Forums / Maintenance / Suggest Ideas

Well all this is doing is making us want to ban it more.

Now he's uploading to irrelevant galleries.

Call it a hunch, but this feels VERY familiar, like a certain someone trying to enact a futile campaign of petty revenge. Unfortunately, their name escapes me…

It doesn’t have to be completely separate, just add a paragraph to the NSFW section regarding the issue.

That's the plan, just nothing too extensive.

xTSGx wrote:

All I see coming out of this is a reduced userbase, constant arguing and debates over the new rule (if there are no definitive rules put place)

I’ve seen a lot of “I’m deactivating forever!” drama on the site and not once do I recall it being being because of someone getting traumatized over clicking on an NSFW image.

We both know people will threaten to deactivate with drama over the most stupid shit, yet only when it regards the NSFW rules we suddenly have to call the Mayas that they had the dates all wrong?

Also, if folks deactivate because they can no longer watch naughtly little kids, I won't consider a threat to deactivate a threat but rather good riddance. This update isn't about your furry horses or about RWBY girls, it's about kiddies and kiddies only. I can't see many leave over that.

(with no real benefit to the site save some some vague promises about ads)

You have this odd obsession with that in all your posts, but honestly this one is a case of don't shoot the messenger. This ad issue was told to us by Don. Now I don't know what ad companies filter on, but if I had to choose between believing the guys who run the site and might know what's playing, or folks who start sweating the very second we even look in the general direction of the NSFW rules, the choice is obvious.

I have to agree with TSG and Strate here. Really not a fan of the condescending moralization coming from some of you. I really don’t think it’s unreasonable to argue that banning something just because certain people are offended by it is a bad precedent to set.

If people being offended was a reason to ban, I'd have to update the rules to disallow direct linking to Kotaku.

We're discussing this because we're heading to dangerous territory, and rather wish to stomp it before it gets out of hand. Sure, folks get offended by seeing NSFW of cartoon kids, but that's not the motivation here. Even hentai sites filter out loli at times, because they find it a dangerous area and wish to not receive a rep of allowing it. And exactly because it is a dangerous area, we rather play it save as well. The topic won't be disallowed in general, we just want to watch out for lewds of it.

As Rivers said, broader appeal is also a reason, because KYM is more difficult to filter than big sites or boorus. This is also why we're much tighter on gore than lewds, people generally just don't want gore between their lewds.

Seperate post because seperate issue:

It's a new user with dynamic IPs, and recently we're having 2 people who keep creating alts to cause a stir including uploading porn.

Unrelated to this discussion and we won't use it as an argument, no worries.

Banned.

"We’re discussing this because we’re heading to dangerous territory, and rather wish to stomp it before it gets out of hand. Sure, folks get offended by seeing NSFW of cartoon kids, but that’s not the motivation here. Even hentai sites filter out loli at times, because they find it a dangerous area and wish to not receive a rep of allowing it."

This is what I don't understand. Why is it a "dangerous" area? Because some countries consider it illegal? If that's the case then I already said my piece about that: I understand why you'd do it but I don't think we should feed those countries' delusions.

Coming from a moral standpoint, I see absolutely no basis to ban it. As I said before, it is not child porn. I see loli nsfw images as exactly the same thing as foot fetish images, inflation images, furry nsfw, etc. Loli nsfw is not child porn and people that like it are not pedophiles, furry nsfw is not bestiality and people that like it are not animal fuckers, people that enjoy seeing animated murder are not murderers, etc.

"As Rivers said, broader appeal is also a reason, because KYM is more difficult to filter than big sites or boorus. This is also why we’re much tighter on gore than lewds, people generally just don’t want gore between their lewds."

This is actually a good time to say something that I've been meaning to say for a long, long time.

Instead of being harsher when it comes to gore, why didn't you separate the NSFW tag into lewds and gore? Wouldn't that have been a much more effective solution? Or is that not possible with the way the site works?

On the other topic, if having a "broader appeal" is the objective, I'm certain there are several other ways of doing it without pissing off the already existing userbase. Like doing what I suggested above but with loli nsfw as well. Or you know the "show less ponies" button? Why not do the opposite and have loli nsfw hidden by default and have a button to un-hide it?

Besides, I really doubt removing loli nsfw is going to have a noticeable impact on the amount of visits. I already explained why in a previous comment.

I really don't like having to suggest rules that treat it in such a biased way. If it were by me I would not change a thing, I see no reason to, but since you all seem so concerned with the "impression" the site gives and think loli nsfw specifically is a bad influence on that…

This is what I don’t understand. Why is it a “dangerous” area?

Coming from a moral standpoint, I see absolutely no basis to ban it. As I said before, it is not child porn.

If you don't understand why, then it's difficult to explain. This is one of those topic where it almost goes without saying. There is a big difference between NSFW of cartoon women, and NSFW of cartoon children. Maybe you don't see why, but others think differently. What makes you correct and them wrong? And why should we appeal to you and not them? This one goes both ways.

Your fault is that you think our logic is "we don't allow CP, so we shouldn't allow loli." Instead, it's "we allow NSFW cartoon women, but NSFW cartoon kids is a trickier topic, so how to best approach it."

Loli nsfw is not child porn and people that like it are not pedophiles, furry nsfw is not bestiality and people that like it are not animal fuckers, people that enjoy seeing animated murder are not murderers, etc.

Would a furry fuck an anthro wolf if those existed irl? Can't tell, because they don't exist irl. If the legal age was 10 and those girls did consent, would lolicons tap that? Can't tell, because that doesn't happen irl. So then why are you comparing it?

Also: We allow NSFW furries but haven't had to deal with cartoon bestiality yet, so that's an oddball to answer. Animated murders are a different category because we allow or disallow them based on the amount and type of gore and shock in it, like is the plan with loli.

Comparing them is really just a bad argument.

Instead of being harsher when it comes to gore, why didn’t you separate the NSFW tag into lewds and gore? Wouldn’t that have been a much more effective solution? Or is that not possible with the way the site works?

Brought up before, a good idea, and possible. But a different topic so we'll leave that to another time.

Like doing what I suggested above but with loli nsfw as well. Or you know the “show less ponies” button? Why not do the opposite and have loli nsfw hidden by default and have a button to un-hide it?

>A NSFW Loli spoiler

….

I want to post a funny reaction image, but to see that suggested unironically on this site is just worrying and only motivates me we really need to draw the line quickly.

"What makes you correct and them wrong? And why should we appeal to you and not them? This one goes both ways."

Indeed, it goes both ways, so let me turn that back around to you. You are the one arguing for a change, so your argument should be stronger than the one opposing the change, shouldn't it? You're changing something that is already there, so there should be a good reason that cannot be matched in the opposite direction. In the moral department, I have not seen it. In the visits department, I have not seen it.

"Would a furry fuck an anthro wolf if those existed irl? Can’t tell, because they don’t exist irl. If the legal age was 10 and those girls did consent, would lolicons tap that? Can’t tell, because that doesn’t happen irl. So then why are you comparing it?"

I don't understand what point you're trying to make here. "If the circumstances were different, would the results be different"? And are you talking about real life minors here? Because if you are, then that has absolutely nothing to do with what I said and is in fact missing the entire point, and if you're still talking about animated lolis then you worded your sentence poorly. What do you mean if they "consent"? They're drawings. They can't consent. They're not real. That's the whole point I'm trying to make.

If you're making the argument that loli nsfw can "turn" people into pedophiles, then I am completely in disagreement. Unless you got some good proof to back that up, that's just your thoughts and I feel acting as a moral guardian over it is unjustified.

"I want to post a funny reaction image, but to see that suggested unironically on this site is just worrying and only motivates me we really need to draw the line quickly."

Instead of acting condescending how about you explain yourself? What is so bad about it? I gave one solution that would make both sides happy. The ones that like loli nsfw would get to keep it, the ones that don't want it can filter it out. Explain the problem? Seems like you're still acting as if loli nsfw I.E sexualized drawings of fictional, fake characters, is inherently a bad thing that should be purged.

What you're doing here is no better than the people that spout "violent video games breed violent people" despite all evidence to the contrary. Saying that bad acts in fictional media will cause those acts to be performed in real life is stupid and an insult to any functioning, sound-minded adult that knows the difference between fiction and reality.

Yes, because if someone else sees you looking at nsfw loli, they are gonna think the same way as you do.
While I understand your argument, the gray area is just too gray and until it gets clearer, it's better to be safe and remove it.

@Strate77

I think you are not understanding where the mods and people for the ban are coming from. They are not trying to ban a fetish because they think it's icky, they want to remove images that carry a huge stigma against them and the sites the hold them.

This is what I don’t understand. Why is it a “dangerous” area? Because some countries consider it illegal?

Because there is a huge panic in America (and I presume other countries as well) regarding pedophilia. It's not something where people's taste in porn are different and some people are just put off by it, it's because pedophiles in today's cultures are put on a higher level of "evil" than rapists and murderers even. Whether you agree this response is appropriate or not is not the issue, the issue is what people think when they see what they would call CP, and of the site that allows it to be uploaded.

Loli nsfw is not child porn and people that like it are not pedophiles, furry nsfw is not bestiality and people that like it are not animal fuckers, people that enjoy seeing animated murder are not murderers, etc.

Furries tend to like humanoid depictions of animals, what are essentially humans with fur and a tail. I don't recall seeing sexy art work of just a dog anywhere on this site. The things furries fap to are depictions of completely fictional beings.

Loli is the sexualization of something that does exist, something that is well known to not be able to consent, understand, or defend themselves from sexual advances. To compare the too is laughable. Lolicon is not seen by the public as just a weird niche fetish, but as a dangerous thing.

Seems like you’re still acting as if loli nsfw I.E sexualized drawings of fictional, fake characters, is inherently a bad thing that should be purged.

This isn't my personal opinion, but it can be seen that drawings of naked ten year olds enable a dangerous thing to exist, and those that see pedophilia as a mental disorder that needs to be treated see Loli as allowing a problem to fester rather than be treated. I too think that drawings of underaged characters harms no one, and is not the same as IRL CP, but I can't deny it enables a behavior that can cross into dangerous territory real quickly.

Like doing what I suggested above but with loli nsfw as well. Or you know the “show less ponies” button? Why not do the opposite and have loli nsfw hidden by default and have a button to un-hide it?

The problem is not that people don't want to see Loli, it's that the site does not want to be seen as a Loli-enabling site, adding those functions would make that issue worse. Again, the stigma against pedophilia in today's society is strong, stronger than murder or rape. It is understandable that the site, and the people who visit it, do not want to be associated with that.

tl:dr You can argue for days whether or not you think Lolicon is CP, if it's inherently wrong, or just harmless and a misunderstood fetish, but that's just not the issue here. The issue is that, whether you like it or not, Lolicon is associated with CP, when not simply called that, that CP is seen as the worst, most evil thing in existence, and that keeping it on the site could cause more problems than removing it will.

If you want to make a moral stand against the stigma, this site is simply not the place to do it. From what I've seen, most, if not all the mods that have voiced their opinion on the topic have all agreed it needs to go, they are just discussing how to go about it, so I am fairly sure the ban is going to happen, it's just a question now of how far it will go and how it will be implemented.

@Ryumaru

At least you make more valid points than what I've seen so far. I don't agree with the reasons, but whatever. I think I finally got drained. I already know that I won't change the decision but at least I wanted to get people to think a little and not go into a moral panic over something that should not be considered on the same level as a real crime.

As I said before, I don't have any personal investment in this. I don't like lolis. It just really pisses me off to see people treating purely fictional things as something that can "enable" real crime. As long as you do not provide evidence of this claim, I will consider it 100% bullshit. It trivializes and draws attention away from the real crime.

So yeah. I still stand firmly by everything I said. But whatever, I knew this wouldn't change the decision from the start. As I said, I just wanted to make people think, at least. I don't have enough investment in the topic to keep going, honestly.

@Strate

Instead of acting condescending how about you explain yourself? What is so bad about it? I gave one solution that would make both sides happy. The ones that like loli nsfw would get to keep it, the ones that don’t want it can filter it out. Explain the problem? Seems like you’re still acting as if loli nsfw I.E sexualized drawings of fictional, fake characters, is inherently a bad thing that should be purged.

Ok, now I appreciate your open-mindedness towards looking for a solution, that's a good look at things, but it is not a solution that's gonna work here.

You mentioned the "show fewer ponies" button too. That thing was implemented as an anti-spam feature, not an anti-pony feature, again as anti-spam. Back in the day, 50% of our daily uploads were ponies, so you can imagine the spam that caused for visitors who didn't like the show. However, the filter wasn't well received by all bronies, who saw it as calling their interest a problem that needed to be seperated and filtered.

The loli NSFW spoiler would create a similar yet different effect: By seperating Loli NSFW from regular NSFW, you are creating mixed messages. The main issue to active users/visitors is that such a function makes it seem that we openly welcome fans of loli and are giving them special treatment to allow them to flourish on this site. And to newcomers disturbed by it, such a tag would let them think this site has a large enough issue of dealing with loli that we had to make a seperate spoiler for them (see: Ryumaru's post). If you give the idea that lolicons can go wild here, that is exactly what they're going to do and how others will look at it, and not what we want to happen. Not to even get into the pain of creating guidelines of when to use the loli tag and when the regular nsfw tag, if it's fine to upload non-nsfw loli without the tag.

No mod wants to make the guidelines, nobody wants to edit a spoiler for it, and no staff member is ever going to give green light to implement it. It's going to save both of us a lot of time if we ditch that idea right now, because the odds of it happening are too low believe me on that.

What you’re doing here is no better than the people that spout “violent video games breed violent people” despite all evidence to the contrary. Saying that bad acts in fictional media will cause those acts to be performed in real life is stupid and an insult to any functioning, sound-minded adult that knows the difference between fiction and reality.

Yes, any sound-minded adult can tell you CP and loli is different stuff. However, try asking 100 sound-minded adults you find on the street if it's acceptable to like NSFW of fictional child characters and be aroused by it (the answer will probably suprise you). They are not necessarily going to judge the drawings for possibly triggering irl acts of a same style, they are going to judge it for having kids in it. Being a fictional kiddie-fiddler still makes you a type of kiddie-fiddler in the eyes of your "sound-minded adults" (again, see Ryumaru's post).

Avoid uploading Lolicon materials, as in pictures of underaged appearing characters that would normally fall under the NSFW guidelines, as they might be deemed NC and removed.

I don't mind this as the rule, since it refers users to the NSFW rules. (Although I still think there will be a ton of shit about "appearing.") Still might need some clarification as to the gore portions of the NSFW rules. Would normally NSFW gore of minors be banned under the lolicon rule and if so, why?

Jacob said:

The majority of the images that I’ve seen that would be what I’d consider problematic were uploaded within the last 3 months, and even then, I think it was less than 100.

That seems to run counter to what Rivers has said about it being hard to go through a million images.

RandomMan said:

You have this odd obsession with that in all your posts

There are two reason I kind of harp on it. First, it's really the only concrete benefit that can be cited for banning it and second, it has me worried, partly because of TV Tropes. They had the same ad issue years ago and opted to set up a censorship committee and wipe any article that might offend the Adsense god--including, initially, the Lolita one.

I'm concerned history will repeat here. NSFW rules need to be tightened for better ads. Then when that doesn't satisfy Adsense, Lolicon needs to go for better ads. Then when that doesn't satisfy Adsense, sorry, we had to delete the meatspin, daily dose, and shock sites articles to get better ads. You'll have to go to ED if you want those memes.

That's exactly what I'm worried about too. Adsense is infamously impossible to please, and if that is our end goal, I guarantee it won't stop at lolicon.

Also, for me personally it's a matter of principle. The free expression of ideas is a core value of mine, and so it is very important to me that people should be able to enjoy whatever art they like, so long as it doesn't infringe upon the rights of others. Lolicon art doesn't hurt anyone, so why should it be banned just because some people are grossed out by it? I'm grossed out by inflation art. Does that mean we need to ban that next? What about the furries and the ponies? A lot of people don't like that stuff either.

Once we decide that it's okay to censor things, so long as we're only censoring "the bad things", than to only thing in the way of any censorship is the given definition of what "the bad things" are. You might accuse me of the slippery slope fallacy, but not every time such an argument is made is it incorrect. I've seen this thing happen before.

I understand that you may not think freedom of expression is important on as small of a scale as a meme site, but in principle, I think it's an important thing to fight for on any level; Because the discourse going on here is the same discourse happening in governments around the world, as they sign away free expression to protect some people's fragile sensibilities.

xTSGx:

The link you posted linked to the second page of the thread, not to any specific post. I'm assuming that this is the post you are referring to.

Rivers wrote:

We’re regularly finding older images that need to be removed. (twoish weeks ago Gnairly posted a list of 100 NC images for us to clean.) It’s really hard to clean over 1 million images spanning 8 years.

The thing is, River's post just says "NC images" This can include different things: Borderline gore, general shock images, cropped porn and other"porn-y" materiel that isn't underaged. My post in this thread was specifically referring to depictions of characters who are underaged. I might be low balling the estimate of around a hundred, but I'm pretty sure it's closer than "thousands more now-NC images" (unless you were not referring to issues brought up in this thread specifically but rather semi-recent rule changes as a whole).

Not super relevant to the main post, but might as well address another question xTSGx. Semi-gory pics of minors, I don't think special rules need to me made for this. At the moment I think the current gore rules are fine. If a loli/shota image were to be removed for gore, it would have been removed for gore if they were a full adult.

@ both xTSGx and Cipher_Oblivion While I'm not saying that you can't have concerns about "this is not okay on the site, next they will label something else no okay for the site" this is a logical fallacy. As a few other posts have made clear, this isn't like "oh, next they'll ban ponies because some people get offended by that." This is something that many consider close to an actual crime and, depending on where you live, has the potential of being prosecuted as such. This isn't in just some weird nearly seldom mentioned countries that have bizarre laws where few people have internet. These are countries where most the users come from, including where Know Your Meme is based.

Jacob said:

…this is a logical fallacy.

It's only a fallacy when you can't prove a progression of events. NSFW rules were tightened to get better ads. They haven't gotten better. Now lolicon's on the chopping block to get better ads. Past experience from other sites has taught me the ads won't get better unless there's a major purge of icky content advertisers don't like.

@xTSGx I don't want to completely dismiss your points. They are valid criticisms, and you argue those points well. But you keep focusing on ads. I know that this has been brought up previously in this thread, especially by mods, so I'm not going to say it's a irrelevant, and you certainly aren't the one to blame for the swing in this discussion to be related to ads. Still…

If the thread was framed as "Lolicon/Shotacon material is frequently seen as borderline illegal, and may be considered as such where the majority of the userbase lives, including where the site is physically based. Additionally, does not significantly contribute to the site's goals unless where specifically stated exemptions already exist. Therefore we want to avoid having it on the site" Would you take issue with it? (Provided that the guidelines I stated in one of my previous posts was attached to it) If so, please focus more on that aspect of the discussion. If not, then why are you still arguing against it, especially given that you previously seemed to agree with my post with said guidelines.

Lolicons were not "on the chopping block" prior because it wasn't an issue that we felt was large enough to merit any additional rules. It's part of the reason I gave a low-ish number for my guess at the problem images on the site. As you can tell from previous discussion in this thread, a few mods still think it's ridiculous that we even having a discussion about rules for this. I'm skeptical, as are you, that we will get better ads due to restricting this kind of material. But at the same time, I also personally never really considered this material to need removing due to the ad situation either.

Jacob said:

Would you take issue with it?

I would. I don't find the argument that some content might be illegal in the UK or Germany so we need to ban it convincing. The UK has it's infamous libel laws while Germany has the swastika ban. Someone who posts or views that content here could be in trouble for it. It should not be KYM's job to figure out what the laws are of countries some of it's users (10% according to Alexa) are from and adjust it's rules accordingly. It should be on the users from those countries to determine whether visiting KYM might get them in trouble.

KYM needs to follow the laws of the country it's based in and to the best of my knowledge, its servers are in Seattle (that's where the IP address goes anyway). SCOTUS has already ruled that simulated CP is protected under the first amendment so, legally, there shouldn't be any concern of a party van breaking down Don's front door. And that covers actual CP, not just blushing anime teens in skimpy bikinis.

…does not significantly contribute to the site’s goals…

I think this is a little dangerous reasoning since most site content now-in-days--the forums, comment sections, image galleries--doesn't really meet the goal of documenting memes. Heck, most entries (Person, Event, etc.) don't even qualify anymore.

I'll reiterate I'm not really opposed to the ban and support Ryumaru's proposal or something similar (maybe with more solid definitions for "looking underaged"), I'm just disappointed with the reasons that have been given for imposing it.

I don't like bumping sort of old threads but this image does make a decent point.

That's the oldest excuse in the book and can be used to justify pretty much everything from bestiality to guro.

Point is: Some stuff goes a bit too far, doesn't even matter if it's fictional. The line between what's fine and what isn't is different for everyone. That's why we need clear rules about this so people know what they are allowed to post.

That's very true. To be fair I think guro on this site would be fucking horrible. The thing is I'm curious when we are getting clear rules? The conversation really ended almost a month ago and got almost locked if it wasn't for me posting that image. The NSFW guideline changes didn't take that long. I almost expected it to be only a couple of weeks.

The thing is I’m curious when we are getting clear rules? The conversation really ended almost a month ago and got almost locked if it wasn’t for me posting that image. The NSFW guideline changes didn’t take that long. I almost expected it to be only a couple of weeks.

We actually got around to implementing it after a few weeks and then just forgot to update y'all on it. Our bad.

Check out the NSFW guidelines, under NC. It's unofficial mod policy atm that we don't bind our souls to the exact text of this rule, if you're worried about wording.