• Fur Affinity Forums are governed by Fur Affinity's Rules and Policies. Links and additional information can be accessed in the Site Information Forum.

Filter Revision Proposal - The /AH/ Autofilter

ArrowTibbs said:
*morningstar said:
If you want a tread about the morals of cub porn, then go start one and leave this one for users who actually want to come in and discuss the filtering system like adults.

There was one a bit ago, but it's closed and we're not supposed to start new ones. Zoop.

I do support a filtering system following these lines though, with an opt-in approach.

That's kind of a shame, but I can understand why, considering that these kind of 'discussions' tend to degenerate into flame wars pretty quickly.
 

KCat

New Member
I must be missing something. Isn't all adult art already filtered by default? At least, you can't see it as a guest, and you have to explicitly enable it after signing up..
 

Devon

New Member
KCat said:
I must be missing something. Isn't all adult art already filtered by default? At least, you can't see it as a guest, and you have to explicitly enable it after signing up..
yeah it is but I think this would take it a step further, and allow the user to select which of the he/she wants to see, of course I could be wrong.
 

Ruffy

New Member
hey i like the idea, that way it would keep the whiners happy and the rest of us could carry on our happy browsing and posting

if they dont want to see that art then i dont want them to either ya know =^.^=
 

KCat

New Member
So, you're basically discussing having one very broad, somewhat vague, filter item, or a wide ranging array of them? I'm.. sorry, but I don't really see what needs discussion about that.. o_O
 

Arshes Nei

Masticates in Public
Guildmaster Van said:
It doesn't.
Why does it matter that they mentioned race?
Answer: It doesn't.

To hell with the filters - where is the search function?


Is it?

I mean what if it was a nice Asian ass?
 

Arshes Nei

Masticates in Public
They opened the other thread back up by the way.
 

vulpin

New Member
PervDragon said:
Before this derails any further into a discussion of the acceptability of cub pornography, I would like to quote sections of our current federal law (the "PROTECT" act of 2003) relating to the topic:

§ 1466A. Obscene visual representations of the sexual abuse of children

(a) IN GENERAL.—Any person who, in a circumstance described in subsection (d), knowingly produces, distributes, receives, or possesses with intent to distribute, a visual depiction of any kind, including a drawing, cartoon, sculpture, or painting, that—

(1)(A) depicts a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct; and
(B) is obscene; or

(2)(A) depicts an image that is, or appears to be, of a minor engaging in graphic bestiality, sadistic or masochistic abuse, or sexual intercourse, including genital-genital, oral-genital, anal-genital, or oral-anal, whether between persons of the same or opposite sex; and
(B) lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value; or attempts or conspires to do so,

shall be subject to the penalties provided in section 2252A(b)(1), including the penalties provided for cases involving a prior conviction.

...

( c ) NONREQUIRED ELEMENT OF OFFENSE.—It is not a required element of any offense under this section that the minor depicted actually exist.

...

(f) DEFINITIONS.—For purposes of this section—
(1) the term ‘visual depiction’ includes undeveloped film and videotape, and data stored on a computer disk or by electronic means which is capable of conversion into a visual image, and also includes any photograph, film, video, picture, digital image or picture, computer image or picture, or computer generated image or picture, whether made or produced by electronic, mechanical, or other means;

...

This is not meant to be a discussion issue; just a note to the FA admins who happen to see this. It's up to them to determine whether or not they'll risk their necks and the entire website on the premise that this law does not apply to anthro art, or that the cub art here has some sort of "serious artistic value" (note: anything intended to be primarily erotic almost definitely does not count as having serious artistic value).

As far as actual filters, I think two things should be done:
1) Get a cub filter working ASAP. No matter whether or not you think it's legal, no matter what debate there is about banning, there needs to be a working filter for it as soon as humanly possible. Even if it's not a final solution, it'll make all of us a lot happier.
2) A default /AH/ filter is an excellent idea, and I agree with it completely.

Good information on the PROTECT Act (gah, I'm sick of laws being cute acronyms!), except the relevant portion was found to be overbroad and the government didn't appeal (source: wikipedia):

On April 6, 2006, in United States v. Williams, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that one component of the PROTECT ACT, the "pandering provision" codified in 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(3)(B) of the United States Code, violated the First Amendment. The "pandering provision" conferred criminal liability on anyone who knowingly

advertises, promotes, presents, distributes, or solicits through the mails, or in interstate or foreign commerce by any means, including by computer, any material or purported material in a manner that reflects the belief, or that is intended to cause another to believe, that the material or purported material is, or contains (i) an obscene visual depiction of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct; or (ii) a visual depiction of an actual minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct.

The Williams court held that although the content described in subsections (i) and (ii) is not constitutionally protected, speech that advertises or promotes such content does have the protection of the First Amendment. Accordingly, § 2252A(a)(3)(B) was held to be unconstitutionally overbroad. The Eleventh Circuit further held that the law was unconstitutionally vague, in that it did not adequately and specifically describe what sort of speech was criminally actionable. The government did not appeal this ruling.


Interestingly, the courts aren't happy with another provision in PROTECT, that requiring manditory minimum sentences due to it hamstringing the justice system of the country and putting the Legislature above the Judicial. This hasn't been tested by the SCotUS yet either, as far as I know.

On the main topic, I'm pro-filtering/anti ban for reasons of "don't banninate legal if fringe things" - cub art (personal feelings either way notwithstanding) is legal, as is bestiality art, vore art, rape art, and so on.

-Vulpin
 

Almafeta

Member
Would 'adult/hard' be another setting in the 'general/mature/adult' line? Or would it be a one-click setting for a number of smaller filters (opt in to all adult/hard, opt out of all adult/hard, default is opt out) that could be set individually? I think it's the latter, but I'm not quite sure.
 

Ansuru

Member
Eh, I prefer making people opt out of seeing things; I don't want to have to figure out another confusing toolset just because I prefer to trust my own brain over a scripted filter to decide what I do or don't want to see :p

Really, if I don't like something, I just close the Firefox tab and go on to the next. Not tough, not something that should need to be fed to the server; poor thing already works hard enough for us :p
 
I draw lots of quite extreme artwork, and FA is really the only good place I have to display it. An outright ban would be devastating for me, because banning the particular subject matters I draw from the site would essentially be the same as banning me from the site. With that said, I am for any "middle ground" option that'll allow me to keep my art on FA. Yes, it does sadden me that almost no one will see my art if such an automated filter is used, but I have to admit defeat in this. If keeping my art on FA means losing 99% of my views, then so be it, I have no choice. What matters is that, filtered or not, FA is still a better place for me to display my artwork, as opposed to the clunky private server my other art gallery is currently on, which gets maybe only one visitor a week.

Well, that's how I feel about it. Unhappy at the potential possibility of being targeted by forced filtering, yet admitting that it's the only option other than an outright ban that'll let me remain on FA.
 

Phoenix-D

New Member
Torin: you'd lose very few views, because the people that want to see your stuff would be turning the filters off in the first place.

I mean, as of right now -all- adult material is blocked by default. That's good, and it doesn't stop anyone from seeing your stuff. The system just, IMHO, needs a few more options ("fetish other" is..well, fucking broad, for one :)) and filtering levels for the people that want to see "regular" porn but not the more extreme stuff.
 

Surgat

Where is your mod now?
I don't know if this has been mentioned before (tl;dr), but:

The effectiveness of the /AH/ filter will depend on the precision of the new TOS' definition of "underage."

There will be disagreements as to whether or not certain pictures should be tagged /AH/ or not. Given past moderator decisions on what is and isn't underage, if the TOS is worded as bad as the old one on this issue, what's going to be different?

Before:
-Obvious/obviously child/childlike character in an adult picture-*
-Mod: it's not underage. It can stay up.

After:
-Obvious/obviously child/childlike character in an adult picture-*
-Mod: it's not underage. It doesn't need the /AH/ tag.
 

Arkloyd

New Member
*reads Dragoneer's Post, goes no further yet(
I just want to say AMEN.
You all don't like something? It offends your religion? Your intelligance? You have a choice to not look at it. All thumbnails I've seen of cub work are clearly labled.
I know their's some people who aren't content with that.
They want no book to contain the word 'Nigger', they don't want murder, depression, suicide, or... furries, no matter how important of a work it is, (Or how much that word crops up in movies and 'music' now.)
No faggotry in my woodpulp!
Little old church addict ladies banning books, banning ideas.

Banning any form of art is the same thing.
Just because it offends you, doesn't make it right to keep it out of the hands of those that appreciate it and would not practice it.
Heck, A lot of what I see here I find offensive, but I'm not going to bitch about Vore, unbirth, HERMS, or other things that don't twitch my stick... Dragons! They don't have fur, BAN THEM!

I don't like raccoons in my art... B&!

I support the filter Dragoneer suggested. I'd like to see it come into use.

Yes this was meant to raise eybrows and possibly offend.
I'm an American. It's my right. I, for one, don't abuse it.
 

Issarlk

New Member
Dragoneer said:
Simply put, The /AH/ filters are a category which different filters fall under. Any filter that falls under the /AH/ category is defaulted to block the content unless people turn it on.

I think it's a great idea and I'm all for it.
 

cybercat

Member
Filters would be nice but the filters we have don't work. Besides that, filters don't stop the fact a type of 'file' exists on the site. Aside me personally being opposed to cub art, I really am concerned about what reprocusions can occur legally for the site hosting such things. Big brother is all about targeting pedophiles right now, as soon as anyone with any power hears that this might be a site that those type of people hang out, it's going to be game over. Not to mention the fact that the chat rooms could become hunting grounds for freaks who DO like to hurt children. As adults, heck as people, we have to be responsible. That means acknowleding what our actions can do, the effects and the ripples. Just because you didn't Intend for something to happen doesn't mean you arn't responsible. If people had more grit, more personal responsiblity and gave a damn about each other more, we'd have a lot less drunk driving accidents, a lot less pollution and a lot less violent problems in the world. Please, please, take a stand. This isn't about Right or Left. This is about doing what is morally and legally best for the site. Don't do a filter for mature cub art just BAN it, filter the other stuff, I'd love that personally love it. Most people have shown they don't care about cub art, they just are afraid of loosing their 'creative freedom'.
 

Arshes Nei

Masticates in Public
cybercat said:
Please, please, take a stand. This isn't about Right or Left. This is about doing what is morally and legally best for the site. Don't do a filter for mature cub art just BAN it, filter the other stuff, I'd love that personally love it.

Ok then, define it. Clear and concisely so we don't have pitchforks and stuff on artists that draw a certain way that people perceive as cub art too. Because that's really the problem.
 
but this filter isn't just for the cubby art. it's for all stuff that is /AH/.

personally i got a better idea. why not just set the filters to block out everything on the mainsite instead of trying to set up a new filter like this. it will only take people a few minutes to go into their respective control panels and turn off the filters that they don't wanna use so they can see what they want to see. by default when you join none of the filters are turned on. with my idea all start off as turned on. it may be better that way 'neer. maybe. just a bit. not sure really.
 

cybercat

Member
Arshes Nei said:
cybercat said:
Please, please, take a stand. This isn't about Right or Left. This is about  doing what is morally and legally best for the site. Don't do a filter for mature cub art just BAN it, filter the other stuff, I'd love that personally  love it.

Ok then, define it. Clear and concisely so we don't have pitchforks and stuff on artists that draw a certain way that people perceive as cub art too. Because that's really the problem.


I understand that some subject matter or styles are going to be debatable. There is no way to get everyone to agree on something. That's the nature of people. What is reasonable to one person isn't going to be so to every one. The best we can do is ban anything in diapers (obviously ) recognizable 'child' characters from books/tv /other media, which i guess would be about 16 year olds since in many states that's the legal age of concent / able to get married , in extreme sexual situations (beyond hugging or simple kissing things approvable in childrens books!). Poke-morphs and chibi styles are difficult but as a rule of thumb if it has really child like qualities the artists are going to have to use their best judgements. The artist needs to take responsiblity here. They need to own up to the intention of their art. They are the ones who know if it's supposed to be a child or not.

Child proportions are generally easy to tell, especially from an artistic stand point. Eyes are overly large, the head is generally 3 times the size of the body, the body proportions and how the body shape is portrayed.

That could easily take out chibbies, but even a chibi-ized version of an adult looks more 'adult' even if it isn't doing something mature than a chibized version of a baby.

It shouldn't be such a hair to split, really. Common sense is all we really are asking for.
 

Arshes Nei

Masticates in Public
Some people stylize their bodies to child proportions because it is a cartoon style. In fact anime was generally regarded as pedophilia because of the style. Some artists were targeted to have a loli complex because quite honestly it's not that they were sexually attracted to children. They liked the proportions they were using.

I have more problems with more recognizable licensed in the US but that is just me where it is more of a copyright liability issue because of infringement.

Also, why 16? If that's the age of consent, do you realize that you now created an abitrary age where it's ok to have fiction for sex, but a person who wants to view mature artwork - not just sex, mature as in nudity, needs to be legally 18 to view? Even I don't get that. Heck that's why I even am confused at the real age of consent laws in the US.

Ban anything in diapers, yay, ban babyfur! (heck if it were up to me I would but then again the definition of baby fur is an adult cosplaying in diapers - though someone can correct me on this)

Who can really do an age check on a fictional character. If the Turtle morph lives for 200 years, it comes into sexual maturity at 100 but doesn't mature sexual organs like a human, what do you do? I mean even in non furry situations, I love these characters that are 100s of years old. Let's look at the "undead" or a situation where the character is eternal but whatever reason their body stopped developing. I can't figure out what the heck the age of consent is, because her body is adolescent looking no sex for her in fiction!

Also, why 16? If that's the age of consent, do you realize that you now created an abritary age where it's ok to have fiction for sex, but a person who wants to view mature artwork - not just sex, mature as in nudity, needs to be legally 18 to view? Even I don't get that. Heck that's why I even am confused at the real age of consent laws in the US.

Also what about written literature?

If there were common sense in art, we wouldn't see furries with tattoos on thick fur. We wouldn't see inflation, gore, and out there stuff I'd never conceive through my imagination.
 

Snoot

New Member
XianJaguar said:
Arshes Nei said:
Well if you have gallery moderators and people reporting mislabeled submission it will help. You might want to enact certain penalties for those who feel they're above labeling such stuff (not to be confused with people doing it accidentally).

Definately and "Agreed!"
The mods and admin will really have to be on top of this one and catch mis-labeled art quickly, or else there will be no point in having the filter.
And yes... penalties for those will-fully mislabeling (although proving that can be hard.)

Currently we have a similar filter in place. When you upload you choose from general, mature or adult. I didn't realize until recently, but if you're not a member of FA and you look at the site you automatically can only see the stuff uploaded as general. I like this feature and I figure the new filter will just have more opinions. There have been a few times I've uploaded something and I've forgotten to put it in the right category. Every time I've been kindly reminded that it probably should be in a different category. If this new filter system comes into play I would hope that artists are not harassed or 'punished' if they accidentally miss label things.
If someone is purposely mislabeling things just to be a jerk, then that's another issue. But I don't want to be yelled at if I do it by accident.
My only two opinions I would have about this new filter would be that it be easy and mandatory. And by that I mean, one of the reasons I like FA so much is unlike DA you don't have to pick through huge long lists of categories and sub categories to perfectly and properly label your art work. I think it should be very similar to what's in place now with the general, mature and adult options, only with more choices added. I don't want to have to go through 5 extra pages of categories before I can submit my artwork. Over on DA it's actually something that makes me much less willing to be bothered to post.
And as for it being mandatory, I mean that you cannot progress to the next page without one of the options clicked. I'm not sure if that's been fixed lately, as I've been good lately in remembering to properly categorize my work. But I don't like that I can forget to categorize my work and it automatically gets posted as general.
I think the issues of what should and shouldn't be banned will never be resolved because it isn't black and white and there are too many shades of grey for any large number of people to finally agree on one thing. However I do very strongly agree with the concept of not offending anyone. I'm sure there are people out there who would dislike my artwork and the subject matter. There's art out there I don't like for sure, but I have the smarts to not look at it, not flame the artists just because we have a difference of opinion and to at least attempt to try to understand it rather than just get angry about it and think it's shit. At the same time I don't get angry if I'm asked to categorize my work so that I'm not shoving potentially offensive images in someone's face. Nor do I feel censored for being asked to do so.
I think the idea of a filter system is great. However I will be very disappointed if artists get upset that they will be asked to further categorize their work for this purpose or of people continue to complain about offensive images because they choose to look at work they know will offend them.
I wasn't going to comment on any of this, but there's my opinion. I really do feel the admins are trying very hard to make the best choice for an impossible situation. I appreciate their efforts. In the end, not everyone's going to be happy with the outcome and that's the fault of the individual, not the admins.
 

nobuyuki

Member
Lucedo said:
The AH feature would be nice alternative if cub art is allowed. I remember that Fchan did have this feature. It states:

"/ah/ - Alt(hard): Pictures of the really hardcore stuff and that which sqik's the majority of the fandom (babyfur, non-morphic, cub, guro, non-consentual, rape, scat, underage, violence, vore, watersports, etc.)"

Okay, I'm going to agree on this in a similar fashion, but could we not call it "Alt/Hard", please? I think the easiest system to impliment in FA's rather lazy and stop-gap manner is to simply append the General-Mature-Adult system to tack on "Controversial" or "Risque" at the very end. Therefore, you'd have 4 instead of 3 levels of maturity on the system. If you are a legal adult you are entitled to view all 4 levels. If you are not mature enough (or your code of ethics prevents you), you can choose not to opt-in to view controversial imagery. Artists will have an easy choice to make for their decision. If they believe the image may be controversial, they can put it in the category. If they object to people who filter that stuff out, they can also submit things as controversial, too, and keep those users from seeing their work. Moderators' jobs won't be that much harder, either. If an image could be deemed controversial and it receives complaints, rather than delete the submission or give a warning to the user, simply flip the rating to controversial and it disappears out of sight and mind of the offended party. The artist loses little over this. The only issue there becomes users who want to pick and choose what imagery they believe is allright for them and people like them to see, and this issue should not be FA's concern. They've already given them the means to block out stuff that offends them without taking away their other precious porn. Simple as that.
 

Issarlk

New Member
cybercat said:
...
Big brother is all about targeting pedophiles right now, as soon as anyone with any power hears that this might be a site that those type of people hang out, it's going to be game over.
...

In opposition to game over right now if we do ban (drama apocalypse. people fleeing to yet another furry art dA-like site... eventually people go to the site with less restrictions -> bye FA)

Anyway I think this is not the subject discussed in this thread.
 
Top