Update on site-wide rules regarding involuntary p********** and the sexualization of minors

If you see content that you believe breaks our sitewide rules, please [report it](https://www.listnookhelp.com/en/submit-request/breaking-content-policy) directly to the admins.

I don't understand the downvotes, this is a legit question. Some 14 year old girl who posts to gonewild on her own is gonna try and lie and say she's 18, not realizing or understanding that she can get a ton of people in trouble. I don't think its a solvable problem, but its a question that needs to be asked.

P********** has always been difficult to classify well, and doubly so for identity theft/revenge p***. Aside from case-by-case how would you do it? Do some cases involve deleting posts and some involve law enforcement? What's the threshold? How can they verify that random internet name matches real-life face? That's basically impossible. People are the worst. They consistently prove that, see _revenge porn_. However, the number of posters of revenge p*** are way lower than the number of authentic posters who enjoy exhibitionism in the mass media circus that is /r/gonewild. In that case there is safety in numbers. Plus the anonymity is part of the thrill for many women. They can be as n*** as they want and nobody knows who they are. Look at how many backgrounds or tattoos are obscured in how many photos. Also of note: the /r/gonewild sub was always user created and user curated. Listnook makes no policy about how to make or manage a sublistnook. That is up to the community. Listnook never said they would own /r/gonewild or any other sublistnook.

How do you expect listnook to proactively determine wrongdoing in the case of involuntary p********** being posted? All content hosting is done with the understanding that enforcement of rights infringement is done retroactively. It's just not feasible, nor is it a reasonable expectation to have. We see this all the time in copyright law, that's literally how the DMCA works.

> Out of total curiosity - does their verification formally check the ID/age of the person posting? No, it's a picture of their username scribbled on a piece of paper placed next to their butthole.

My long preferred example (and pretty dated now) is comparing [these 14 year olds](https://i.imgur.com/zvHKYm2.jpg) and [these 17-18 year olds](https://i.imgur.com/sEw43zs.png). This is a good example to explain from because the artists weren't specifically going for the extremes. Similar to your example, the censors typically won't particularly object to the sexualization of Asuka but will more likely object to the sexualization of Konata, the oldest of these eight characters. Trying to be within the censors' terms, what about children is being protected? Is it about their mental vulnerability? Then a mature vampire with 500 fictional years of experience is completely unrelated. Is it just about looking like a child? Anime is already far off from realism, and it would further be totally okay to [sexualize a 12 year old](https://cdn.awwni.me/sv40.jpg) if they don't look young. Perhaps it's a strictness about actual age? But wait, strictly age is a measure of how many years a person has been alive, so the reality is a 12 year old invented in 2016 is age 2 in 2018, as would be a 20 year old invented at the same time. Is the problem just about the *idea* being related to what would be a crime in reality? Are we going back numerous decades about how violent fiction creates violent people? Perhaps burn The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn *again* to save our children? Oh and all the kids these days watching the Avengers then going on to become heroes by punching all their enemies into submission, that's a real problem, right? Unfortunately there's no argument to be had. The censors say "But the children!" and stop at that, they don't *want* to think about it, they'll spend no time on what "fiction" is in contrast to reality. There's a history to that, particularly periods where fear were most profitable, and a history or puritan religion to leverage, thus lasting in culture. Informed generations will grow up questioning borderline cases, and that kind of change progresses strictly with progression of generations. The problem here is of course that Listnook positions themselves as censorship heavy without any interest in handling it equally since that means thinking deeply about scary topics, which is something sensationalist outlets still love to prey upon. Child p*** is a real problem because of real children being exploited in the creation of it, and the implications of the same problem existing outside of CP. I can draw any sequence of lines with me as the only real person involved in its creation start to finish. Fiction is fiction, a fabrication from ideas depicted using various tools, mechanical inventions. The number of people interested in objectionable fictional content massively massively exceeds the number of people interested in criminal reality. And this is me keeping it short, censorship is ludicrous, far against the interests of what society is about. I'm eager for the next innovation in social media, there has always been room for a new and yet better format than Listnook.

We can go even deeper; what about depictions of [Illyasviel von Einzbern](https://vignette.wikia.nocookie.net/villains/images/d/db/Illyasviel_von_Einzbern.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20140804023919), who, in the original story is canonically 18 years old, but who in the AU series is, I believe, 10.

This is the problem I have actually. In anime and one off f***** pics, the age of the characters isn't always black and white as you've illustrated. How do you decide which content is allowed, when you're looking at a pic in which the *fictional* girl could be anywhere from 15-20 years old?

>The crime Kutzner pleaded guilty to involved 70 animated, cartoon pornographic images of minors, including a toddler, engaged in graphic sex I'm all for locking pedos in prison but this is absolutely insane. It doesn't matter how "graphic" the pics were because the subjects of those pics literally don't exist. CP fuels child abuse and has real victims. Who are the victims of drawings?

> The crime Kutzner pleaded guilty to involved 70 animated, cartoon pornographic images of minors, including a toddler, engaged in graphic sex Was the toddler Stewie from Family Guy? ... I mean is he really the first guy to have seen Stewie X Louis p***?

People are so against thought crimes until it involves sexuality, then people get all weird and just want it to go away, so ban and arrest anyone that makes me feel icky.

I mentioned political cartoons. That's my point, and one /u/weltallic made whether he meant to or not. The fact that the rule extends to faked n*** depictions of any individual is so broad that it can be arbitrarily applied or ignored in any use case involving artistic depictions of naked people. Sharing pictures of RGW girls is fine. "Deepfaking" Emma Watson's head onto their bodies is obviously a violation of site rules now. Pasting Gordon Ramsay's head onto their body in MSpaint is also a violation of site rules. Leaving their head alone and pasting Chris Christie's body over theirs is also against rules as written, in an unintended sort of way. It's so vague and arbitrary that it can be selectively enforced in a way which demands the site users either err on the side of caution or all parties winkingly acknowledge that this is all about Listnook not liking r/deepfakes specifically. Which it clearly is.

Arguably it puts children at more risk to make drawn content harder to find. Idk if that's true, because nobody does, but we can sure as hell guess that listnook is going to care a lot more about money and public view than whether something is actually harmful or not.

> Many, many people would and will disagree with you on that. As they should. It's an absurd position to hold. All I'm saying is that they should strive to be consistent. If they're going to treat fictional minors as real minors, then they should also treat fictional adults as real adults.

> and in a court of law (At least in the US) it would be thrown out within 5 minutes because its not a real person. Well I wouldn't be so sure... >In October 2012, after being reported August 2011 by his wife, a 36-year-old man named Christian Bee in Monett, Missouri entered a plea bargain to "possession of cartoons depicting child p**********", with the U.S. attorney's office for the Western District of Missouri recommending a 3-year prison sentence without parole. The office in conjunction with the Southwest Missouri Cyber Crimes Task Force argued that the "Incest Comics" on Bee's computer "clearly lack any literary, artistic, political or scientific value". Christian Bee was originally indicted for possession of actual child p**********, but that charge was dropped as part of a plea deal, and was instead charged with possession of the "Incest Comics".[87][88][89][90]

They’ll enforce it only when they want to, specifically DeepFakes because that’s what people are rallying against right now. Fake celeb p*** has been around since I was like 10 years old. Pretty silly to ban it now over a change in medium when it’s going to be indistinguishable from the real thing and people won’t be able to tell the difference in 10 years. Gonna be hard to claim it’s non-consensual when Jennifer Lawrence looks into the camera and says “This isn’t fake, I am consenting to having this video released” and nobody can find a single flaw in the footage.