Possible compromise for the cub art issue.

I would like to add that Pixiv has a similar toggle for gore, which you have to manually set in order to see any of it. They label it as "R-18G" (R-18 Guro) in the options menu.

All kinds of blocklists, may they be opt-in or opt-out, only work if absolutely every picture is tagged correclty. And by correctly I mean more than just common sense, because if people tend to use the tag "cub", all images of kids without any erotic content (e.g. children playing soccer in a garden) that probably use the same tag would become invisible, too. All artists making cub porn have to agree using the very same tag or option to make the page 100% free for the people who are in danger of going to prison for simply browsing on a page as soon as some cp accidently shows up. (Same goes for any other fetish, too.)

Aside from it, the pictures are still there and possible to view for everyone else. As soon as FN gets the same reputation as InkBunny, every artist having his main gallery here has the very same reputation problem, too. Many artists need the money from commissions for a living or want to go there sooner or later. Aside from lawsuits such a bad reputation can get you into serious trouble as well, no matter how well-elaborated FNs blocking options are.

I think you're misunderstanding the idea I'm putting forth. I'm not suggesting that we simply blacklist the "cub" tag -- that's a completely separate thing. What I'm proposing is a new type of content filter, exactly the same as the ones used to block 18+ content from the general public. You can't see content rated as Mature unless you go into your profile and agree to view the content; this would be exactly the same concept. Not all cub art would fall under this category, only the cub art that would also fall under the restrictions of Adult and/or Explicit. It's an extra layer of "I don't want to see this" that doesn't have anything to do with the "Cub" tag itself that would be on General-rated content.

As for your argument that all artists would have to make sure to use the same tag or option, that holds true for literally every piece of content on this site. If somebody draws something explicit and doesn't rate it as such, they're gonna get a visit from the moderation staff and the submission is pulled. It would work no differently if this new rating were added to the site -- break the rules, your content (and your account) is gone. You can't hold the site and the other users who would follow the rules and procedures accountable for those who choose not to.

If you're on, say, Twitter and somebody starts posting inappropriate content without marking it as sensitive (thus blocking it for anybody who doesn't click "Yeah I wanna see"), who's at fault when EVERYBODY can see it? Is it Twitter, the general public of Twitter, yourself for using Twitter, or the one person who posted the image without the proper safeguards?

"Aside from it, the pictures are still there and possible to view for everyone else."

Not if it's opt-IN rather than opt-OUT. Opt-IN means it starts out disabled by default and you have to knowingly and willingly toggle it on before the content appears. Nobody would see any of it unless they went into their account options and deliberately turned on the Cub filter.

I hope I cleared up what appear to be misconceptions, and not attempts to strawman the argument.

The issue is with people who don't tag and I wind up seeing content I find an anathema to my brain. If it's banned, I won't have to worry about ever seeing it. I have this issue on Pedobunny ... I'm there as a white-knight that tags and/or reports the garbage that the "artists" forget to. It happens, on average, about three times a week, and that's three times too many. I'd just soon as not use this site if FN decides to not ban the pedophilia.

It sounds like you're in this more for a fight than anything. If you were truly bothered to the point that it makes you want to leave the site, you wouldn't even be on Inkbunny even as a "white knight" there to tag artwork properly.

Artists are going to forget to tag things. It happens on every website. I don't like seeing scat, I find it literally sickening. So I blacklist the tag (on sites that allow tag blocking), and if I see one that the artist didn't tag, I tag it (...on sites that allow community tags) so it doesn't appear for me, or others like me anymore.

If you want to leave Furry Network if they don't ban something that you don't like, that's your prerogative. But judging by your own admission that you still use Inkbunny despite their lack of a ban on cub porn, it's very obviously nothing more than an empty threat. You're not in this because you actually care about the issue, you just want a fight on the Internet.

Sorry for seeing right through you.

Not really, if the moderators are smart and set the filters based on rating.

Simply being Cub+explicit/adult should be enough to separate it from cub+general. As far as money goes, people on IB still use paypal without issue. With Furry Network routing the money themselves, it should be even less of a problem

I suppose I am fine with an opt-in feature for "extreme" fetishes.

As other people has said, Pixiv has R18G and it takes like 10 sec to activate it.

Reminder: Please keep the discussions civil and on topic.

Replies and threads that are not constructive, off-topic or outright offensive will be removed.

While this could be a good solution, and absolutely SHOULD happen if it's not banned, it doesn't even slightly address the issue of legal risk to users in certain parts of the world.

If it's posted it's a possible risk by association, if it's posted and not tagged even more risky.

While I do not beleive there have been any cases of people being prosecuted for cub porn [unless they had actual child porn like Gembeck,] there HAVE been cases of people being prosecuted for child porn manga.

https://uk.news.yahoo.com/manga-anime-fans-warned-british-man-convicted-possessing-113808103.html

We can argue all we want that there is a difference between drawing of children and drawing of animal children but we don't have a say in it, it's down to the courts and I'd rather stay far away from that risk.

As far as places like the UK and Canada go, couldn't simply making searches for cub art result in an error shown saying "You are not allowed to view this content" or something like that? I know functions for some sites exist that can detect the country of origin of people.

By that logic we should remove all of the furry pornographic images.

Unfortunately furry images can be treated as bestiality in a lot of countries, which is illegal. In addition, homosexual pornography should be removed, as that is illegal in a lot of countries.

I think this is perhaps one of the better solutions to the problem,

https://support.furrynetwork.com/topics/916-create-a-universal-tagging-system-with-a-rating-system-to-allow-users-to-block-tags-by-rating/

I'm honestly disgusted with the recent policy change on the site and would totally be up for more of a compromise type answer to the question of things like cub porn too. Having an option to opt in or opt out would be a WAY better solution. That way people don't ever have to even have the possibility of seeing such content if they don't want to as long as things are tagged appropriate, and people are already required to tag appropriately according to the rules.

I was hoping that the site would keep a stance of protecting free speech as well. I hate artistic censorship and very much supporrt free speech. Much like several other art sites (Pixiv, FurAffinity), this site is currently limiting artists in what they can depict. To ban such artwork hinders some levels of creativity and prevents people from exploring some darker subjects in the world. One might say that most of this art will just be mindless porn of no artistic value, but I would argue that simply by being a drawing such content has artistic merit that could be appreciated. Can't one look at artwork of even porn and appreciate the effort that went into it and quality of the artwork such as by detail, shading, lighting, etc.? If such is possible, wouldn't that mean that such content has some level of artistic merit for it to be appreciated by? Why prevent an artist from depicting such taboo works?

Many sites have various options with regards to the age level of content shown, where more extreme stuff is in a Mature+ section or something while there's also a normal mature content section and then lower levels that focus on more vanilla artwork to just plain all ages works. I would've liked something more like that.