Feedback on new policy announcement.

[AwkwardMD]

Sad but true. They are making it so they can track you. They being the naive politicians. Its too bad. Sex and erotica is what the internet is most useful for. Maybe they are trying to decrease bandwidth usage.

This is apologist propaganda, even if you didn't intend it to be. Do not justify them. Do not accept this. Do not be sad, be mad. Its a travesty and you should be furious. I know I am.

Lit is doing what it has to in order to survive. Vote in 2028.

 

[HawkerPenn]

This is apologist propaganda, even if you didn't intend it to be. Do not give justify them. Do not accept this. Do not be sad, be mad. Its a travesty and you should be furious. I know I am.

Lit is doing what it has to in order to survive. Vote in 2028.

First, vote in 2026! Then, vote in 2028!

 

[RoperTrace]

Sad but true. They are making it so they can track you. They being the naive politicians. Its too bad. Sex and erotica is what the internet is most useful for. Maybe they are trying to decrease bandwidth usage.

Someone, a helluva lot smarter than me said, the internet grew exponentially because of Porn, not in spite of it.

 

[ICantLeafYou]

First, vote in 2026! Then, vote in 2028!

Feels shitty being a non-American and just having to sit here and hope a whole 'nother country will finally get off their asses and vote the asshats out.

 

[PersonalFavors]

Feels shitty being a non-American and just having to sit here and hope a whole 'nother country will finally get off their asses and vote the asshats out.

Problem is the 'asshats' you are calling out are Making America Great Again.

 

[HawkerPenn]

Problem is the 'asshats' you are calling out are Making America Great Again.

 

[ElectricBlue]

Problem is the 'asshats' you are calling out are Making America Great Again.

Don't go political in this thread.

 

[HawkerPenn]

This notice was placed on all my previously published artworks, which have been removed as "archived". I quote it as I consider it a good exposition of Literotica's position on visual images. I added the large font, italics and color to the section I consider most relevant. This post should not be considered an endorsement nor a condemnation of Literotica's stated position on my part. I post it for your information.

"Dear Writer,

Thank you for your submission to Literotica. We appreciate the time and effort you've taken to write a story and submit it to our site. However, we've found that we cannot post your submission in its current form. The checklist below may help you in re-examining your manuscript.

• We do not accept photographs, photo-manipulations, or generative AI to our Illustrations and Erotic Comics section. Please read here for our complete guidelines: https://literotica.com/faq/illustration-works/illustrated-story-guidelines.
• Archiving of Visual Content Depicting Nudity, Sexual Activity & Adult Situations
  
  Due to several factors - including recent changes and expansions in global and U.S. regulations around visual content (evolving standards on verifying the age and consent of people depicted in images/videos, new rules around deepfakes, revenge imagery laws, and increased scrutiny of realistic or AI-generated character imagery) - we've made the difficult decision to remove images and artwork that depict nudity, sexual activity, or adult situations from public view.
  
  Keeping up with the growing complexity of this new wave of image regulations requires more resources than we currently have available. As Literotica's primary focus has always been on storytelling through text/writing, so we believe that archiving potentially affected visual works is the best way to protect our authors and the community. It's possible we may be able to bring these works back in the future (after we have a better understanding of all of the regulations, and time to further review the works), but in the short term this is a necessary step.
  
  Text-only works are not affected, as they do not involve visual representations. If your visual work does not depict sexual activity, nudity, or adult situations (Artwork FAQ), you're welcome to resubmit it in the Illustrated Stories category. You can also contact us if you have questions, or if you believe that your work does not fall under the updated guidelines and that it might be eligible for conversion to an Illustrated Story.
  
  We realize that these changes may be frustrating to you, as they are to us. We appreciate your understanding.

Please feel free to re-submit the story after a Volunteer Editor has examined it, or after you've made revisions. You can find a list of Volunteer Editors here.

Please consult our Writer's Resources section and make sure you read our submission guidelines.
If you have any questions on these, please let us know.

Thanks for your time, and look forward to reading you again!

Laurel & Manu
Literotica.Com"

 

[Saltfountain]

This notice was placed on all my previously published artworks, which have been removed as "archived". I quote it as I consider it a good exposition of Literotica's position on visual images. I added the large font, italics and color to the section I consider most relevant. This post should not be considered an endorsement nor a condemnation of Literotica's stated position on my part. I post it for your information.

"Dear Writer,

Thank you for your submission to Literotica. We appreciate the time and effort you've taken to write a story and submit it to our site. However, we've found that we cannot post your submission in its current form. The checklist below may help you in re-examining your manuscript.

• We do not accept photographs, photo-manipulations, or generative AI to our Illustrations and Erotic Comics section. Please read here for our complete guidelines: https://literotica.com/faq/illustration-works/illustrated-story-guidelines.
• Archiving of Visual Content Depicting Nudity, Sexual Activity & Adult Situations
  
  Due to several factors - including recent changes and expansions in global and U.S. regulations around visual content (evolving standards on verifying the age and consent of people depicted in images/videos, new rules around deepfakes, revenge imagery laws, and increased scrutiny of realistic or AI-generated character imagery) - we've made the difficult decision to remove images and artwork that depict nudity, sexual activity, or adult situations from public view.
  
  Keeping up with the growing complexity of this new wave of image regulations requires more resources than we currently have available. As Literotica's primary focus has always been on storytelling through text/writing, so we believe that archiving potentially affected visual works is the best way to protect our authors and the community. It's possible we may be able to bring these works back in the future (after we have a better understanding of all of the regulations, and time to further review the works), but in the short term this is a necessary step.
  
  Text-only works are not affected, as they do not involve visual representations. If your visual work does not depict sexual activity, nudity, or adult situations (Artwork FAQ), you're welcome to resubmit it in the Illustrated Stories category. You can also contact us if you have questions, or if you believe that your work does not fall under the updated guidelines and that it might be eligible for conversion to an Illustrated Story.
  
  We realize that these changes may be frustrating to you, as they are to us. We appreciate your understanding.

Please feel free to re-submit the story after a Volunteer Editor has examined it, or after you've made revisions. You can find a list of Volunteer Editors here.

Please consult our Writer's Resources section and make sure you read our submission guidelines.
If you have any questions on these, please let us know.

Thanks for your time, and look forward to reading you again!

Laurel & Manu
Literotica.Com"

What a shame they couldn't just say that to start with, as opposed to the bullshit about people being embarrassed to open lit in public in case they saw boobies...

Trouble is, seeing as they have changed their story, I'm not sure whether this is true or just a backtrack to try and salvage the situation...

 

[AwkwardlySet]

The above statement is all fine and understandable, even though it's somewhat unfair towards the authors who have been publishing their artwork here for a long time. But we all get it, surely.
What puzzles the mind, though, is the fact that Manu's original announcement said that they were doing it due to "reader feedback" and complaints about NSFW content.

So which one is it then? And more than that, after witnessing this sharp change in explanation, how do we trust any announcements in the future?

 

[ElectricBlue]

What a shame they couldn't just say that to start with, as opposed to the bullshit about people being embarrassed to open lit in public in case they saw boobies...

Trouble is, seeing as they have changed their story, I'm not sure whether this is true or just a backtrack to try and salvage the situation...

What puzzles the mind, though, is the fact that Manu's original announcement said that they were doing it due to "reader feedback" and complaints about NSFW content.

So which one is it then? And more than that, after witnessing this sharp change in explanation, how do we trust any announcements in the future?

I think we should accept that the first explanation given was a daft mistake, very poorly expressed, and this more recent announcement, which is coherent, logical and reflects recent changes in legislation (in many countries) is what should have been issued in the first place.

Please don't jump down my throat with your usual, "But you're just an apologist for the site, your view doesn't count." I've had all of my visual content archived - that's 18 submissions - so this policy change has directly affected my work as an artist. That hurts, seeing my art work hidden behind a mountain as if my content is malignant, offensive, obscene. When it's a depiction of nakedness and the beauty of nude bodies, nothing more than that.

Yet I support what the site is doing, because I want the site to survive, and if that means shutting down visual content to protect our written content, which must be protected, then so be it.

 

[Cfnmlover84]

What a shame they couldn't just say that to start with, as opposed to the bullshit about people being embarrassed to open lit in public in case they saw boobies...

Trouble is, seeing as they have changed their story, I'm not sure whether this is true or just a backtrack to try and salvage the situation...

JaF0 first posted about wanting to ban pictures from this site in 2023 before any of these laws took effect. So this explanation is probably bullshit too. The reason why the pictures are gone is because the site owners want the site to be text only. Wish they would be honest and state the real reason.

 

[AwkwardlySet]

Please don't jump down my throat with your usual, "But you're just an apologist for the site, your view doesn't count."

But it's the truth, isn't it? You made a conscious choice to interpret what the site has done in the way that excuses them the most, regardless of the fact that it's completely nonsensical.

How does one make such a mistake anyway? Was Manu's thought process, "I should make an announcement, so I'll err... write the first thing that comes to my mind!"
Come on.

No, they made a conscious decision to misinform the community for whatever reason. And I'm not even going to try to put myself in their place, there is no need for that. All I know is that this childish lie makes one doubt anything they say.
I mean, if they are willing to misinform everyone just so they can give a different spin to this policy change, then the truthfulness of anything they say in the future is in question. This is all so silly and childish, in my view.

 

[ElectricBlue]

But it's the truth, isn't it? You made a conscious choice to interpret what the site has done in the way that excuses them the most, regardless of the fact that it's completely nonsensical.

I posted right from the start that the "reason" given - that people were getting upset seeing NSFW imagery in places where those people shouldn't have been on Lit in the first place - was bullshit, stupid; and asked the site to come clean.

It was fairly obvious to me that the site was falling under pressure from new legislation, probably got legal advice, and took a while to figure out how best to respond. The American election obviously became a key factor in finally doing something, to protect the site from scattergun legislation. The site is protecting itself from a hypocritical moral backlash.

How does one make such a mistake anyway? Was Manu's thought process, "I should make an announcement, so I'll err... write the first thing that comes to my mind!"
Come on.

He's the tech guy. Have you ever seen coherent policy announcements from the tech guys in your company? I haven't. That's why they leave important announcements to the boss. Laurel slipped up badly on this one, letting it go out the way it did.

No, they made a conscious decision to misinform the community for whatever reason. And I'm not even going to try to put myself in their place, there is no need for that. All I know is that this childish lie makes one doubt anything they say.

I agree it was stupid, but it doesn't follow that everything that follows is automatically stupid. It probably is, but you're an intelligent person, surely you can sift through the bollocks and pick out what's really important?

I mean, if they are willing to misinform everyone just so they can give a different spin to this policy change, then the truthfulness of anything they say in the future is in question. This is all so silly and childish, in my view.

It was a fuck up, for sure, but I think the reason for doing it, now that it's finally been made public, is valid. That's what's important, not the ham-fisted way of getting here.

 

[AwkwardlySet]

I posted right from the start that the "reason" given - that people were getting upset seeing NSFW imagery in places where those people shouldn't have been on Lit in the first place - was bullshit, stupid; and asked the site to come clean.

It was fairly obvious to me that the site was falling under pressure from new legislation, probably got legal advice, and took a while to figure out how best to respond. The American election obviously became a key factor in finally doing something, to protect the site from scattergun legislation. The site is protecting itself from a hypocritical moral backlash.

I understand the need to change the policy when legislation changes. Everyone here does, I believe, so that's not in question. They also could have changed the policy without any warning or explanation. It's their site and their right. And it would have been better if they had done so.
I just can't process the silliness of the lie in the original announcement, or the need for it. Many among us laughed when Manu announced that it was done due to reader feedback. Hilarious as all hell, that.
It was all so freaking unnecessary.

I'd say that they owe the community one honest explanation about the whole thing. Owning up to their mistake, rather than remaining silent, is the responsible approach in this case. It would build some trust, in my opinion.
Based on previous history, I am not sure whether we should hope for such a thing. But maybe they surprise us, after all.

 

[lilshymynx]

He's the tech guy. Have you ever seen coherent policy announcements from the tech guys in your company? I haven't. That's why they leave important announcements to the boss. Laurel slipped up badly on this one, letting it go out the way it did.

Every announcement from the IT department of all of the places I have worked has been at least accurate. They don't bullshit around. It may not always be communicated in the best language to be comprehensible to the masses, but its at least VALID. Not some bullshit ass reason. I have no idea why you keep defending the site on this.

On top of that, the bullshit story is STILL posted in the Site news board. It hasn't been updated. No correction has been made. The ONLY people that apparently got to hear the real reason are people who had their images archived.

 

[ElectricBlue]

Every announcement from the IT department of all of the places I have worked has been at least accurate. They don't bullshit around. It may not always be communicated in the best language to be comprehensible to the masses, but its at least VALID. Not some bullshit ass reason. I have no idea why you keep defending the site on this.

If you read my posts a little more closely, you'll see that I've said all along that the policy roll out was done badly, could have been done better, that the first approach was ridiculous.

But you're getting into a blather as to how the site did it, which is beside the point. What you should be focusing on is why the site had to do what it's done. Which is to protect itself from legislation that puts a huge burden on social media sites, for age verification etc etc. That's what's important here, not a bad policy statement. It's the moral puritans that are the issue, not the site's effort to protect itself.

On top of that, the bullshit story is STILL posted in the Site news board. It hasn't been updated. No correction has been made. The ONLY people that apparently got to hear the real reason are people who had their images archived.

Yes, and we're the people who have been directly affected. I'm one of them, I've had eighteen pieces archived. For most everyone else, it seems to be an academic argument for the sake of bashing the site. If you're not a visual artist you haven't been affected, but we have. How many pieces have you had archived?

I'm defending the site because I don't want it to be shut down. Is that simple enough for you?

 

[Saltfountain]

If you read my posts a little more closely, you'll see that I've said all along that the policy roll out was done badly, could have been done better, that the first approach was ridiculous.

But you're getting into a blather as to how the site did it, which is beside the point. What you should be focusing on is why the site had to do what it's done. Which is to protect itself from legislation that puts a huge burden on social media sites, for age verification etc etc. That's what's important here, not a bad policy statement. It's the moral puritans that are the issue, not the site's effort to protect itself.

Yes, and we're the people who have been directly affected. I'm one of them, I've had eighteen pieces archived. For most everyone else, it seems to be an academic argument for the sake of bashing the site. If you're not a visual artist you haven't been affected, but we have. How many pieces have you had archived?

I'm defending the site because I don't want it to be shut down. Is that simple enough for you?

No one wants the site shut down.

No one is saying that they shouldn't protect themselves from possible legal trouble.

What everyone (apart from you) is saying is that they feel lied to, and will struggle to believe they're being told the truth in future.

That won't stop the owners doing whatever the fuck they want to with the site. It is their right as owners.

They didn't have to give a reason for the changes. But they actively chose to. And they gave a reason to most people that no one believed (yes, I'm sure a few people wanted to not see nudes on the site, but not the majority of the community).

Not giving a reason would have pissed people off, but everyone would very quickly have come to the conclusion it was down to the legal challenges they faced and accepted it.

However, from the outset people felt lied to, and came to the same conclusion anyway. But the way the community has been treated has cost a lot of goodwill, and people have left because of it.

Lit will survive without them, and will be just fine. But a lot of people will find it hard to believe the next announcement.

You don't have to give a reason for changes, but it's worse to lie if you're going to give one

 

[lilshymynx]

If you read my posts a little more closely, you'll see that I've said all along that the policy roll out was done badly, could have been done better, that the first approach was ridiculous.

But you're getting into a blather as to how the site did it, which is beside the point. What you should be focusing on is why the site had to do what it's done. Which is to protect itself from legislation that puts a huge burden on social media sites, for age verification etc etc. That's what's important here, not a bad policy statement. It's the moral puritans that are the issue, not the site's effort to protect itself.

Yes, and we're the people who have been directly affected. I'm one of them, I've had eighteen pieces archived. For most everyone else, it seems to be an academic argument for the sake of bashing the site. If you're not a visual artist you haven't been affected, but we have. How many pieces have you had archived?

I'm defending the site because I don't want it to be shut down. Is that simple enough for you?

If you love the site so much then why don't you hold it accountable and not make excuses for it? Nobody wants the site shut down. We want the site to be more transparent with its users, something that has long been a problem. You can support the site and also want them to do better. Two things can be true at once.

As for the "how many pictures have you had affected by this" line of nonsense...fucking spare me. By your logic white people should have stayed the fuck home during civil rights marches and the allies that marched with me in our Pride parade this year should just leave off. Get a grip.

 

[Britva415]

JaF0 first posted about wanting to ban pictures from this site in 2023 before any of these laws took effect

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.

 

[PersonalFavors]

Feels shitty being a non-American and just having to sit here and hope a whole 'nother country will finally get off their asses and vote the asshats out.

Don't go political in this thread.

 

[Saltfountain]

Don't go political in this thread.

That's not being partisan political is it though?

It's stating facts that this is in response to a political policy that is currently being played out.

Now if a different incumbent had brought this in, I doubt you'd have said shit...

 

[Saltfountain]

Problem is the 'asshats' you are calling out are Making America Great Again.

This you getting all political on this thread champ?

 

[PersonalFavors]

That's not being partisan political is it though?

It's stating facts that this is in response to a political policy that is currently being played out.

Now if a different incumbent had brought this in, I doubt you'd have said shit...

I likely would not have written anything in agreement in referring to them as asshats. However, the end result of the 'law' forcing you to identify yourself before viewing porn would be the same. I feel it is naive for the politicians to say the verification is necessary. I'm frustrated because I don't want to be tracked nor judged based on what I like to look at.

 

[Saltfountain]

I likely would not have written anything in agreement in referring to them as asshats. However, the end result of the 'law' forcing you to identify yourself before viewing porn would be the same. I feel it is naive for the politicians to say the verification is necessary. I'm frustrated because I don't want to be tracked nor judged based on what I like to look at.

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?