Voat prohibits the posting of sexualized media of minors (under the age of 18) or any media depicting minors in sexual situations. Your account will be immediately and permanently banned.
I mean, stuff like drawings may or may not depict a child, but who is decide if the person in the drawing is a minor? If it's only concerning real life individuals, than I'm for it.
Sorry but v/loli offers nothing of value to the community, toddlers and small children particularly, even drawn, in sexualized scenarios is of no use, causes controversy, grosses people out, and brings allot of unwanted negative attention to everyone here from the creators to the participants.
Besides, isn't there a site or two dedicated to such like Deviant Art? This site is about maintaining free speech and open dialog, not seeing who can be sexually enticed by images that are clearly meant to resemble toddlers or small children.
So we should ban all drawings? I mean, who decides what looks like a minor? If someone complains that think "think" it's a minor, does that content get removed? The issue a rule that can be abused heavily.
No drawing is not "speech", the rule is quite clear, no "sexualized media of minors (under the age of 18) or any media depicting minors in sexual situations".... I doubt if someone posted an image of teen girls playing volleyball in bikinis would be a problem, unless someone is circling where their bikini has slipped offering up a creep-shot.
Love the Slippery Slope fallacy, but the people in charge of this site, Atko & PuttItOut, or whoever they've got things delegated to are pretty solid and consistent. Consistent in allowing actual free speech, dissent, etc.. Regardless the subverses that are now potentially threatened are toxic to the site, on a multitude of levels, worse than anything else. And when you can go to some of those subverses described, and chase links, and find allot of previously available images were removed from the host site for being questionable, it's a rather strong indicator that what was posted wasn't quite legal.
Could the rule be abused, every bit as much as the other side of the spectrum and perverts trying to push the envelope further and further and posting ever more pornographic or suggestive material depicting minors. Though while the side that wants to push the envelope has a long rich history of such, the controllers of this site do not.
I do feel you on the fact that some 20 year olds may look like 16 year olds, & vise versa, but why not just go to a porn site, which the internet is still about 85% composed of, and check that crap out there?
Plenty of "Free Speech" out there to choke your chicken to.
view the rest of the comments →
7584145? ago
Disagree with this:
I mean, stuff like drawings may or may not depict a child, but who is decide if the person in the drawing is a minor? If it's only concerning real life individuals, than I'm for it.
7584328? ago
Sorry but v/loli offers nothing of value to the community, toddlers and small children particularly, even drawn, in sexualized scenarios is of no use, causes controversy, grosses people out, and brings allot of unwanted negative attention to everyone here from the creators to the participants.
Besides, isn't there a site or two dedicated to such like Deviant Art? This site is about maintaining free speech and open dialog, not seeing who can be sexually enticed by images that are clearly meant to resemble toddlers or small children.
7584377? ago
Drawing is part of free speech.
So we should ban all drawings? I mean, who decides what looks like a minor? If someone complains that think "think" it's a minor, does that content get removed? The issue a rule that can be abused heavily.
7584622? ago
No drawing is not "speech", the rule is quite clear, no "sexualized media of minors (under the age of 18) or any media depicting minors in sexual situations".... I doubt if someone posted an image of teen girls playing volleyball in bikinis would be a problem, unless someone is circling where their bikini has slipped offering up a creep-shot.
Love the Slippery Slope fallacy, but the people in charge of this site, Atko & PuttItOut, or whoever they've got things delegated to are pretty solid and consistent. Consistent in allowing actual free speech, dissent, etc.. Regardless the subverses that are now potentially threatened are toxic to the site, on a multitude of levels, worse than anything else. And when you can go to some of those subverses described, and chase links, and find allot of previously available images were removed from the host site for being questionable, it's a rather strong indicator that what was posted wasn't quite legal.
Could the rule be abused, every bit as much as the other side of the spectrum and perverts trying to push the envelope further and further and posting ever more pornographic or suggestive material depicting minors. Though while the side that wants to push the envelope has a long rich history of such, the controllers of this site do not.
I do feel you on the fact that some 20 year olds may look like 16 year olds, & vise versa, but why not just go to a porn site, which the internet is still about 85% composed of, and check that crap out there?
Plenty of "Free Speech" out there to choke your chicken to.
7594078? ago
Then explain why cartoons and other drawings are protected under the 1st Amendment.