1y ago

Proposed rules update, 8 July 2023

Hi all! As promised, here is the proposed text of the newest version of the rules. The staff has gone through like eight drafts and literally thousands and thousands of matrix posts to get here, so please be kind. You can see @limeey's comment on the transparency post if you want more insight into how this sausage was made.

We are opening these rules to commentary from the community before they go into effect. To be clear, this isn't a vote, but we will take all community feedback into account and answer whatever questions we can before finalizing anything.

Please keep in mind that we are not Reddit, we do not have Reddit's resources, and safety and consent are our priorities.

I'll post the draft in two parts in two comments: The new sidebar, and the FAQ/clarifications page.

You're viewing a single thread.

179 comments

Depending on how far the noncon rule applies, I foresee an issue with media sharing.
Very little media will have explicit consent to be shared in our communities, or even social media in general. If we interpret the sharing as part of what you consent to (as is the case with OC but not revenge porn), no found media can be allowed.
If we allow the commonly used fair/similar use principle (found media may typically be shared in the same type of setting it was found) - how do we differentiate between found porn and found revenge porn?
If we mod as a response to reports, as in: we allow it until someone reports this being wrongful content, the rules will be fine, but obscure or poorly modded communities risk becoming seedy and drag the whole instance reputation down.
But these thoughts can't be novel, has anyone checked if there's a well tested out best practice to keep mods, community and admin safe?
- Yeah, it's a sticky wicket for sure. Because look, if someone reports an image to me as noncon and I look at it and it's an obvious studio shot, multiple lights, professional hair and makeup, model looks like she's posing for the camera, I might say this is probably fine even if I don't recognize the model. Is it possible it's noncon? Sure, but on balance it likely isn't.
  But if it's like a smartphone shot of a ambiguously-youthful young lady in a dark bedroom, who I don't recognize and I can't source it easily because the source is undefined and there's no watermark and/or I can't quick google image search it, I'm going to give serious consideration to removing it. There's other factors involved, of course, including context and identity, but I think as a society we're starting to move into the realm of explicit consent being the gold standard. If I can't see or at least strongly imply evidence of that consent, I've got to at least consider removing the image.
- Consent would also be an issue in that a lot of porn stars have actively stated that certain scenes they have done were not at all consensual.
  
  Yup and if people post those scenes and we're aware and reasonably sure that they're noncon, they will be removed. We actually have a (very incomplete) list of specific studios, performers, etc. we are not going to tolerate for that exact reason. Currently we're debating whether to make that list public or not, because on the one hand we don't want to be like "if you want rape and underage content, google these terms" but on the other hand it might prevent people from posting something innocently that they didn't know was bad.
  
  Please share that list. I have no clue which studio's have consent issues.
  
  Would second this. On one hand I'm terrified to find out; I'm conflicted enough already about the morality of a lot of the porn industry, but sticking my head in the sand won't help.
  I think the number of decent human beings who would use the list to actively blacklist and advocate against bad studios is far greater than the number of diseased individuals who would use it to look up the content for "fun".
  
  I say share it privately, unless the victims have asked it to be shared widely.
  
  I agree that this is atrocious.
  For the proposed rules it's less of an issue though, as any non-consensual act is forbidden, regardless of if they've consented to it being shared (which porn stars typically do to get paid).
- IMO if you post something online you should be aware that it could (will) be copied and reposted.
  Either by humans or bots made by humans to do just that.
  Literally every time someone “views” a picture or video (or anything else you make available online) their device makes a local copy of it, and any proxy servers it passes through may even decide to copy it so it can be cached for later.
  Apart from direct OC content most is older content being re-discovered, or new content from a studio.
  Not a mod, but it seems fairly obvious that the interpretation of the rule must be that the content was made with consent, and posted online with consent. Not the re-hosting or re-linking in this instance.
  And yes, the person in the content may later have a change of heart and contact the mods and say “please don’t keep this post of me up”.
  I’ve seen lots of good content disappear this way, but it’s the subjects prerogative. There’s lots of creeps online that will do everything they can to make someone’s life a hell for posting adult content online.
  The least we can do is be supportive when the subjects we objectify objects.
  If we support people’s right to make adult content we must also support their right to withdraw that content to the extent possible.
  
  This whole take would mean that it's fine to share revenge porn because you found it uploaded somewhere, and that it's up to the victim to chase down every copy faster than it can be shared, and hope mods everywhere are active and responsive enough to remove it before it gets shared again.
  Maybe that is the best practice we can offer, it does seem kind of shitty though.
  
  I mean that’s not what I’m suggesting, but that’s kinda how the world works today.
  Ideally you’d need a register of known hashes of material, but that’s not even enough either.
  Proper fingerprinting would require a lot more processing power and a centralized source to vet against.
  Super difficult topic tbh.
  But I guess the moral is as always: don’t take pictures, or let anyone take pictures, that you don’t want to show to your parents or grandparents.
  
  You realize a lot of revenge porn out there was coerced, right? Or the people were drunk, underage, in abusive relationships, etc...
  Your post is essentially saying "you let yourself get photographed naked, deal with the consequence."
  Life is full of nuance, my guy. Instead of victim blaming, let's all agree that none of us want to see/share NC content.
  If you find a random professionally shot image or vid, it won't be hard to ID the model or studio, as there's usually a watermark. If the person was working, you can be pretty sure they signed a release for the photo to be put online. Whether that content was stolen from behind a paywall is another question.
  If it's an amateur, it becomes more difficult to determine. Here are some ways I think you can tell;
  Likely Consensual:
  The person CLEARLY without question is an adult.
  They look like they're having a good time.
  They know they are being photographed/filmed.
  They are sober.
  You have seen them post OC online before.
  Iffy:
  They are intoxicated.
  They appear genuinely apprehensive.
  They are a random you've never seen an OC account for.
  Voyeur content (unless you see a studio tag, this very well may be illegally recorded.)
  Likely NC:
  Amateur self shots of teens; a TON of this content is underage/illegal, especially pre-Pornhub and smart phone era.
  
  You are arguing against a straw man.
  Good luck with that.

179 comments