Business Pixiv bans offensive art -- Including loli

[...]
Furthermore, the rules or policies of Brand Protection for Card Networks transactions for content that is patently offensive, unethical, or promote criminal activity; such as, by way of example and not limitation:
・Sexual exploitation of a minor
・Incest
・Bestiality
・Rape (or any other non-consensual sexual behavior)
・Non-consensual mutilation of a person or body part
[...]

決済を伴う取引に関するサービス共通利用規約改定の事前のお知らせとお願い

2022年12月15日（木）に、ピクシブ株式会社が提供するサービス共通利用規約を改定いたします。 このたびの改定は、BOOTH、pixivFANBOX、pixivリクエスト機能など決済を伴う取引…

www.pixiv.net

 

[BananaSplit²]

I especially like the mention of "non-consensual" (violence, sexual intercourse, etc.) to brand fictional characters on the same level as real life beings. Like nigga, they're just drawings on paper sheet, at the mercy of the artists whim. The same could be said about videogames too, except pixels instead. Anyone who can't make the distinction is mentally deranged or disingenuous enough to secretly push his/her own agenda.

You could also technically nuke any form of suggestive/erotic fanart of the majority of japanese manga, videogame & anime franchises under the premise of "sexual exploitation of a minor" through pressure of the international (american) bank cards. Like the whole disclaimer is vague enough to enable a larger range in banning even tame stuff eventually.

It's worth to remember that we had people like Jason Schreier calling the Sorceress of Dragon's Crown "a lolicon fantasy" or the australian senator Stirling Griff labeling Goblin Slayer as one as well. They can literally mold the definition of words in order to shut down things they don't like and assert control over creative freedom.

 

[whatever I feel like]

Good, but why the bestiality ban? Come on, man.

 

[Pimpleking55]

Good time to move lolis back to the seedy dark alleys of the internet where it belongs, it has become way to mainstream lately.

Om nom nom nom.

 

[Regio Consiglio]

Common pedophiles L, if you don't beat it to kids you won't even notice a difference so hardly anything dystopian n shit

 

[Snekposter]

It's really interesting seeing anime avatars talking about censorship by payment processors that sound like they're directly quoting Josh on a MATI tangent

View attachment 3873207View attachment 3873213

*AHEM*

ANIMEFAGS ON SUICIDE WATCH!

That is all.

 

[SSj_Ness (Yiffed)]

I've been growing firmer in my stance on porn lately. Just get rid of it. At best it benefits nobody, at worst it hurts people.

I was 100% serious but I'm a bit disappointed nobody called out my intentional pun yet.

 

[REGENDarySumanai]

While I'm not one for lolicon (or guro for that matter), payment processors shouldn't be telling people how to do business. Just deal with the money and shut the fuck up.

 

[AgendaPoster]

I especially like the mention of "non-consensual" (violence, sexual intercourse, etc.) to brand fictional characters on the same level as real life beings. Like nigga, they're just drawings on paper sheet, at the mercy of the artists whim. The same could be said about videogames too, except pixels instead. Anyone who can't make the distinction is mentally deranged or disingenuous enough to secretly push his/her own agenda.

You could also technically nuke any form of suggestive/erotic fanart of the majority of japanese manga, videogame & anime franchises under the premise of "sexual exploitation of a minor" through pressure of the international (american) bank cards. Like the whole disclaimer is vague enough to enable a larger range in banning even tame stuff eventually.

It's worth to remember that we had people like Jason Schreier calling the Sorceress of Dragon's Crown "a lolicon fantasy" or the australian senator Stirling Griff labeling Goblin Slayer as one as well. They can literally mold the definition of words in order to shut down things they don't like and assert control over creative freedom.
View attachment 3874353

I'm not gonna support "freedom and liberty" to trigger the jews/shitlibs/whatever.
There have to be limits imposed on degenerate behaviors.
Deviants should be pushed to the margins of society, that includes loli enjoyers among many others.

 

[Product Placement]

Bestiality better mean all furry stuff

 

[LurkTrawl]

As far as I can tell, you're operating from a presumption that you should be able to coom anonymously, or otherwise that it'd be bad if you couldn't.

I don't hold either presumption, but that's not because I necessarily think you shouldn't (well, you shouldn't be cooming at all, but that's not really my point right now). Rather, I recognize anonymous cooming as a quirk of the development of internet porn and its particularly (and probably intentionally) poor restriction from children-- something that's incongruous with how we deal with the distribution of "adult" material in literally any other facet of society.

You have to flash your ID and prove you're of sufficient age to buy guns, cigarettes, liquor, and even physical pornographic media-- which is also censoriously shrink wrapped. You have to flash your ID and prove you're of sufficient age to enter strip clubs. If you wanted to buy porn on PPV, you'd have to flash step to avoid your dad's belt because you were buying that on his account.

There's zero reason for this to not carry to pornography that happens to be on the internet, except for a barrier that's ultimately trivial for people that are of age. People already pay for pornography-- people already down money on OnlyFans. Being able to use a credit card at all is de facto age verification.

"Kids will always fuck and/or fap", now that I'm actually processing it, is a massively disingenuous non sequitur, grasping at straws. The entire point of the proposal is to mitigate child exposure to pornography, whether or not the success is total. (Nearly) everyone can agree this is a problem when public schools are stocking their library shelves with Gender Queer but somehow it's different when it comes to dealing with businesses that are invariably incentivized in the short and long term to expose children to porn. Businesses that have no reason outside of the borderline mythical goodness of their heart to do so much as preempt access with a trivial "I am over 18" button that is itself a trivially removable HTML element.

Kids watching porn are probably not having sex, and if they were, they probably wouldn't be wasting their time watching porn. We can't do anything about kids coming across the stray Hustler mag by the river, but that by itself is several magnitudes away from having over 1000 hours of sissy hypno at your finger tips by age nine after a fateful summer day where you made a lethal typo in your Google search query.

Nigger I can wholeheartedly tell you that "think of the children" will not and shouldn't be enough for any sane individual to be okay with digital I.D. systems for fucking anything.

Patriot Act says hello.

 

[disavow]

It's shocking that they didn't already. Only degenerate "what about muh 1st amendment literally says" lolberts and actual pedophiles look at that shit.

 

[Agent of Z.O.G.]

If you don't know whether to choose the pedo side or the non pedo side you need to do some serious soul searching.

Bro the other side is bankers, there is no non-pedo side.

 

[Tasty Tatty]

Put aside that there are sites that already do this-- you have to provide your ID when you're going into a strip club. Same principle should apply, here.

I don't know why this has negative ratings, when you're on point.

You want to buy drugs, alcohol, cigarettes, or hire a hooker? You need to pay for it and identify yourself as an adult (most of the times, at least it's the rule). There is zero rules for accessing degeneracy online and it's even free. That is a problem because these people are welcoming minors and we are expected to not make a fuzz because it's meant to be "freedom"? Why isn't freedom then that a real IRL theatre allows minors for adult movies? Twitter allows pornography and it's a website where people under 18 can sign up and even interact with the people making such content.

Yes, I know that the problem is that the ones in charge at the moment are retarded and they would abuse any kind of control, using the excuse of protecting minors to censor content they don't like. But because they are a problem doesn't mean the other problem doesn't need a solution for what is happening now.

 

[LurkTrawl]

Yes, I know that the problem is that the ones in charge always are retarded and they will always abuse any kind of control, using the excuse of anything to control people.

FTFY.

There's a marked, serious difference between giving governments the capacity to track you directly, online, forcing you to use an identification system to see what websites you go to, and having to show a physical I.D. at a physical location. Does anyone here actually believe that sites like KF wouldn't immediately be put on the no-no list?

Besides we need to stop retard-proofing the world. This is the job of parents not the fucking government, and certainly isn't the business of people for whom controlling the behavior of others is deemed a great idea. Perhaps if you live in a society full of shitty parents, with shitty fucked up kids, you should be worried about your own kids actual or hypothetical, and your own family, rather than trying to shape the world to be a better place by... enabling shitty parents to continue being shitty at the cost of literally everyone the fuck else.

 

[Tasty Tatty]

Besides we need to stop retard-proofing the world. This is the job of parents not the fucking government

I do believe parents need to raise their kids, but that doesn't imply that limitations for minors should be lifted.

 

[Zero Day Defense]

Nigger I can wholeheartedly tell you that "think of the children" isn't and shouldn't going to be enough for any sane individual to be okay with digital I.D. systems for fucking anything.

There's a marked, serious difference between giving governments the capacity to track you directly, online, and force you to use an identification, and having to show a physical I.D. at a physical location.

If the feds wanted to, they could track your IRL purchases back to you, too-- with great ease, and without any of the provisions of the Patriot Act. Browsing tube sites on Incognito mode isn't protecting you from their surveillance, either. Any clearnet website with which you have a regularly used account already has your activity history that the feds can just subpoena if they wanted to.

None of this changes the fact that the way we treat access to porn online is unjustifiably different from how we treat it IRL. The supposed "marked, serious difference" you point out with no elaboration doesn't actually weigh the difference of porn online versus porn offline, and why it's only the latter kind that should be freely accessible by children.

I already made the point that being able to use a credit card is enough to prove that you're an adult, and there are porn sites that already have a paywall that indirectly achieves the goal of age verification. You've presumed that age verification in this circumstance must mean that the government is performing it, but I never said that. It only has to involve porn sites being required by law to perform actual age verification.

After all, when you buy beer, the cashier checking your ID isn't an agent of the state. It's just that it's his ass if law enforcement has reason to snoop around his establishment and it's found out that he sold alcohol to a minor.

The reason that I or anybody else suggests age verification for internet porn is because there's already age verification for physical porn, because society at large ostensibly agrees that children shouldn't have access to porn at all. Is that "retard-proofing"? Is that enabling shitty parents to continue being shitty?

 

[Alligator Alcatraz]

I would love the ban of all pornography from Pixiv. I just want to browse galleries of my favorite male characters without being forced to see disgusting, emasculating, gayassed fetish shit that ((conveniently)) gets passed the R18 filter.

 

[ZMOT]

The reason that I or anybody else suggests age verification for internet porn is because there's already age verification for physical porn

you mean the one where you let your older brother or mate buy it, dig into your parents stash, get it from a store that doesn't give a fuck, steal it from a store that does or just outright trade that shit in school?

lmao you niggas think boys during puberty were unable to see some tiddie if they want one before the internet was a thing. ffs what's next, banning underwear catalogues because they can swipe one from their mom if they want to squeeze one out?

 

[SSj_Ness (Yiffed)]

If the feds wanted to, they could track your IRL purchases back to you, too-- with great ease, and without any of the provisions of the Patriot Act. Browsing tube sites on Incognito mode isn't protecting you from their surveillance, either. Any clearnet website with which you have a regularly used account already has your activity history that the feds can just subpoena if they wanted to.

None of this changes the fact that the way we treat access to porn online is unjustifiably different from how we treat it IRL. The supposed "marked, serious difference" you point out with no elaboration doesn't actually weigh the difference of porn online versus porn offline, and why it's only the latter kind that should be freely accessible by children.

I already made the point that being able to use a credit card is enough to prove that you're an adult, and there are porn sites that already have a paywall that indirectly achieves the goal of age verification. You've presumed that age verification in this circumstance must mean that the government is performing it, but I never said that. It only has to involve porn sites being required by law to perform actual age verification.

After all, when you buy beer, the cashier checking your ID isn't an agent of the state. It's just that it's his ass if law enforcement has reason to snoop around his establishment and it's found out that he sold alcohol to a minor.

The reason that I or anybody else suggests age verification for internet porn is because there's already age verification for physical porn, because society at large ostensibly agrees that children shouldn't have access to porn at all. Is that "retard-proofing"? Is that enabling shitty parents to continue being shitty?

Hard to argue with that. Very well argued.

 

[Kel1 shi1]

lmao you niggas think boys during puberty were unable to see some tiddie if they want one before the internet was a thing.

Sears catalogue underwear section.