Your comments

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.

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?

There's also a problem of where does this precedent come from? Where does one draw the line? Guro is an existing fetish involving the dismemberment and death of others where gore is prevalent. Rape is another somewhat prevalent fetish, and I'm sure I don't need to explain what that is or why its wrong. Vore is another that people seem very lenient on, when the reality of it is that it is a depiction of one person eating another, and if that were enacted in real life....Well, all of these things, if enacted in real life, would be horrific crimes, would they not? So where does one draw the line, and why? I do not understand the resulting choice of policy change, and I'm upset by it as well.

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.