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

 

[Uncle Paolo]

This thread is a hive of pedophiles lmao

Don't clutch at the pearls of 'muh internet freedoms'. There's a reason why people have had such a hateboner for pixiv lately. It might have something to do with them hosting stuff like, IDK, fairly realistic depictions of BABIES being raped. You're either ignorant of the depth of the content they're after or on the very wrong side of the fence.

KF hosts shooting videos and racist content. Thus it promotes murder and hate crimes, and should be banned, right?

 

[A-Stump]

KF hosts shooting videos and racist content. Thus it promotes murder and hate crimes, and should be banned, right?

Weird how it doesn't host realistic looking baby rape and how there's been a line cut in the sand somewhere

 

[Zero Day Defense]

If you don't like porn

You're not going to dismiss my argument with lazy ad hominem. I've made the motivations-- and the very goal-- of my proposals clear. Should it somehow damage an industry interrelated with sex trafficking and not-insignificantly responsible for melting the brains of children and ultimately paving a worse road for our society, not only would it be telling, but you wouldn't catch me being mad.

My second response in particular was me being unsure of how to respond to whatever argument you were trying to make.

"Payment processors already choose to not work with certain porn sites! What happens if... they choose to not work with certain porn sites?"

Any discussion for the solution of payment processors not working with porn sites at all is beyond the scope of this discussion. I'm presuming that they have something to gain if the company isn't clearly dealing in illegal stuff, so they predictably won't.

Most porn sites don't require you to pay for it or post private information to see it. There's a reason for that.

Because ad revenue residuals off of millions of hours of pirated material is a very lucrative money-making scheme-- lucrative enough for site management to not be proactive about complying with the copyrights of others. You are supposed to be paying for more than 95% of the material you jerk off to that comes from a tube site.

Theoretically, if every camgirl and every professional porn company actively protected their material (as was their right, speaking in terms of finance and copyright), tube sites would themselves only be able to function as paid sites-- if they didn't wither and die, outright. Their continued existence is entirely the product of executive apathy and inconsistency.

Your not needing to sign up and verify your age on tube sites has nothing to do with the owners valuing anonymous porn browsing-- it's just that they don't need your personal info to make their money, as it stands.

You are literally saying that you want to force all porn sites to require people to dox themselves and give financial information, then when people point out the obvious issue, you just hand wave

You're attributing to these sites a goal that they never had, as discussed above.

If you have a better idea that's also better than the current arrangement where we inconsistently tackle pornography on a societal level despite the reality of it being pornography, and despite the fact that it's obvious at this point that they're part of a probably incidental conspiracy to actively target children to keep both their labor markets and their consumer bases refreshed and locked in perpetuity, I'm very much all ears.

Turns out, though, "just watch your kids like a hawk" doesn't work as an effective strategy on its own when these people are actively gunning for your kids and you have neither the eyes nor the energy of an actual hawk.

Your solution doesn't fix that problem. Google results would still be inundated with porn sites and links.

And your proposed solution does even less, because Google results currently can be inundated with porn sites and links to the millions of hours of actual videos, for free, on high speed internet, in high definition.

99 tabs of the splash page for Brazzers doesn't do it in the same way 99 tabs of 99 bitches does. It's the difference between finding a loose Hustler mag by the side of a river and being spirited away into a nightclub.

You are literally demanding that porn sites do, thus removing anonymity for their usership, while using a site that literally emphasizes you using that very same anonymity to protect yourself. Yes, you are being hypocritical asshat.

I was not aware that Kiwi Farms was a porn site whose business model was based on piracy.

 

[AStupidMonkey]

"First they came for the pedophiles, and I said GOOD!"

 

[Dude Snakes]

That's great and all but why wasn't this always banned?

 

[Atatata]

Weird how it doesn't host realistic looking baby rape and how there's been a line cut in the sand somewhere

There's a pixiv horror thread here where people post some of the wacky stuff they find.
Wouldn't some of the stuff in animal control threads count too?

 

[74164978231]

That's great and all but why wasn't this always banned?

Because its not illegal?

 

[Zero Day Defense]

There's a pixiv horror thread here where people post some of the wacky stuff they find.
Wouldn't some of the stuff in animal control threads count too?

I think the case could be made that those threads are maintained in a journalistic capacity.

On the other hand, would you want to claim you're a journalist?

 

[A-Stump]

There's a pixiv horror thread here where people post some of the wacky stuff they find.
Wouldn't some of the stuff in animal control threads count too?

Everything in the animal control stuff has been posted in hopes of getting those motherfuckers put in prison. If we're talking about dog fuckers and not furries.

IDK about the pixiv thread, never looked at it, but I think if it was an archive of shit to jerk off to it would be done away with.

 

[Haramburger]

I'd love to fight for free speech and against the tyranny of payment processors, but I don't know how to help in this scenario other than find some adult big-booby cartoon lady and jerk off to something moderately wholesome.

 

[cybertoaster]

Place is going broke then, that's like 97% of the content there.

The other 3% are some cool mecha designs which is the only reason I used to go there, but the zooshit and pedoshit was revolting.

You idiots, that rule only applies to FANBOX. Not the main Pixiv sharing service. FANBOX is like their version of patreon.

Does patreon bans this shit? because I remember a lot of the people doing the most horrible SFM shit had patreons.

 

[Maurice Maine]

Place is going broke then, that's like 97% of the content there.

The other 3% are some cool mecha designs which is the only reason I used to go there, but the zooshit and pedoshit was revolting.

Does patreon bans this shit? because I remember a lot of the people doing the most horrible SFM shit had patreons.

No idea. I don't know a lick about how Patreon works or what's in it.

 

[Agent Abe Caprine]

And your proposed solution does even less, because Google results currently can be inundated with porn sites and links to the millions of hours of actual videos, for free, on high speed internet, in high definition.

If you look up Pokemon X videos on Google, you get links to xvideos. Surprised this still happens a decade after Pokemon X came out. Also, Pokefuck. Gotta fuck 'em all.

 

[Dude Snakes]

If you are into any of those recently banned catagories you are a degenerate.

 

[Pimpleking55]

Yes and that is a fact. My take is another assault on the freedom to create things by the power of corporations dictating what is right and what should be seen.

One of the Artists that had to end his wonderful Manga was this guy. He is the collateral damage to this bullshit.

The Apothecary Will Make This Battered Elf Happy

A brief description of the manga The Apothecary Will Make This Battered Elf Happy: This manga has one page per chapter.

www.mangaread.org

There is ABOLUTELY nothing bad about this manga. It was really a cute, and refreshing story line without the "Hero gaining a harem" theme of late.

It's actually one of the better drawn mangas out there I've seen in a while. But because it drawn a certain way it (big titty elf with clothing on... big fucking deal, I've seen far worse) got tagged and the artist quickly rushed the manga to its completion.

Yes, there are some fucked up rags out there, just as there are fucked up Furries Running Discord.

But this also means that artists nowhere near loli-con level are going to be tagged as well.

And then lets not forget the "violence" part of illustration WILL ALSO BE TAGGED by all of these "Decency" clauses.

But like anything else this is WESTERN style corporations dictating what MORALITY IS.

This is a very very dangerous situation to be in.
This is what happening to this site. Corporations dictating MORALITY, trying to shut this site down.

Sooner or later you, the average person will be targeted on what you can say, what you can do, etc. You will be gatekept by those Gate Keepers for YOUR OWN BEST INTEREST.

In the End it is all about the money that WESTERN FINCANCE COMPANIES WIELD...

A very scary future that lies ahead.

Aw fuck, that was one of my favorite manga's, a prime example of how censorship only destroys.....
If people are really worried about the Muh children and degeneracy or human trafficking, there are more pressing matters than drawings on the internet, but no one talks about that for some reason. But while real children get fucked to death by people who even don't have access to sites like this, we are banning naughty stuff so we can pat ourselves on the back and real children be damned.

 

[AN/ALR56]

Weird how it doesn't host realistic looking baby rape and how there's been a line cut in the sand somewhere

You conveniently forgot that KF used to have fan groups where users could join like subredddits where you could basically share or do shit in them that would be anything you wanted except if it was illegal to get hosted to.

From videogame groups where people could organize MMO raids to porn shit, including weird shit like hentai and BDSM.


Also not a direct quote to you, but I find it hilarious that so many people lack the self awareness to defend this while being fucking here of all places, a place to mock online tards and trannies that got the internet to it's breaking point on freedom of expression, who since the 2018s have not being able to be processed by payment processors for their political views, forcing Null to pull off some silk road shit to get donation money to get this running.

Yeah you might find it funny that is the "They came for the lolis" kind of argument, but that's how we got to here.
Unless it's real photons of a kid hitting a CCD and becoming algorithms hosted somewhere, i couldn't care less, because if we start controlling what people in their fucked up heads put on a piece of paper, we're going to a real bad place, fast.

 

[kobrum]

Yeah you might find it funny that is the "They came for the lolis" kind of argument, but that's how we got to here.
Unless it's real photons of a kid hitting a CCD and becoming algorithms hosted somewhere, i couldn't care less, because if we start controlling what people in their fucked up heads put on a piece of paper, we're going to a real bad place, fast.

this part right here was explained on a follow up post.
What are "Prohibited Items"?

”Prohibited Items" are:
・Items that contain live-action elements in violation of public order and standards of decency
・Items that violate public order and standards of decency due to being so highly realistic as to create concerns about whether their creation may have involved the victimization of living people or animals.
you can see all the details here. https://www.pixiv.net/info.php?id=8872

 

[The Demon Pimp of Razgriz]

You're not going to dismiss my argument with lazy ad hominem.

You're arguments are already lazy. I merely gave them the rebuttal they deserve. Hell, the statements that particular quote was in response too weren't even really arguments, and said nothing substantial. The more substantial arguments I gave the more substantial feedback to.

Should it somehow damage an industry interrelated with sex trafficking and not-insignificantly responsible for melting the brains of children and ultimately paving a worse road for our society, not only would it be telling, but you wouldn't catch me being mad.

Now you are just making a lot of the same weak, unsubstantiated shitty arguments actual anti-porn brigadiers make (that legal porn is heavily interrelated to sex trafficking (even if its just drawings), that its "melting children's brains", that its making society worse, etc.) if you are trying to convince me that your problem isn't that you just oppose porn itself, you are doing a poor job of it.

Any discussion for the solution of payment processors not working with porn sites at all is beyond the scope of this discussion.

Except that is literally what this entire thread is about, you are the one calling for sites to require paid access and independent verification to control entry. So, yes, it is very relevant to this discussion.

Because ad revenue residuals off of millions of hours of pirated material is a very lucrative money-making scheme-- lucrative enough for site management to not be proactive about complying with the copyrights of others. You are supposed to be paying for more than 95% of the material you jerk off to that comes from a tube site.

So now we give a shit about copyright infringement? If a site didn't host copyrighted material at all, and only hosted user submitted material, would that site be exempt from the payment requirement you want to impose? What does copyright infringement have to do with anything? Yes, the sites make money off of ads. So does Youtube and almost every other website on the internet. Porn sites aren't unique here, and there is plenty of non-porn adult material on sites like Youtube, which still make money and don't require the user to do more than do a simple age verification.

Theoretically, if every camgirl and every professional porn company actively protected their material (as was their right, speaking in terms of finance and copyright), tube sites would themselves only be able to function as paid sites-- if they didn't wither and die, outright. Their continued existence is entirely the product of executive apathy and inconsistency.

If porn companies don't want to enforce their copyright, that's their prerogative. Its neither here nor there for this discussion. And no, tube sites wouldn't only have to function as paid sites. They could allow private creators to only post their own material, like Youtube currently does.

Your not needing to sign up and verify your age on tube sites has nothing to do with the owners valuing anonymous porn browsing

That's exactly the reason why they don't require it. Because they know that no one would want to dox themselves to a porn site. Its that simple. This isn't rocket science.

If you have a better idea that's also better than the current arrangement where we inconsistently tackle pornography on a societal level despite the reality of it being pornography, and despite the fact that it's obvious at this point that they're part of a probably incidental conspiracy to actively target children to keep both their labor markets and their consumer bases refreshed and locked in perpetuity, I'm very much all ears.

The better arrangement is to encourage parents to be actual fucking parents and police their children's online activity. Parents are the final arbiter here. Its their responsibility.

Turns out, though, "just watch your kids like a hawk" doesn't work as an effective strategy on its own when these people are actively gunning for your kids and you have neither the eyes nor the energy of an actual hawk.

Nobody can force you to not take care of your kids. There are filters, parental controls, all kinds of tools to ensure that your kids aren't doing something you don't want them to do. And, you can just control their access to the internet. No internet, no problem.

And your proposed solution does even less, because Google results currently can be inundated with porn sites and links to the millions of hours of actual videos, for free, on high speed internet, in high definition.

But your solution doesn't even fix that problem. That's the point. I'm not offering some grandiose solution. YOU ARE.

I was not aware that Kiwi Farms was a porn site whose business model was based on piracy.

It doesn't have to be, because this issue is greater than porn. People have literally been trying to shut this site down for years, and this year, they came closer than they ever have to doing so. The same assholes doing that are the same assholes going after porn sites now. We are not different to porn sites as far as these people are considered. May actually be worse to many of them.

 

[Zero Day Defense]

@The Demon Pimp of Razgriz

You're arguments are already lazy. I merely gave them the rebuttal they deserve.

You don't get to make that accusation while giving me a comment so much longer than your last, it got quote bugged.

Now you are just making a lot of the same weak, unsubstantiated shitty arguments...

Yeah, yeah...

Except that is literally what this entire thread is about

It's not what you're talking about with me. I'm proposing a solution that presumes that they do, for a specific purpose (a reasonable presumption-- given that they largely still do-- and part of the basis of the proposal), and you're ostensibly disputing the feasibility and necessity of said solution.

What you're talking about is already a problem that needs to be resolved with legislation, and would be obviated as a particular criticism of my proposal if said legislation came about. There's doubly no sense in bringing it up in this conversation.

So now we give a shit about copyright infringement?

No. I am telling you, however, the actual reason why tube sites are free and usable without registration and age verification. The Czechoslovakian managers for these sites are not crusaders for privacy and internet anonymity, and they make a killing off of material that is >95% from paywalled sources.

Your assumption, on the other hand, is based on absolutely no established knowledge.

And no, tube sites wouldn't only have to function as paid sites.

A tube site that has to alter their business model from collating millions of hours of pirated material for free viewing (with ads) to strictly virtual pimping is a tube site that's taken a colossal financial hit and very likely won't be able to function as it used to.

The better arrangement is to encourage parents to be actual fucking parents and police their children's online activity.

Let's be consistent, then, and not restrict the selling/access of materials for any vice to children.

Let's not ban the sale of alcohol to children-- parents need to be vigilant, after all, and that's better for society than expending resources to make trouble for adults. Let's not ban the sale of tobacco to them, either, for the same reasons. As a matter of fact, we shouldn't shrinkwrap physical porn and prevent kids from buying it-- we already let them watch it for free on the internet, after all.

...what's the problem with Gender Queer in public school libraries, again?

But your solution doesn't even fix that problem.

It just heavily mitigates it, and in a way that's consistent with how we handle every other material of vice in society at large, and even pornography outside of the internet. We can't account for children drinking alcohol at home, or buying it off the street, or having a hook up (as it frequently happens with college students that are still under drinking age), but that doesn't mean that the prohibition isn't something worth enforcing.

That's the point. I'm not offering some grandiose solution.

True. You apparently don't even think it's a problem.

People have literally been trying to shut this site down for years, and this year, they came closer than they ever have to doing so. The same assholes doing that are the same assholes going after porn sites now.

That's false on its face.

Porn addicted troons whose crimes, misdeeds, and perversions are extensively catalogued here aren't trying to get porn sites shut down.

 

[The Demon Pimp of Razgriz]

Yeah, yeah...

Now look whose not even bothering to engage with the arguments.

It's not what you're talking about with me. I'm proposing a solution that presumes that they do,

AND THAT PRESUMPTION IS STUPID BECAUSE ITS OBJECTIVELY OBVIOUS THAT THEY WON'T! THAT'S THE FUCKING POINT! Your presumption is already flawed so your argument falls apart.

(a reasonable presumption-- given that they largely still do-- and part of the basis of the proposal)

No, its not a reasonable presumption. Master Card never restored service to Pornhub. R18 outright shut down their website rather than be censored, and now this happens. We haven't mentioned the shenanigans involving Paypal, or issues with crowdfunding sites like Patreon. These credit card companies, banks, and payment processors are getting more and more gun shy about supporting porn, not less. The attacks on the porn industry are only escalating. It is not at all a reasonable presumption that these companies will continue to support porn sites in the future. And if you mandate that porn sites must work with these sites to function, the pressure will only mount on the financial companies to not do business with porn sites at all, because they now become a single point of failure.

No. I am telling you, however, the actual reason why tube sites are free and usable without registration and age verification. The Czechoslovakian managers for these sites are not crusaders for privacy and internet anonymity, and they make a killing off of material that is >95% from paywalled sources.

They are crusaders for privacy when it benefits their operational model, which it does. I don't know why this is even relevant. It doesn't matter why they personally support maintaining user privacy, whether they believe in privacy for its own sake or not. What matters is why it makes good business sense, because that's why they adhere to it.

A tube site that has to alter their business model from collating millions of hours of pirated material for free viewing (with ads) to strictly virtual pimping is a tube site that's taken a colossal financial hit and very likely won't be able to function as it used to.

Except this is exactly what Pornhub did, and its still functioning. Its not the top dog in porn anymore, but its still going despite the new limits imposed on it.

Your assumption, on the other hand, is based on absolutely no established knowledge.

Even if I accept that statement as valid, neither are any of your assumptions. So what's your point?

Let's not ban the sale of alcohol to children-- parents need to be vigilant, after all, and that's better for society than expending resources to make trouble for adults. Let's not ban the sale of tobacco to them, either, for the same reasons. As a matter of fact, we shouldn't shrinkwrap physical porn and prevent kids from buying it-- we already let them watch it for free on the internet, after all.

I've already gone over the differences of going into an actual physical store versus simply surfing a website. There is no point of sale, no physical product being exchanged. Its a website. Any website can host porn. Anybody can access a website in the privacy of their own home. Nobody has to pay for it, no physical goods are exchanged, its all information. There is no method of controlling that transaction of information. A child can have porn passed to them on everything from usenet, to torrent, to an internet forum like this one, to email. All basically exist in the same continuum.

...what's the problem with Gender Queer in public school libraries, again?

Are you really comparing a curated school library to the sheer vastness of the internet.

It just heavily mitigates it,

How? How does what you are proposing mitigate the issue of Google searches showing porn? Google already mitigates it with porn filters. What you are proposing doesn't mitigate that at all.

We can't account for children drinking alcohol at home, or buying it off the street, or having a hook up (as it frequently happens with college students that are still under drinking age), but that doesn't mean that the prohibition isn't something worth enforcing.

Alcohol prohibition failed utterly. And yes, that's right, we can't stop children from drinking alcohol at home anymore than we can stop children from viewing porn at home.

That's false on its face.

No it isn't. Many of the same leftist rags that call Kiwifarms a hate site, champion the attacks on porn sites and porn in general, and peddle the bullshit of the antiporn lobby. Focusing on "troons" as if they are the only ones who want to shut down Kiwifarms is just stupid. The left hates Kiwifarms in general, and many of those same leftist pushing against anime, hentai, loli, porn, what have you. Kiwifarms is in the same boat, whether you realize it or not.