eh, I checked the linked community. They have a rule that posters must link to the model's verification that they're overage on every post:

Age verification info for models required; OnlyFans, Fansly profile links are acceptable.

Seems fine to me. This sounds like a whole lot of virtue signalling and pearl-clutching.

There's a very clear line in the sand to me: don't post anyone underage. Posting overage girls is fine to me no matter what they look like. Should the "small boobs" community also be banned because people might mistake a 25 year old with As for a 15 year old? Come on.

What a whole lot of nothing. You/they are accusing them of "hosting child pornography" on the basis that they have nude images of proven-overage adults.

Ragebait title too.

Holy wow, WHAT?? We do not permit CP. Full stop.

As Ace@feddit.uk said no one under the age of 18 can be posted and they have to be verified as such. Genuinely it seems like the only issue is the name, which can be changed to clear up any confusion.

I also agree with this that Ace@feddit.uk said:

There’s a very clear line in the sand to me: don’t post anyone underage. Posting overage girls is fine to me no matter what they like. Should the “small boobs” community also be banned because people might mistake a 25 year old with As for a 15 year old? Come on.

and

You/they are accusing them of “hosting child pornography” on the basis that they have nude images of proven-overage adults.

There's an interesting discussion to be had around stuff like the fauxbait community. But if you approach it in such bad faith as screaming "CP!! CP!!!!" it just comes across as ragebaiting to try to invoke the same sort of "but think of the children!" misdirection that we've seen so much of in governments recently.

Look, that sort of content isn't to my taste but I will defend its right to exist. It's legal. The people posted there are adults. There has always been a thriving category of "barely legal" content - look at reddit's "legalteens" or pornhub's constant barrage of "18 year old does this" and "barely legal loses V" etc. Same product, different name. It sounds like the only objection is the relabelling of 18 year olds as "fauxbait" instead of "legal teen", which I agree is distasteful but that doesn't make it CP. You can look elsewhere if it's not to your taste but you can't deny that it's legal content.

I agree with the others about needing a clear distinction between what is legal and what isn't, and we can debate all day about whether 18 is the correct line to draw, but for now you can't call posting 18 year olds and 21 year olds "child porn" just because they have small bodies or are close-ish to the legal boundary. That is approaching the discussion in bad faith.

lbz and pbz were defederated from lemmynsfw for hosting communities like that, and we are defederated from fedinsfw for the same reason

[>]you post one legal pornography

[>]i leave a comment that someone in the legal pornography resembles a minor despite the fact that they do not

[>]you get in trouble

great

As a feddit.org user, I'm really interested how this discussion about instances obeying local laws will turn out when it's about child porn.

I just blocked that instance on my end.

I was simply cross posting for discussion. And while I see the point that the OP is being a bit dramatic perhaps, as somebody else said on here: the downvotes and vehement opposition to the OP can be seen as support for pornographic content that seemingly depicts minors, even if the actors are in fact of legal age. And if there is one type of content where the user is more concerned about what it looks like than what it is, it would be pornography.

Everyone can have different kinks, fetishes and sexual proclivities (SFW), but once you’re essentially advocating for pornography that visually identical to child pornography, it’s time for that uncomfortable look in the mirror I think. The free speech absolutist argument doesn’t really hold water. What would the absolutist argument be if the child pornography was mades using Sora or something similar? No minors would be involved in making that either right? I’m all for free speech, but to push this angle seems really grasping at straws.

If a new user comes to Lemmy without NSFW filters and such content is among the first things they see, I wouldn’t expect them to sign up and become a regular contributor to the platform.

I was hoping !fediverse@lemmy.world would be a place where this can be discussed, which I suppose it is, as this will rank nicely as “controversial”.