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

Main Site Issue regarding the new policy update.

Do you think this policy is unnecessary and wrong?

  • yes

    Votes: 8 27.6%
  • no

    Votes: 21 72.4%

  • Total voters
    29
Status
Not open for further replies.

Attaman

"I say we forget this business and run."
Yes, Its true that their are people who said "Hail Hydra!" while mentioning users whose parents or grandparents who were sent to places like Auschwitz, Sobibor and Treblinka. However, no matter what historical event your parents, grandparents, or ancestors went through, you are neither entitled nor have a birthright to be shielded from any and all criticism.
... We're talking about people being harassed with insignia of literal contemporary and historic hate and / or supremacist groups, and your response to that is "Yeah, but that's them and either way that doesn't shield you from criticism"?

I want to think carefully when you respond how what you're describing, how a need to use things like Nazi or Confederate iconography in full acknowledgement of it being in reference to people who were attacked, subjugated, and / or killed by those groups, is criticism. Like, think especially carefully on why you chose that word. Because right now, the fact that you're talking about things like "Faith" and "Ethnicity / Orientation" as things being open to criticism is setting off major red flags.

AKA "Don't draw what offends me or hurts my ass"
Its just a fucking drawing. If you don't like it, press the back button or, if it does indeed violate the rules, report it.
You just advocated expanding the rules to include other groups, coincidentally the "progressive" groups you're deriding. Big Think that when it comes to things like Nazi content your response is "If you don't like it, just don't look at it", but when it comes to things like ANTIFA it's "I would shed no tears if it became ban-worthy". Big bloody think.

Yeah, feeling "safe " and "valid" are so much more important than one's liberties/s.
To be clear for one moment, with your above two quotes in mind: Are you explicitly saying that Nazis have a greater right to post Nazi iconography / pro-Nazi content... than minorities have a right to feel safe and included on FA? Again, I invite you to choose your next words with exceptional care.

To you, sure. But this isn't about Scammers or pedos. The mods should be impartial above all else.
Again: This is shit that's been commonplace on various places of the internet since the 1990's. "Don't post Nazi content" is such a stunningly luke-warm take for site administration to take (hell, for any sort of administration to make) it could be dredged from the waters filling the Titanic in 1912.
 

NoahGryphon

Random pouncing
There is a huge difference between "nazi content" and art that just happens to feature WW2 germans. Itd be more fine if it was only NEO-nazi stuff that was unallowed like this, but WW2 germans are a part of history and shouldnt just be deleted. And theres still the issue of all the great older art that features nazis that this new rule would kill.
 

Attaman

"I say we forget this business and run."
Itd be more fine if it was only NEO-nazi stuff that was unallowed like this, but WW2 germans are a part of history and shouldnt just be deleted.
And, most probably, Moderators will give it a pass if it's just something like a small red blob on somebody's biceps in the background. Or ask somebody ahead of time if they wouldn't mind editing their work to make the swastika armband less blatant in its swastika-ness. What's not going to happen is Moderators gleefully cackling as they rub their hands and scour FA for any sign of anything even vaguely Nazi Flag / Swastika / Aquila adjacent in an effort to initiate a Leftist History Revisionism.

Like, look at Germany's take on Nazi insignia and whatnot. It's... really not unlike that, this new policy. "You can depict German soldiers from WWII. You can depict people who were most likely part of the chief / sole political party in Germany during WWII. But if your work is blatantly trying to paint an idyllic, favorable portrayal of such persons, there's going to be an issue. If your landscape literally can't be posted without having blatant Nazi iconography-style architecture involved, you've hit a bit of a snarl before FA rules even come into the picture."

This is more likely to blow back not on historians (because, again, a historian who can't do something like draw a Panzer without involving Swastikas or a German Soldier without a Nazi or SS armband is probably not making historic work for historic work's sake), but people taking the piss out of such groups with things like burning Nazi flags or the like. And it should be telling that, for the most part, such groups have absolutely no qualms about this exchange, if not actively consider it a more than fair trade.

Just... consider for a moment that the main other person in this thread trying to take the role of Devil's Advocate is somebody who's advocated that ethnicity / orientation is a thing open to criticism, that the only reason they're upset about the content being banned is they think it's the wrong content being banned (despite it having at least as much historical relevance / significance), and that they feel people have greater right to post explicit iconography associated with hate groups, genocidal world powers (of the right political leans only, of course!), and so-on... than the victims of those groups have right to not be forced to see such content. Think about it for a few moments, then consider why FA's administration might have enacted this rule.
 
Last edited:

Giana36

Well-Known Member
... We're talking about people being harassed with insignia of literal contemporary and historic hate and / or supremacist groups, and your response to that is "Yeah, but that's them and either way that doesn't shield you from criticism"?

I want to think carefully when you respond how what you're describing, how a need to use things like Nazi or Confederate iconography in full acknowledgement of it being in reference to people who were attacked, subjugated, and / or killed by those groups, is criticism. Like, think especially carefully on why you chose that word. Because right now, the fact that you're talking about things like "Faith" and "Ethnicity / Orientation" as things being open to criticism is setting off major red flags.


You just advocated expanding the rules to include other groups, coincidentally the "progressive" groups you're deriding. Big Think that when it comes to things like Nazi content your response is "If you don't like it, just don't look at it", but when it comes to things like ANTIFA it's "I would shed no tears if it became ban-worthy". Big bloody think.

To be clear for one moment, with your above two quotes in mind: Are you explicitly saying that Nazis have a greater right to post Nazi iconography / pro-Nazi content... than minorities have a right to feel safe and included on FA? Again, I invite you to choose your next words with exceptional care.

Again: This is shit that's been commonplace on various places of the internet since the 1990's. "Don't post Nazi content" is such a stunningly luke-warm take for site administration to take (hell, for any sort of administration to make) it could be dredged from the waters filling the Titanic in 1912.
Okay, fair point there.
 

Frank Gulotta

Send us your floppy
Yeah sounds like a bunch of shit

They're afraid the mean drawings are gonna become alive? And if they don't think the drawings are out to kill them... WHY ban them..? they think we should ban a certain category of art? I can think of a... certain political party active in Germany in the 1930s that thought that too
 

KD142000

Leather-clad Lobo
I suppose to throw in my two cents, I can see why they would ban stuff like that. Whilst it's more censorship or shielding rather than actually combating (actual combating imo would be...well, violence against said groups, to put it mildly), I do think it's justified.

Like @Attaman said, you shouldn't need to draw a swastika on something. Actual WW2 German kit is recognisable enough without that. We've seen it countless times in movies and games...and failing that, there's actual photos.
Going off on a slight tangent, but it's relevant, somewhat...I used to make models of German military vehicles and planes. But I always leave off anything that has a swastika on it, even if it's historically accurate for there to be one, there. That's for a number of reasons, mostly personal.

Oh, and 'freedom of speech' doesn't count here. No offence to you, but actual hate groups, past and present, pretty much stood for the opposite of that. Like, these are organisations who wouldn't think twice about mass execution of certain groups just because they're different...so I don't know why anyone's so keen to defend their 'right to free speech'. Should be putting them in prison, not protecting them. Actual people have died due to these groups, for f's sake.

If you want to show a Nazi in artwork or in a story, just stick to the uniform and leave the swastika out of the armband. Everyone knows what it means.
Everyone knows what a Panzer is. Don't need to put a swastika on it.
(Also, I think the Iron Cross was more commonly used on military vehicles of the WW2 German anyway...so there's even less reason to put one on)

NOTE: I do NOT want to argue with anyone over this, cos I feel all of what I just posted should go without saying.
 

Kingman

Inquisitor of the Radical Ordo
Yeah sounds like a bunch of shit

They're afraid the mean drawings are gonna become alive? And if they don't think the drawings are out to kill them... WHY ban them..? they think we should ban a certain category of art? I can think of a... certain political party active in Germany in the 1930s that thought that too

The fear is of positive advertisement, as art has an emotional pull, like it or not. The drawing isn't harmful, but if a pro-Nazi/alt-right image makes a person BELIEVE Nazi = okay, then THAT is dangerous. It's the same thing as the alt-right counter media spewing lies in masse to delude people into thinking their lies are truth. If it becomes okay to do it, then it gets done so much that it overstaturates the truth and real history. If enough people scream loudly the holocaust never happened it'll hold more weight then any eyewitness testimony, photos, videos, cold hard facts, etc.

Really, if you are going to ban literal Nazis from this site as you do ISIS and the KKK, then the same ought to be done for far left-leaning goons like Antifa and outright Leninists, Castroists and Maoists. Yes, Its true that their are people who said "Hail Hydra!" while mentioning users whose parents or grandparents who were sent to places like Auschwitz, Sobibor and Treblinka. However, no matter what historical event your parents, grandparents, or ancestors went through, you are neither entitled nor have a birthright to be shielded from any and all criticism. Its obvious to me that Furaffinity is not quite what it was since being bought by IMVU.

You're comparing a mountain to a mole hill at best, and it's an unfair criticism of ANTIFA, considering they are NOTHING like the alt-right or ISIS.

Right-Wing Extremism Linked to Every 2018 Extremist Murder in the U.S., ADL Finds
Last year’s murders at the hands of right-wing extremists reflect an ongoing trend. ADL’s Center on Extremism, which has aggregated data going back to 1970, shows that over the last decade, a total of 73.3 percent of all extremist-related fatalities can be linked to domestic right-wing extremists, while 23.4 percent can be attributed to Islamic extremists. The remaining 3.2 percent were carried out by extremists who did not fall into either category.

Antifa does good, since they stand up to those that'd do stuff like this and make events like abortion clinic bombings and murder of minorities and the lgbtq community an acceptable part of everyday life.
 

Frank Gulotta

Send us your floppy
The fear is of positive advertisement, as art has an emotional pull, like it or not. The drawing isn't harmful, but if a pro-Nazi/alt-right image makes a person BELIEVE Nazi = okay, then THAT is dangerous. It's the same thing as the alt-right counter media spewing lies in masse to delude people into thinking their lies are truth. If it becomes okay to do it, then it gets done so much that it overstaturates the truth and real history. If enough people scream loudly the holocaust never happened it'll hold more weight then any eyewitness testimony, photos, videos, cold hard facts, etc.
That's... dumb

If that was true, wouldn't there be a whole lot of pirates running around everywhere, pillaging and raping, given the fact they're regularly the good guys in the many movies that portray them?

Also the ADL is trash, please don't spread their disinformation
 

Mambi

Fun loving kitty cat
>Freedom of speech has limits
Yes it can, and it varies by country. Also, trolls will be trolls, overall, not just on here. Yeah, feeling "safe " and "valid" are so much more important than one's liberties/s. You can be offended all you want at whatever thing that may be. Yes freedom of speech has limits, but being an "asshole" means different things to different people. in Iran, Syria, Turkey, and Afghanistan, the thumbs up is taboo, while in Russia the "ok" hand sign refers to the butthole, and in France it means the number 0. Sure, at the very least they could make a warning of some sort.

<the cat smiles knowingly> You really don't understand, do you? <grin> You're arguing for the right to purposely be offensive. Your best-case scenario is to defend Nazi imagery...BEST case! <giggle>
It doesn't matter if you're right or wrong, your core position is demanding the right to post knowingly offensive imagery "just because I can". That's not how freedom of speech works.

Let me put it another way. Jehova Witnesses have the right to go door to door and ask if you want to hear their views. You have the right to say no...either politely or not. But they don't have the right to demand that you listen to them...they cannot demand a platform to voice their views. It has to be offered to them, right? Either in church or your permission at the door? Well the site is a platform, they saw a Nazi sign at the door, and they are not even bothering to answer the doorbell to hear the message because of it. All that is freedom of speech working perfectly as it should. They cannot demand to be heard, the art cannot be demanded to be shown. That's not suppression of ideas, that's an expression of them...the rejection of Nazi signs in this case!

You simply have no counterpoint to make! <shrug>
 
1

1234554321

Guest
I have a right to disagree, but I don't clamor for them to be banned
I agree with this above all else, but there ain't no use in trying to argue with these people bro: they'll just hurl the usual buzzwords at you like fascist, bigot, homophobe etc. or imply you hold those qualities and then ban you for views that haven't got any less right to be expressed than theirs. Trust me, this forum is politically one-sided so these types of discussions are only one huge waste of time, which is a shame because there's good in both sides of the spectrum and yet people are so quick to demonize you for your views. As for me, I'll go play Skyrim. Plenty o' new tiddy mods out recently :cool:
 

Simo

Professional Watermelon Farmer
I'm happy to see these changes. I hope the same guidelines apply to the forums, as well.

That Trump supporters are already bawling and crying about them here is as predictable as their derision of such groups as the ADL; further, as FA is a private site, it's not under any obligation to host any content it finds objectionable; those disagreeing with the rule have an entire internet in which to express themselves.
 
Last edited:

SSJ3Mewtwo

Well-Known Member
I have linked this thread to Dragoneer, and am *temporarily locking it* to allow him time to respond directly, without tons of different concerns piling up.
 

Dragoneer

Site Developer
Staff member
Site Director
Administrator
To be perfectly honest, yes, these rules will impact a variety of submission types -- from people drawing Nazi OCs, to people drawing their characters punching Nazis, to potentially images depicting World War II content. We made a decision, and that decision was that content featuring swastikas and Nazis was no longer permitted.

You can not draft a policy that basically boils down to "Nazis are no longer permitted, except in instances where A, B, or C occur, or only under X, Y, or Z circumstances." Because then you're justifying why Nazis need to be allowed, and that creates potential loopholes or rules so complex they become problematic to enforce. That's a complaint regarding FA I've seen time and time again -- that we were inconsistent of our handling of these issues. The decision was ultimately made to ban Nazis (and the other listed groups), not to "sometimes ban Nazis, but only under certain circumstances". Our rules were drafted in a way to make it enforceable across the board and consistent in our handling of content that falls under that umbrella.

This is why weren't not taking action against people who may have posted this content other than content removal, because we understand there may be some people who were caught in the crossfire. Our intention is not to punish the artists who did not intend harm, but only to say "Nazi content is no longer permitted."

I understand that this situation is not ideal for everybody, but no rule we created ever could have been. If we banned some Nazi art, but not others, this discussion would have been about why we didn't fully ban Nazi content and felt the need to continue to allow some of it on the site. There's no one solution that works for everyone.
 

SSJ3Mewtwo

Well-Known Member
Unlocking this now.

If more questions need to be asked, they're welcome. But if things turn into a cluster of either accusations or repetition of the same points for the sake of drama I'll declare the purpose of the thread served and close it.
 

NoahGryphon

Random pouncing
This still is sad. If people ever need a picture of a WW2 german anthro, furaffinity has been the best place to find art like that since its just so obscure. Now it will be hard to find that art if you need it for something
 

quoting_mungo

Well-Known Member
This still is sad. If people ever need a picture of a WW2 german anthro, furaffinity has been the best place to find art like that since its just so obscure. Now it will be hard to find that art if you need it for something
E621 would beg to differ. Search WW2 there for piles of results. (I’m sure you could refine that search immensely, as well, I just ran a quick query to make sure my hunch that it existed there was accurate.)

Like, I have my reservations about aspects of this policy, namely how it appears to trade one point of ambiguity for another, as previously mentioned in the thread, but I can’t agree that it’s going to single-handedly eliminate all nazi-themed furry art from existence. Hell, given that FA moderation is based on reports, and that pre-ban cub art still gets removed every so often (based on what I hear of outrage about the removals), I think it’s safe to say that a portion of the art will be on FA for a good while yet, for better or worse.

Also possibly a good time to point out that if people had not abused the inch they were given in regards to this type of content, FA would have had less reason to tighten up policy. Pushing boundaries in regards to acceptable content is not a good idea.
 

Kingman

Inquisitor of the Radical Ordo
Also possibly a good time to point out that if people had not abused the inch they were given in regards to this type of content, FA would have had less reason to tighten up policy. Pushing boundaries in regards to acceptable content is not a good idea.

Amen
 

NoahGryphon

Random pouncing
E621 would beg to differ. Search WW2 there for piles of results. (I’m sure you could refine that search immensely, as well, I just ran a quick query to make sure my hunch that it existed there was accurate.)

Like, I have my reservations about aspects of this policy, namely how it appears to trade one point of ambiguity for another, as previously mentioned in the thread, but I can’t agree that it’s going to single-handedly eliminate all nazi-themed furry art from existence. Hell, given that FA moderation is based on reports, and that pre-ban cub art still gets removed every so often (based on what I hear of outrage about the removals), I think it’s safe to say that a portion of the art will be on FA for a good while yet, for better or worse.

Also possibly a good time to point out that if people had not abused the inch they were given in regards to this type of content, FA would have had less reason to tighten up policy. Pushing boundaries in regards to acceptable content is not a good idea.

Search nazi on here, there are more then a thousand results! E621 cant compare at all. We must preserve the art on here
 

quoting_mungo

Well-Known Member
Search nazi on here, there are more then a thousand results! E621 cant compare at all. We must preserve the art on here
The point was you can find ample German soldier furry art on E, which is what you said you were concerned about. If you want to preserve the art on FA for posterity you have two weeks; should be ample time to download a few thousand images.

Sorry for being a bit snarky but you shifted those goalposts. Nobody’s stopping you from preserving the art. FA just doesn’t want to host it.
 

Attaman

"I say we forget this business and run."
Search nazi on here, there are more then a thousand results! E621 cant compare at all. We must preserve the art on here
... To be clear for a moment, did you just now conflate "WWII German Anthro" and "Nazi" work as synonymous?

As if so, you probably just proved exactly why this policy change was made.
 

Dragoneer

Site Developer
Staff member
Site Director
Administrator
... To be clear for a moment, did you just now conflate "WWII German Anthro" and "Nazi" work as synonymous?
This is a good point. WWII German soldiers are totally acceptable. People can still draw members of the Wehrmacht or the Luftwaffe, for example. What the can not do is post swastikas or actual Nazis (SS).
 

Ank57

Big Pikachu
This is a good point. WWII German soldiers are totally acceptable. People can still draw members of the Wehrmacht or the Luftwaffe, for example. What the can not do is post swastikas or actual Nazis (SS).
Ok good, if I ever decide to draw/graphic design a cover for Doctor Who: Just War I'm in the clear
P.s. I don't actually own Just War yet :(
 

Degorar

New Member
The wording about "reflecting" "larger user base":
It's basically a statement to censor everyone who doesn't "reflect" it. Of course, right now you won't prohibit anyone else except mentioned groups in policy. But what will be announced to be prohibited after 6 months, or after a year?

Citation from your own policy: "As our community grows, our policies must also be updated to reflect the changes a larger user base brings. That’s why we’re announcing the following changes (effective immediately)"

I wonder if next to be removed on next policy update, will be other niche interests, which won't "reflect" with "larger user base" interests as well?

It's rather good tactic: to remove groups of interest one by one, because each group doesn't care about the well being of the other. So each time someone gets prohibited, they will say "It doesn't involve me, I don't care". Until everyone who doesn't meet your eye are prohibited.

I'm sure that NSFW content will be safe. For now. I do not know for which category of people you gonna cater to virtue signal in future, that'll make you do it.
People on deviantart said, that their platform would never purge NSFW content. Now it is known it'll do that, just like Tumblr did when it decided to cater to family-friendly rules for the smartphone app.

Also. If to be a good Historical furry, is to use imagery without using real "hate" symbols, why not go further and also prohibit soviet symbols too?
Because it'll be like the WW2 the true Big Four is fighting against imaginary opponent, not the true Axis-Powers. At least, both parties would have equal treatment in depiction. This way both could have altered aesthetics.
It's inconsistent when you can depict one group of conflict, but not the other. It simply shuts down the discussion mostly.
Also because CountryHuman collection will not be 100% complete without Axis-Powers...

And "good job" at fixing loop hole in content depicting minors. I wonder how will Animal Crossing fans respond this "fix", when it's adult characters just look like minors?

Yes, the sacred rule of the internet is that Admin is always right. But think again on what you're doing in long-term perspective.
I hope we can discuss it, because it's a pandora box you opened. Not me.

How you want to be remembered, man?
As a site owner who ran it well, until the end?
Or as a site owner who destroyed his site for short term profit and virtue signalling?

With your and your team effort, you were able to gather big furry and non-furry audience with various groups of interest, which I may say is a big diversity of thought.
You said yourself you want diverse audience, by the way.

Lastly, man. I want to believe that you're good person.
 
Last edited:

Dragoneer

Site Developer
Staff member
Site Director
Administrator
Citation from your own policy: "As our community grows, our policies must also be updated to reflect the changes a larger user base brings. That’s why we’re announcing the following changes (effective immediately)"

I wonder if next to be removed on next policy update, will be other niche interests, which won't "reflect" with "larger user base" interests as well?
I understand and appreciate your concerns, but we have no further plans to limit/prohibit content on the site at this time.
I'm sure that NSFW content will be safe. For now. I do not know for which category of people you gonna cater to virtue signal in future, that'll make you do it.
People on deviantart said, that their platform would never purge NSFW content. Now it is known it'll do that, just like Tumblr did when it decided to cater to family-friendly rules for the smartphone app.
We're not going to be removing NSFW content. Again, we do not have intention of banning additional content at this time.
How you want to be remembered, man?
I want to be remembered for being violently purple.
Or as a site owner who destroyed his site for short term profit and virtue signalling?
Banning Nazis is not destroying the site. I understand this decision will not sit well with everyone, but I've already made our reasons for doing so clear in a response previous to this thread.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top