Feedback on new policy announcement.

[PersonalFavors]

Then it is up to the electorate to vote the people who are making this law out if they feel strongly about it, isn't it?

Both sides voted for the bill in the states it was proposed in first. It is a republican proposed bill in all states and fed. Trump 45's DHS started it when they eliminated backpage from the internet. Not sure your vote matters. Very difficult for an elected party to vote against bills like this.

 

[Saltfountain]

Both sides voted for the bill in the states it was proposed in first. It is a republican proposed bill in all states and fed. Trump 45's DHS started it when they eliminated backpage from the internet. Not sure your vote matters. Very difficult for an elected party to vote against bills like this.

Dude, stop talking politics on this thread!

 

[PersonalFavors]

Dude, stop talking politics on this thread!

?
Changes in law dictating how we are allowed to browse the internet are not politics. You are the one bringing politics into it.

 

[ToPleaseHim]

Pretty sure he’s just pointing out your hypocrisy, dude.

Don't go political in this thread.

Both sides voted for the bill in the states it was proposed in first. It is a republican proposed bill in all states and fed. Trump 45's DHS started it when they eliminated backpage from the internet. Not sure your vote matters. Very difficult for an elected party to vote against bills like this.

?
Changes in law dictating how we are allowed to browse the internet are not politics. You are the one bringing politics into it.

 

[Cfnmlover84]

You mean, JaF0 posted about JaF0 wanting that?

Or are you saying JaF0 actually said the site operators wanted that?

If so, citation needed. That guy doesn't know any more about what they wanted and when they wanted it than the rest of us do.

Yes he posted about himself wanting to do that.


Here's proof.
https://images2.imgbox.com/24/09/IIaMKKB7_o.png

 

[ToPleaseHim]

Yes he posted about himself wanting to do that.


Here's proof.
https://images2.imgbox.com/24/09/IIaMKKB7_o.png

JaF0 was not wrong. The overwhelming majority of images shared at Lit violated the rules at the time that post was made. The fact that the image threads had been allowed to go on for so long doesn’t negate the fact that they were not in line with the rules.

Prior to the recent changes, we were already removing A LOT of images and removing entire threads that were problematic. JaF0 just posted about it. And a lot of ire came his way afterwards. He was letting people know rather than just removing the images and/or threads. People say they want a heads up, but the heads up has made him some sort of Lit villain. I assure you that I remove way more posts and threads than he does, but he is the one coming under attack because he alerted people. Makes sense.

Note: we shouldn’t come under attack for removing images that violate the rules. If you disagree with the rules, you’ll need to make a choice about continuing to post here or not.

 

[Britva415]

Here's proof

I completely believe you.

I'm just pointing out: Who cares what he says he wants. What Laurel wants is the only thing that matters.

 

[RejectReality]

JaF0 was not wrong. The overwhelming majority of images shared at Lit violated the rules at the time that post was made. The fact that the image threads had been allowed to go on for so long doesn’t negate the fact that they were not in line with the rules.

Prior to the recent changes, we were already removing A LOT of images and removing entire threads that were problematic. JaF0 just posted about it. And a lot of ire came his way afterwards. He was letting people know rather than just removing the images and/or threads. People say they want a heads up, but the heads up has made him some sort of Lit villain. I assure you that I remove way more posts and threads than he does, but he is the one coming under attack because he alerted people. Makes sense.

Note: we shouldn’t come under attack for removing images that violate the rules. If you disagree with the rules, you’ll need to make a choice about continuing to post here or not.

He was made the villain because he made himself the villain. When you cheer a decision people don't like and "neener neener!" them, they're not going to take it well. Add on top that he is—and always has been—a jackass and a troll, and there you have it.

 

[Saltfountain]

JaF0 was not wrong. The overwhelming majority of images shared at Lit violated the rules at the time that post was made. The fact that the image threads had been allowed to go on for so long doesn’t negate the fact that they were not in line with the rules.

Prior to the recent changes, we were already removing A LOT of images and removing entire threads that were problematic. JaF0 just posted about it. And a lot of ire came his way afterwards. He was letting people know rather than just removing the images and/or threads. People say they want a heads up, but the heads up has made him some sort of Lit villain. I assure you that I remove way more posts and threads than he does, but he is the one coming under attack because he alerted people. Makes sense.

Note: we shouldn’t come under attack for removing images that violate the rules. If you disagree with the rules, you’ll need to make a choice about continuing to post here or not.

I agree with virtually everything you said here. And you know I'm not complaining about removing stuff that violates the rules (or indeed, the law).

I'm sure some people are looking to attack others regardless. And I know JaF0 gets a lot of stick, most of it unnecessarily personal. But he hasn't helped himself here at all.

When this was first announced, he posted a reply where he expressed joy that pics were going (which he has since removed).

He has also publicly stated that he is unilaterally going to remove threads whether the pics follow site rules or not.

Within the next few days and absent any specific written instruction with this thread to the contrary, I will begin deleting ALL picture threads on F&S since we do not know the content of the links or whether or not permission has been obtained to use/repost it.

I understand that being a mod here is a thankless task, but given the strength of feeling on this issue how does this help anything?

If this policy change to remove all picture threads has come from above, then maybe it would be good for this to be shared as opposed to being told off for shooting the messenger as I was last time?

I don't want to see anyone being attacked and bullied, but respect is a two way street...

 

[Cfnmlover84]

I agree with virtually everything you said here. And you know I'm not complaining about removing stuff that violates the rules (or indeed, the law).

I'm sure some people are looking to attack others regardless. And I know JaF0 gets a lot of stick, most of it unnecessarily personal. But he hasn't helped himself here at all.

When this was first announced, he posted a reply where he expressed joy that pics were going (which he has since removed).

He has also publicly stated that he is unilaterally going to remove threads whether the pics follow site rules or not.

I understand that being a mod here is a thankless task, but given the strength of feeling on this issue how does this help anything?

If this policy change to remove all picture threads has come from above, then maybe it would be good for this to be shared as opposed to being told off for shooting the messenger as I was last time?

I don't want to see anyone being attacked and bullied, but respect is a two way street...

I think the decision was to remove any pics explicit or not because you have a small but vocal minority on the site (which includes some of the mods) who believe the site should be text only. This is the real reason. The law that they cited for the rules change is not a porn ban but is a law against AI deepfakes. Also the congressman who introduced a porn ban bill is being shunned by his party for making horrible remarks about the Minnesota shooting. Despite age verification in red states there is no nationwide porn ban. In California where i live i still go on sites like CFNM Village and Vintage Erotica and none of these sites have censored themselves to this extent (the only content that gets removed on those sites is illegal content).

If you look at the map of sites that have passed age verification laws it's all red states. It's not just images these lawmakers also want to ban discussion of LGBTQ+ issues. How long until the LGBTQIA+ Chatter section is removed from the site? It would be horrible to lose that.

https://www.newsweek.com/states-porn-age-verification-free-speech-1903108


I agree with you that the admins should be honest about the policy change. If the new policy is no photos allowed whether they are explicit or not then they need to come out and say it.

 

[Saltfountain]

I think the decision was to remove any pics explicit or not because you have a small but vocal minority on the site (which includes some of the mods) who believe the site should be text only. This is the real reason. The law that they cited for the rules change is not a porn ban but is a law against AI deepfakes. Also the congressman who introduced a porn ban bill is being shunned by his party for making horrible remarks about the Minnesota shooting. Despite age verification in red states there is no nationwide porn ban. In California where i live i still go on sites like CFNM Village and Vintage Erotica and none of these sites have censored themselves to this extent (the only content that gets removed on those sites is illegal content).

If you look at the map of sites that have passed age verification laws it's all red states. It's not just images these lawmakers also want to ban discussion of LGBTQ+ issues. How long until the LGBTQIA+ Chatter section is removed from the site? It would be horrible to lose that.

https://www.newsweek.com/states-porn-age-verification-free-speech-1903108


I agree with you that the admins should be honest about the policy change. If the new policy is no photos allowed whether they are explicit or not then they need to come out and say it.

I actually sympathise with JaF0's reasons. I wouldn't want to be opening a load of the links.

But I disagree with deleting entire threads when they are largely compliant with the rules

I don't agree with scapegoating volunteers as the problem just because I may disagree with their views

 

[PersonalFavors]

I sympathize with JaF0 as I doubt he signed up as monitor only to find out he is not monitoring but censoring.

These age verification bills are wrong in how they are applied. The amount to no more than a tracking system. Tracking by state with no process provided. Thus one must reveal all aspects of their identity to a third party for each site they want to log into. The virtue in how they are applied makes it difficult to fight. Makes it difficult for a judge or elected official to vote against it or fear being accused of harming minors. It is being fought in many places. I'd need to read the First Amendment a few more times but more than privacy concerns it seems it is an attack on free speech.

https://www.freespeechcoalition.com/faq

 

[Saltfountain]

I sympathize with JaF0 as I doubt he signed up as monitor only to find out he is not monitoring but censoring.

These age verification bills are wrong in how they are applied. The amount to no more than a tracking system. Tracking by state with no process provided. Thus one must reveal all aspects of their identity to a third party for each site they want to log into. The virtue in how they are applied makes it difficult to fight. Makes it difficult for a judge or elected official to vote against it or fear being accused of harming minors. It is being fought in many places. I'd need to read the First Amendment a few more times but more than privacy concerns it seems it is an attack on free speech.

https://www.freespeechcoalition.com/faq

If only you hadn't told us not to bring politics into it, because this is all happening under the auspices and watch of the cult party you support...

 

[PersonalFavors]

If only you hadn't told us not to bring politics into it, because this is all happening under the auspices and watch of the cult party you support...

You are bringing politics into it. Both parties are trying to impose this puritan BS on us. You pointing fingers does nothing but push it further to passing.

 

[God_Above]

You are bringing politics into it. Both parties are trying to impose this puritan BS on us.

No, just one. Led by a serial adulterer who married a sex worker and thinks he's me and a guy who really, really likes couches.

 

[Saltfountain]

You are bringing politics into it. Both parties are trying to impose this puritan BS on us. You pointing fingers does nothing but push it further to passing.

Fella, it doesn't matter which party is involved.

You're talking about bills passed by your government. How is this not politics?

The only reason you cried like a little bitch about not bringing politics into it is because they slated the fuck nuggets running the place atm.

You've done nothing but talk politics in this thread. And you're either too foolish to realise or too far down the rabbit hole to be able to talk honestly

 

[ToPleaseHim]

No, just one. Led by a serial adulterer who married a sex worker and thinks he's me and a guy who really, really likes couches.

We gerrymandered Ohioans largely reject the couch lover, incidentally.

 

[Saltfountain]

We Ohioans largely reject the couch lover, incidentally.

We Brits do too, and the orange shitgibbon

 

[PersonalFavors]

JaF0 would not be deleting the photos if laws did not pass in the states and in UK for adult material online.
You all are bringing politics into it trying to say it is one party or the other. Completely missing the point of this thread.
The internet should not be censored in a way that infringes on one's freedom to browse.

 

[Saltfountain]

JaF0 would not be deleting the photos if laws did not pass in the states and in UK for adult material online.
You all are bringing politics into it trying to say it is one party or the other. Completely missing the point of this thread.
The internet should not be censored in a way that infringes on one's freedom to browse.

That. Is. Politics

Jesus. Fucking. Wept

 

[Mostlyherefortheporn]

Ironically, this forum has done a lot to convince me age verification is a good idea.

Probably not what members were going for though.

 

[PersonalFavors]

Ironically, this forum has done a lot to convince me age verification is a good idea.

Probably not what members were going for though.

https://www.freespeechcoalition.com/faq

Read what it takes to verify each independent site you go to. If you do not value your privacy to understand how dangerous and intrusive it is, you are going to get hacked.
The goal of verification is to shut down every site someone disagrees with. You need to read and stop trying to pick a lame argument.

 

[Mostlyherefortheporn]

https://www.freespeechcoalition.com/faq

Read what it takes to verify each independent site you go to. If you do not value your privacy to understand how dangerous and intrusive it is, you are going to get hacked.
The goal of verification is to shut down every site someone disagrees with. You need to read and stop trying to pick a lame argument.

Eh, sorry, I’ve read the arguments (including your link) and don’t have a lame counter-argument. I’ll live if they shut down porn sites. In fact, I won’t lose any sleep if people suddenly can’t access the nonconsent and incest sections of this site, cause those are probably a bad idea. I’ve said before that I generally find modern porn unsexy and regret most of the wild sex escapades from my youth, and that’s even more true today. I’ve grown steadily more conservative as I’ve grown older, and joining the forum has accelerated that. Lol, I didn’t expect that either. Go figure. I probably won’t register anywhere that requires age verification or something more than a throw-away email address and a “yes, I’m over 18” check that even a 10-year-old would pass, but I don’t think I’ll miss it overmuch. Right now, I find clothed, sophisticated women a lot more arousing than tatted up porn chicks, if I do want something else, welp, I’ve got plenty of 70’s and early 80’s Playboy.s around. Kinda ready to get away from hardcore porn and the kinks.

Anyway, to each their own, I’m sure you’ll figure out something if they do ban porn or whatever,