FA+
Shop
Welp, Internet's on fire again.
2 years ago
So as I understand it, the latest news update is an attempt to loose the thousand-year loli from the site (I don't know why they included "vampire," most of the ones I've seen tend to be demons or goddesses).
Like, I get it, but even with the addendums to it, the main qualifier is seeing if characters are "presented as children," via anatomy and context. Even aside that's not how some art styles work, for this to work, the moderators doing this to have the mental maturity and professional wherewithal to fairly evaluate a work's presentation to determine if someone in a pic is a child.
It requires mental maturity and professional wherewithal.
On the Internet.
The last picture linked here counts as removable. "When presented as children," my left foot. Baby Yoshis are actual things, and those look nothing like them, so they can't be it. Can the Koopas there be interpreted as children? No, not really. Only if you think child anatomy is "anyone smallish and with any amount of chub," and "smallish" is a stretch here considering Koopas are usually as tall as Mario (and Yoshis are taller than him). If someone is particularly off-tilt for whatever reason, it's a coin toss whether or not they would interpret the Koopas in that picture as children.
But that it's a coin toss is the problem. What this shows is that whether or not a pic is allowed or not under this policy is determined entirely by the whim of the moderator that looks at it at that moment, as opposed to plainly-stated objective criteria. As shown by the entirety of human history, people with power + vague rules that don't strictly determine whether something or not is subject to that power = power being abused. And given what I've heard about how art's treated by this policy even before this update and how staff is reacting to backlash to this news, history's repeating itself. Add no apparent oversight or appeal to prevent a mod from dropping a pic and banning the user using this rule just because they don't like them today, and it's a hot mess all around.
For the love of Arceus, this is the only art site I'm even on with any regularity anymore, and I like smols and shortstacks. I don't regularly draw NSFW, but the two not-general pieces I have are of a smol and a shortstack. Cassandra and Solandis are not children. I don't think either of them look like children (not even Cassandra's original adopt image, nor Solandis' original ref). But it doesn't matter what I think they look like. If they're reported and the mod that gets the ticket thinks they look like children even though they clearly don't, I'm basically going to get accused of something I didn't do.
And I hate being accused of something I didn't do.
I don't like what this change could do. It feels like when changes at work primarily screw over my favorite role there (which is like over half of them). I think Elon Musk selling Twitter is more likely than this working out the way staff thinks it will. I don't have a real conclusion, this just sucks.
Like, I get it, but even with the addendums to it, the main qualifier is seeing if characters are "presented as children," via anatomy and context. Even aside that's not how some art styles work, for this to work, the moderators doing this to have the mental maturity and professional wherewithal to fairly evaluate a work's presentation to determine if someone in a pic is a child.
It requires mental maturity and professional wherewithal.
On the Internet.
The last picture linked here counts as removable. "When presented as children," my left foot. Baby Yoshis are actual things, and those look nothing like them, so they can't be it. Can the Koopas there be interpreted as children? No, not really. Only if you think child anatomy is "anyone smallish and with any amount of chub," and "smallish" is a stretch here considering Koopas are usually as tall as Mario (and Yoshis are taller than him). If someone is particularly off-tilt for whatever reason, it's a coin toss whether or not they would interpret the Koopas in that picture as children.
But that it's a coin toss is the problem. What this shows is that whether or not a pic is allowed or not under this policy is determined entirely by the whim of the moderator that looks at it at that moment, as opposed to plainly-stated objective criteria. As shown by the entirety of human history, people with power + vague rules that don't strictly determine whether something or not is subject to that power = power being abused. And given what I've heard about how art's treated by this policy even before this update and how staff is reacting to backlash to this news, history's repeating itself. Add no apparent oversight or appeal to prevent a mod from dropping a pic and banning the user using this rule just because they don't like them today, and it's a hot mess all around.
For the love of Arceus, this is the only art site I'm even on with any regularity anymore, and I like smols and shortstacks. I don't regularly draw NSFW, but the two not-general pieces I have are of a smol and a shortstack. Cassandra and Solandis are not children. I don't think either of them look like children (not even Cassandra's original adopt image, nor Solandis' original ref). But it doesn't matter what I think they look like. If they're reported and the mod that gets the ticket thinks they look like children even though they clearly don't, I'm basically going to get accused of something I didn't do.
And I hate being accused of something I didn't do.
I don't like what this change could do. It feels like when changes at work primarily screw over my favorite role there (which is like over half of them). I think Elon Musk selling Twitter is more likely than this working out the way staff thinks it will. I don't have a real conclusion, this just sucks.
