tell people what to expect if they click the link.
Offsite linking to human content is perfectly allowed and using tags for context is part of that.

With all that said and done.
I actually agree with you to an extent, as I have seen FAR WORSE human content than your examples on here.
Even with a few artists who do 99% human content at that.

AeylinFaith

1 month, 1 week ago

link

@ VioletEchoes

I'm sure there are still worse out there but I don't want to spend more time on that.

Yeah and by the terms state I would argue that suggestive/borderline is crossing the line, especially as you mentioned yourself mine being taken down.

I don't get how that wouldn't "add to context" to the picture, in a court of law you wouldn't get away with saying "I didn't know/see it that way"

Lizzyroo

1 month, 1 week ago

link

if you see Humans in porn. the only thing you can do is make a Report and send it in with the link. Which is What I do when I come across it.
Yes, Sometimes I even come across Humans in Porn that is even a few years old that is some how still up. So I just Report it.
So Yes, Sometimes Stuff makes it thru and or not censored by the artist who might not know the rules.

AeylinFaith

1 month, 1 week ago

link

@ Lizzyroo

I can understand it slipping through to a certain extent.

AeylinFaith

1 month, 1 week ago

link

That is the most cognitive dissonant awnser i've read, the tags in the submission litteraly say:
Anal sex, adult on young

Kissing is a form of intemecy and nipples blured but then claiming its blurred so we can't possible tell if it's sexual is absolutely insane. If given the context one of my reference sheets had the character BLUSHING and that was sexual according to staff.. That's hypocritical.

In the last image it's clear that it's a human pretending it's not is just denying reality.

fibs

1 month, 1 week ago

link

I know exactly why IB does this and I think it's stupid as hell.

Inkbunny doesn't want to ban human content, but is obliged to do so by financial partners. They're also, I've got to be frank, kind of skeevy. So they make as many excuses not to enforce it as they've so far gotten away with, and may or may not give specific artists more or less leeway.

If I was moderating IB, I wouldn't try that bullshit, because on the off-chance that IB had to legally defend having this content on the site which grows increasingly likely as the US and UK continue to shit more of their brains out of their asses, they'd be fucked because none of these excuses fly legally.
• Proxy rule: There is no meaningful distinction between hosting content directly and wink-wink-have-a-direct-link.
• Context rule: Candid content that is not inherently pornographic is treated as pornography when hosted on what is obviously a porn site. For instance, photographs of underdressed or naked children playing in the yard taken by their parents don't (or at least shouldn't) get the parents in trouble, but if they find their way onto a porn site, the people who put it there and/or the hosts can be prosecuted for child pornography.

Therefore, not only should IB logically remove every single censored image linking to an explicit one, but the Goku spanking images should be removed under the context rule, regardless of whether Goku incurs similar spankings onscreen in Dragonball itself.

I would remove the diaperpup image because there is visible shit in the diaper so it is an explicit scat fetish image, also citing the context rule if idiots try to split hairs.

Finally, I would remove those images that just plain have uncensored graphic sex with a human (e.g. "Punishment of a very bad girl"). That's just moderator oversight with no loopholes involved.

AeylinFaith

1 month, 1 week ago

link

Exactly, if this went to court they couldn't claim "We didn't know/we didn't see it that way" yet here they are a mod saying "I don't see that in this picture" like.. seriously..

I just don't get how with certain ones it's condoned and others just flat out instascrubbed while those that are scrubbed are the mild ones.. make it make sence xD

Kadm

1 month, 1 week ago

link

Edited 1 month, 1 week ago by Owner

You apparently do not know exactly why our rules around human content are as they are. It has nothing to do with financial partners, which, we don't have? We don't monetize at all. We're entirely funded by user donations, and because of the nature of the content on the site, usually via direct transfers or mailed checks, and much less frequently through payment services.

Edited to add: I guess we do still have our redbubble store. That probably sells a few items a year, and means little enough that I generally forget it exists.

"	• Proxy rule: There is no meaningful distinction between hosting content directly and wink-wink-have-a-direct-link.

I don't think this is true, in either the UK or the US. As far as I'm aware, all legal precedence for hyperlinking to content is that you are not generally responsible for those. Cite case law if you indicate otherwise. We discuss these things as a staff, so consider ourselves at least relatively informed. There may be edges where a website operates for the sole purpose of aggregating links to offending content, but I'm not aware of any site being held liable for incidental links.

• Context rule: Candid content that is not inherently pornographic is treated as pornography when hosted on what is obviously a porn site. For instance, photographs of underdressed or naked children playing in the yard taken by their parents don't (or at least shouldn't) get the parents in trouble, but if they find their way onto a porn site, the people who put it there and/or the hosts can be prosecuted for child pornography.

This might be a problem, but as far as we're concerned in our primary jurisdiction (the UK), furry characters are not considered humans. They are not afforded the protections under the law that humans are. There is no pornographic content of human characters allowed on Inkbunny, and I'm not aware of any case law that would lend itself to holding us liable for the non-pornographic images of human simply because we also host pornographic images of non-humans.

Personally, I would prefer us to allow the widest variety of content permissible under UK law. There's a certain ideological bent to some of our stance on human works, but primarily the concern is that humans in sexual situations could get us in trouble, but furry characters are not human, and not real.

fibs

1 month, 1 week ago

link

I may be a bit of a hypocrite for pausing to address this, but are you aware Inkbunny has been under serious criticism recently due to the entire team's habit of talking around the topic and taking forever to directly address any points? Your last paragraph should've been the first one:

"	There's a certain ideological bent to some of our stance on human works, but primarily the concern is that humans in sexual situations could get us in trouble, but furry characters are not human, and not real.

I'm going to cut all the other points to reduce distraction and ask straight-out.

Are all of the below statements true?
1. Inkbunny is not currently obliged to restrict NSFW human content by any of its service providers or "partners".
2. The decision to restrict this content is partially at its own preference.
3. The decision to restrict this content is partially to stay on the "good side" of UK law, not any statute in particular but under the general logic that non-human content will remain "safer" for the foreseeable future.

Kadm

1 month, 1 week ago

link

You see it as talking around the topic, I see it as providing necessary context, because the world generally cannot be distilled down to simple yes/no answers. Things are rarely binary. The world is filled with nuance and supporting information that help people better understand why things are the way they are.

"	1. Inkbunny is not currently obliged to restrict NSFW human content by any of its service providers or "partners".

Not to the best of my knowledge.

"	2. The decision to restrict this content is partially at its own preference.

Yes, in the sense that we have not been compelled by a legal authority to do so. But much of Inkbunny's policy was in fact crafted in consultation with (paid, not random furry) lawyers. At it's inception, Inkbunny was intended to be a commercial enterprise. That didn't end up being the case for long, but we're still generally confident in the legal advice received at that time.

Even if we set aside the legal aspect (assuming tomorrow all qualms about art work of underage human characters were to cease), GreenReaper has occasionally stated that he might prefer to remain furry focused. There are other outlets for human art on the internet. I would prefer if we could more broadly allow things, but it's not even a discussion with the current environment.

"	3. The decision to restrict this content is partially to stay on the "good side" of UK law, not any statute in particular but under the general logic that non-human content will remain "safer" for the foreseeable future.

Unless the law changes, anthropomorphic animals are not considered human under UK law. They are not real, and cannot be 'people' afforded legal protection. Anthropomorphic animals are animals. In that sense, I suppose we are 'safer'.

I agree that it's a little hypocritical to completely sidestep my request that you source your supposition with facts while accusing us of talking around things.

fibs

1 month, 1 week ago

link

It took me a while, but I found it.

2019 Chabloz v. Crown Prosecution Service

This was Alison Chabloz's appeal after being convicted for 3 charges of grossly offensive communication, Communications Act 2003 127(1)(a) & 127(1)(b).

Chabloz had performed several anti-Semitic songs at a right-wing meeting in London; the performances themselves are not in question. Another person uploaded videos of these performances to Youtube, which Chabloz promoted by sharing two hyperlinks on her blog. She later uploaded one video to Youtube herself. These are the three offenses she was convicted for.

The court ruled that posting a hyperlink, while knowing of and endorsing its grossly offensive content, is itself a grossly offensive communication.

Kadm

1 month, 1 week ago

link

Does that case not demonstrate liability for the person that posted it, not any of the platforms she posted it to? I don't think that relates to us at all. That means that users in the UK could be liable for their own posting of links to 'grossly offensive material'. Now, whether content on Inkbunny constitutes 'grossly offensive material', I have no idea. But I don't think your citation puts any burden upon us.

fibs

1 month, 1 week ago

link

See, that's not what you asked me. You asked me to cite a case where a hyperlink was about as condemned as the content it linked to. Now you're implying I need to show that a web site is responsible for the content on it.

But haven't you already accepted that?

"	the concern is that humans in sexual situations could get us in trouble

Yeah! The Online Safety Act.

Let's look over all this.
1. the OSA requires certain online services (Inkbunny seems to be subject) to actively search for and remove illegal content.
2. Any pornography the UK criminalizes would probably be called "indecent", "obscene", etc.
3. The statute for "indecent" or "obscene" communication is the same one as for "grossly offensive" communication.
4. That statute applies to hyperlinks.
5. Inkbunny is concerned that human erotica, especially underage human erotica, may be criminalized in the future.

Therefore: shouldn't you remove the links too?

Kadm

1 month, 1 week ago

link