The mods there have decided to allow underage looking content, skirting close to CP. Unless we want such disgusting stuff on our feed, I think we should defederate from that instance.

Pinging @ernest as well.

  • Undearius
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    1 year ago

    The linked post is saying they will allow non-irl underage-looking content.

    That is illegal in Canada.

    163.1 (1) In this section, child pornography means

    (a) a photographic, film, video or other visual representation, whether or not it was made by electronic or mechanical means,

    (i) that shows a person who is or is depicted as being under the age of eighteen years and is engaged in or is depicted as engaged in explicit sexual activity

    https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/c-46/section-163.1.html

      • Undearius
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        1 year ago

        I’d encourage you to read what I just posted because drawings would fall under “other visual representations”

          • Undearius
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            13
            ·
            1 year ago

            If you’re going to be that level of pedantic then it’s clear you already have an idea in your head and don’t care to be informed.

            • Otome-chan@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              1 year ago

              (i) that shows a person who is or is depicted as being under the age of eighteen years and is engaged in or is depicted as engaged in explicit sexual activity

              this excludes loli/shota.

          • Bloonface@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            8
            ·
            1 year ago

            OK, more concretely then, sexualised drawings of people who are or appear to be under 18 are illegal in the UK.

            This is an odd hill to die on if you’re not interested in looking at sexualised drawings of people who are or appear to be under 18.

            • Otome-chan@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              I could say all humans look under 18 to me, and thus all porn is banned.

              ultimately, loli does not refer to actual human beings. it does not refer to an age. loli characters can be undeniably adults and appear as such.

              Surely, if a character is canonically an adult, appears as an adult, is unmistakably an adult, and are not based on a real person, then they can’t possibly fall under what you are saying, yes?

              • Bloonface@kbin.social
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                7
                ·
                1 year ago

                Yeah but that would be bullshit, and frankly your definition (which appears to be being skewed by a desire to look at sexual cartoons of children) would not need to be believed by anyone else.

                “Canonically” also doesn’t matter because someone saying “actually this person who looks exactly like a five year old girl is a million years old” also doesn’t have to be believed by anyone else.

                That is why the UK law is “appear to be” - specifically to avoid consumers of child pornography, real or drawn, pulling dumb stunts like that.

                • Otome-chan@kbin.social
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  so there you have it. you’re essentially arguing full actual adults are “child porn”. fuck off with that bs.

                  • Inamin@kbin.social
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    5
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    1 year ago

                    just out of interest @Otome-chan@kbin.social, in this pic (https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FeOCDVuVIAElq8s?format=jpg&name=large), how old do you think hayase looks? Keep in mind she is 42 (I guess that’s what that number means, either that or she is the answer to the meaning of life, the universe and everything. So what would be your stance of sexualised images of that character or a similar one? See, thet problem is, all your justifications come from within your lolita community. Not from outside the community, which is ultimately who you are judged by when this shit comes into thte public sphere… So you can go around in your little bubble thinking everything is ok because your are surrounded by other’s who justify it. Until it becomes public and you suddenly expect people to accept your justifications.

      • exohuman@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        1 year ago

        In the age of AI, it’s basically the same thing anyway. People can generate that shit now and it will look real. It’s not okay and it is illegal. It literally uses the word “depicted” which can refer to non-real stuff.

        • Otome-chan@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          1 year ago

          this has already been covered in courts. realistic looking imagery of children counts as cp. drawn anime characters do not.

    • TheYang@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      So… is all My Hero Academia porn illegal in Canada?
      They started at 14, and are 16 now as far as I understand.

      I never heard anyone call that stuff CP, although it technically would have to be, as long as the artist doesn’t somehow clarify “this is art from a future version, where they’re all 18, they just look the same because awesome genes” or whatever.

      • Undearius
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        I’m not familiar with that so I cannot say. I’ve included a link to the law as it is written. If it fits the description, someone intended to be under the age of 18 displayed in a sexual fashion, then yes.

    • Lols [they/them]@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      “being depicted as being under the age of eighteen years” is pretty explicitly saying ‘if this character is shown to be underage’, rather than ‘if this character might possibly be underage’