I submitted a ticket regarding misleading tags and the moderator came up with an excuse to not take action, if this was FA, posts with misleading tags would get taken down ASAP, and when searching the exact same tags on FA, not a single post is misleading, somebody better teach these mods a lesson or FA will run Furry Network out of business

After doing some comparisons I've found the furaffinity importer compresses the original image. When uploaded manually this does not appear to be the case. While the submission view looks just as bad, especially with the example because of the gradients, but that's a different issue.

The images sourced from the download link

Furaffinity(original): 

Imported:

Uploaded myself:

Hello, 

I was posting one of my stories, today, and I wanted to use the headings markdowns for my title, but noticed that no matter if I was doing "#' , "##" or "###" in front of my title, the same style would come out, the Heading 1 style. 

What I wrote :

The result :

What is shown in the markdowns syntax list, at the bottom of the submission content:

I am using Google Chrome, on Windows 7. In case that helps

As FurryNetwork seeks feedback for different approaches for social media integration, I would recommend implementing ActivityPub support. ActivityPub is a recent standard by a working group of the W3C, as a federated social networking protocol, as a simpler, cleaner successor to OStatus. It would allow the ability to federate with emerging networks such as Mastodon, and anyone else that chooses to adopt it.

It can be implemented in a simple broadcast-only fashion, if desired, such as for having a means of artists being able to publish to any subscribers of any newly posted content. Or go even further, with allowing fully federated commenting (of course, anti-spam concepts can be implemented, such as with having server whitelists/blacklists, moderation queue, etc).

Secondarily, it would also provide a standardized protocol for accessing updates on FurryNetwork from third-party mobile clients, in the same style of a Twitter client.

ActivityPub is a fairly minimal JSON API, which has both a client-to-server protocol (for having a mobile/desktop client) and server-to-server protocol (for federation), using a basic metaphor of an inbox and outbox. There's also considerations for efficiently delivering updates, such as sending a message once to a remote server, for all subscribers on that other server, versus individually sending the same message to each subscriber on the same remote server individually, and so on. It's also a fairly extensible protocol, as it follows JSON-LD syntax, thus you can add any vendor-specific extensions, if needed.

To find more information on the spec, you can find it at: https://www.w3.org/TR/activitypub/

If there's any questions about specifics with the protocol, feel free to discuss directly. The working group that's in charge of developing the standard is also fairly contactable via IRC/WebChat as well (especially for feedback on the standard).

It would be cool to enlarge and zoom in certain sections.

I have noticed that there is not currently an efficient, straightforward method for one to delete their own posts. "Request Takedown" is for copyright infringements and reporting your own post could possibly work, but it is highly inefficient. If there is not already, could an option to delete one's own posts be added?

Listen, The cub community makes up a sizable part of the furry community! And you put us at a disadvantage by the banning of Cub porn, Just Listen to my appeal, please, For one I do not like Cub porn, But I am deeply effected on this site by the lack of cubs

1. Freedom of Speech: Now I know what your thinking, this card has been pulled a million times before, right? And I know that it is your site, but these artists just want to express there creative and artistic talents in what intrests them, I know it is your site and all but your losing so many amazing artists thanks to the ban

2.In Relation to other kinks: Now, I am confused by this, Why is it that kinks like rape and Scat, Which are disgusting are allowed but vanilla cub sex, Which isn't as disgusting but still kind of is, Is not allowed? I don't understand this

3.The impact on ALL cubs on FN: There Is a MAJOR impact on the cubs of Furry Network, If Furry network wants all the furry artists  they could want and to be the number one, It really needs to start helping out it's cub community, What you did when you took away the cup porn, You destroyed about half of our community right there, and the lack of cubs sent another 40% scuttling away, That leaves only 10% of the former amount here ITs unfair

4. Why No blacklist: I mean Come on people if you don't want to see it you don't have to cry to Furry Network Support Just put it on your black list

5. What's next A ban on Bestiallity? Or maybe all porn in general, You can't let these crybabies get away with ruining the cub community on FN, Come on guys!

Thank you for taking your time to read this all and I hope you can consider it

Cubs make up a BIG part of the Furry community! And in that Cub porn is there as well! So many people are interested in this, including artists who like Safe for work Cubs as well, The ban has driven all of that away! That 2/3rds of The cub community, and even then because of the less amount of cubs even more cubs are driven away, People should be able to express there ideas and artistic talents in whatever artistic way they want, And I respect and understand that you are the owners of this site, but it is unfair to ALL Cub and littlefur artists and roleplayers, As we can not find anyone to share are cub ideas and RP with, Please atleast consider this appeal, It really put all of us cub artists at a disadvantage, as well. Because of the lack of cub/littlefur RPers and Artists on FurryNetwork There is not many that share out creative views and so amazing and great Cub artists that try to make it here on furrynetwork are hardly ever seen because there is not enough fellow cubs to premote there artwork! Please on behalf of all the cubs that have intrest in this site but are driven away by the lack of cubs and Cub porn ban, We beg you

Hello, everyone! We've been looking at what users think about having a quick button to share to social media. From the poll we had, a lot of users were for it.

The poll is still running, but there's definitely a desire to be able to share art quickly and easily, resulting in several benefits:

• Posts will reach people on social media, providing links back to the original artwork. This will get you more views, more attention, and potentially more commissions.
• You won't need to rely solely on FN users to share submissions. If you don't have many followers on FN but have a good crew on social media, you can reach that group in just a couple of clicks.
• As posts are shared, the site will likely gain more members and grow. Growth helps everyone who uses the site.

There are a few things I want to discuss when working on this to see exactly how we would implement it.

Should all submissions be shareable?

I personally lean towards yes, and here's why. When furries go to browse FN, they should have a set of expectations for how the site will work. If they can share some posts on social media but can't with others, it'll make the tool much less valuable - why browse with the intent to share if I can't on some images?

In addition, galleries inherently are about sharing; users upload submissions because they want others to view those submissions.

Finally, any submissions uploaded to the gallery can still be downloaded and shared; without a formalized way to do it, though, there's a higher chance someone will do that without giving you credit or posting a link to find your profile. 

I understand some submissions are meant to be private; we do have an unlisted category, and we may wish to prevent sharing to social media for those. 

What sites should we be able to share to?

Twitter is the big one - more furries use it than any other service, and they tend to be alright with a wide variety of content. If there's enough demand, we can look at other sites, as well.

MISSION STATEMENT

Designing a submission system that supports artist-client commission relationships, artist-business content ownership relationships, the variation in whether contributors to an image want it in their galleries, and other novel "multiple people involved" scenarios - but removes duplicate uploads and consolidates all favorites et al into a single copy of the image.

EXAMPLE SITUATIONS

• Artists and commission clients often both upload the resulting image.
• Multiple artists who collaborate on an image often all upload it.
• Drawing gift art for character owners often results in all relevant owners re-uploading.
• I know one artist who uploads the same content to both his personal account and to a brand-name account similar to a company profile.

DETAILS

Submissions become independent pages similar to posts on an image board, rather than items attached to individual user galleries.

In addition to arbitrarily set-able values such as creation date etc., Submissions bear contributor roles which mark (with links):

• creators
• commissioners
• characters and their owners (as you can make character profile pages)
• licensees, companies, &/or brand names
• contributors not covered above

...or other relevant positions. Any user in any of these roles may be marked as an intellectual owner of the submission's content, and any user in any of these roles may be given gallery permission.

The first person to upload the image is marked as Submission Administrator (separate from role), and has the penultimate authority over image category & tags, contributor roles, and gallery permissions. (Site Staff are the ultimate authority, of course, and can change who is the Submission Administrator too.)

User accounts given gallery permissions may toggle whether this Submission is listed in their galleries. Thus, everyone's gallery will show it like they had all uploaded it separately, but all clicks and all favorites, comments, etc. will go to the same 1 copy of the submission.

Each Submission page has multiple description tabs. Each is written by one of the gallery-permission users who has opted to display the image in their gallery, as though they had uploaded separately. When clicking on the submission from a specific user's gallery, that user's description tab will be active immediately.

When a new submission is uploaded, a dupe check will see if the submission already exists. If so:

• If the Submission Administrator has already given the uploader gallery permissions, they will be given the option to immediately display the Submission in their gallery.
• If the Submission Administrator has not already given gallery permissions and has not locked applications, the uploader will be given the option to apply for gallery permission (and a role if applicable.)
• If the uploader does not have gallery permission and applications are locked, they're told to message the Submission Administrator or, if that doesn' t work, site staff.

In the event that a dupe exists and is not caught, Site Staff may manually merge Submissions. This should retain all comments, combine favorites, and host the newer version's description as per the above description tabs, while all other information is discarded.

SUGGESTED IMPLEMENTATION PROCESS

Assuming that current Submissions cannot be plausibly "upgraded" into this system:

1. Leaving existing Submission system alone, develop new submission page as a "second Submission system" of sorts, available to admins, then testers, then the public
2. Once tested & stable, migrate existing Submissions to new Submission system by effectively "reuploading" them and checking for dupes.
   1. The earliest uploader becomes Submission Administrator.
   2. All subsequent uploaders are given gallery permissions and automatically checked as displaying the Submission in their galleries.
   3. Everyone is listed under a catch-all "Contributor" role because the server can't reliably & mechanically tell who did what. They'll have to update it themselves, I'm afraid
3. Replace all old Submission functions & links with new Submission functions & links
4. Delete all old Submissions and keep all new system Submissions
5. Whistle and pretend the old system was never there

I hope this post hasn't been too confusing! Thanks for reading!