Underage looking?
Remember when some other group tried to ban women with small breasts?
I'm all for blocking csam but 'appears' and 'suspected' and 'characteristics' are not it.
A woman likes mickey mouse ears? Csam A woman has a flat chest ? Csam
Remember when some other group tried to ban women with small breasts?
I believe that group was the country of Australia. Tbh I don't really know what came of that law.
I was curious, so I googled it. Looks like it was never a whole law, but a viral story about criteria already used for classification. Purporting to be underage, including through appearance, is one of the criteria that can be applied to refuse classification, effectively a ban.
Wasn't, "Legal High School Girls" like a porn dvd title back in the day?
Barely legal are probably the most common words in porn titles.
That's it.
You saw the OG?
What a shallow, panicked take. Listening to an "experienced child exploitation investigator," Reuters did a deep-dig at OnlyFans and found 26 accounts featuring females who "appeared" to be underage.
That's not my kink, but 26 ain't many, "appeared underage" is an incredibly low bar, OnlyFans requires proof of age, which all the pages in question had on file, and the site took the pages down immediately anyway. I'm not seeing how OnlyFans could be more rigorous about this, but Reuters should be. This is just anti-porn hysteria.
"Even if every single one of them is verifiably 18 or older, you still have to confront the issue that OnlyFans is profiting from the sexual portrayal of women who appear to be underage."
I disagree. #NotMyJam & I don't subscribe to OnlyFans, but this guy comes across as a prude with massive hangups. I do think we should err on the side of caution and have a zero-tolerance policy on content that features or depicts underage subjects.
BUT. If 18 (in the US) is the law and the socially-agreed age of consent, that should be the end of it. You can't get mad at images of short, petite-framed women, or schoolgirl-kink images of verifiably legal age just because you don't like the content. I think OF uses AI to automatically flag potential CSAM for manual review as well as working with law enforcement and advocacy groups. While nothing is perfect and even a single sex-trafficked person is too many and all perpetrators should be brought to justice, I think that's a good system because it minimizes potential abuse. It's also one of the few good uses of AI because it limits those exposed to the material. But I don't think you can say OF chooses to profit off illegal material or enable it. And saying what legal material is allowed on someone else's platform is just puritanical.
26 accounts out of how many thousands? And they aren’t even claiming that most of them were really underage?
Sounds like the verification system is working pretty well to me.
And OF literally took all of the reported accounts down as soon as they were reported. They're being incredibly compliant. And even though all of the accounts had proper paperwork, they took down 49 accounts that were just using vaguely childlike actions for views when Reuters reported them.
How do you dump on a company that's being that responsible?
I honestly think this is more about people who don't want porn on the internet at all. And hate OnlyFans simply because it's primarily a porn site.
Definitely. The puritan uprising is happening all over the internet, and I hate it with a passion. People need to mind their own business and just click away if they see something they don’t like.
I might dunk on them by pointing out that they caved and took away 49 women's livelihoods (or side gigs). If the women prove they are 18, that should be the end of it.
They are being very responsible, but also it's not illegal to look young. In fact, I'd say maybe 50% of 18 year olds ought to look underage on their birthday. I don't know if that's actually how it works but I'm assuming on average half of us look younger than we are and half of us look older. At least at 18.
Some of the accounts were linked to each other through promotional posts, suggesting they may have been controlled by the same person or group, Richardson said.
I was skeptical until I got here.
The images in the accounts featured females with physical attributes typical of those under the age of 18, Richardson said. Most had narrow hips and lacked physical maturation, he said. Many had narrow shoulders or appeared to be “well short of five feet tall,” he said.
But then this made me skeptical again. There was a porn actor named Kitty Yung (varied spelling, as far as I've seen). She looked undeveloped but she was an adult.
“Their appearance, wide-eyed, innocent look, the pouting, the finger in the mouth, all these are visual cues that convey childhood,” he said. “Even if every single one of them is verifiably 18 or older, you still have to confront the issue that OnlyFans is profiting from the sexual portrayal of women who appear to be underage.”
Ok, so women are wearing school girl outfits and posing as if they are school girls. That's on the content creators and it isn't unique to OnlyFans.
In recent months, Reuters separately examined non-explicit public profile photos, bios and posts of OnlyFans creators who shared near-identical promotional language in their posts. Access to the material was open to the public without a paid OnlyFans subscription.
Now I'm even more skeptical. I think people are likely to copy material from other accounts that appear to do well. "Nearly identical" doesn't sound like much to go on to me.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lupe_Fuentes
In 2009, federal agents arrested a man in Puerto Rico on suspicion of possessing child pornography that included Fuentes. At trial, a pediatrician, using the Tanner scale, testified that Lupe was underage based on her appearance. Lawyers for the defense subpoenaed Fuentes to show her passport, proving that she was 19 years old at the time of production
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.
Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.
7. No duplicate posts.
If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.
All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.