The decision made was sound, given the factors that FurryNetwork has to consider in order to achieve what they hope to. It's just frustrating to see some people won't let it go.
I mean, you don't see me making my kinks' legality the problem of others. Why should I expect someone to take it upon themselves to assume liability for me?
Oh for fuck's sake
Thanks very much. Kindly disregard the less-than-helpful replies you've been getting, it was nice to hear more on this.
No idea who downvoted you, but I upvoted back.
Khzhak is talking about the use of a personal blacklist, allowing a user to censor from themselves content they don't want to see.
This is a valid idea. In fact, since FN has already said that the blacklist will be a feature soon, I recommend you make your own Suggestion ticket for this feature! I'd appreciate something like this too.
This is not a moot point, because this post is not about the cub stuff
> If things spin out of control
Unfortunately, I think we're already reaching this point. SimbaLion has started systematically downvoting/fighting almost every poster in the thread, derailing the initial conversations. Including comparing his opponents to fascists.
Also, the thread has started rapidly gaining downvotes. Startlingly fast. If you have access to it, I'd ask that you double-check to see it isn't being robo-downvoted or spammed or something like that.
Thanks for being crazy-active on the PR side of this whole thing. Much respect.
While "cub" might have some legal basis for being banned, we don't want to set the precedent of expecting FurryNetwork to have to take a stance on every fetish. That's where all of the shouts of "censorship" are coming in.
A blacklist sidesteps censorship for a lot of fetishes by allowing the majority rule to determine what the site automatically considers "opt-in" versus "opt-out", since any given tag can only be one of those two things. It turns the whole debate into a simple yes/no question which is appropriately answered by the majority userbase.
Making content unavailable on a platform is censorship. Regardless of the specifics of Cub, for which there are merited legal arguments, it's also censorship.
Default blacklisting is not censorship because you are not stopping any user from accessing the content if they want to. You are instead making that content opt-in, instead of opt-out. While the developers would physically put tags on the blacklist, they'd likely decide what goes there by majority rule-- and at this level of implementation, that is a safe way to do it.
Given any one tag, it is entirely reasonable to decide "should this be opt-in or opt-out?" based on the views of your userbase. You know? It dissolves the monolithic rule of which you are concerned entirely.
Customer support service by UserEcho