Honestly while I get some points I'm sure there's a little more to this going on than what's been let on in a few cases. None the less I think the real issue is just with the manner some of the stuff was taken down in. And of course every time there's a change made on FA or some new rule enforced or some non existent or improperly defined rule enforced (Such as was most certainly the case at this point in a few situations) there's the people who pop up all over about being offended. And then there's all the people popping up applauding what was done. Every time this happens there's some one that goes 'well this is an art site and X isn't art/real art!'. And I find that funny as hell too because the art community as a whole (Not just FA here but the whole real world 'art community' doesn't agree with itself on what is and what isn't art.

Case and point Photography and so called 'Modern Art'.

I find it funny that some people that oppose photography as an art form support modern art even though there is really very little difference save that photography tends to have a lot more interesting stuff in it taken as a whole vs modern art as a whole. I mean 'modern art' is things like '10 steel cubes in a row'. Can you guess what that is? Gasp, exactly what it's called. It was just 10 small steel cubes placed in a row. Another exhibit in the art gallery was just a piece of rope dumped on the floor. Another was a white stool left in the middle of the room. Yet more were just pieces of sheet metal some one hit with a hammer. What's funny is that both situations generally take minimal effort time yet both get highly debated as an art form. (Hell for one of the most controversial painted pieces look at the Voice of Fire) [As a note I used to work security at the Canadian National Art Gallery. The exhibits I'm talking about were all part of the gallery]

So then people go up and say well FA is an art site, photos don't belong anyway! And then there's people that counter that photography is a form of art. And then people complain about the content. OMG This picture is suggestive. Meanwhile their gallery is full of shitting dick nipples, cubs, 'feral' adult art and so forth (Mind you some of them have squeaky clean galleries/favourites but their few and far between).

In the end though some of the decisions FA and other sites make are based on the laws that are enforced upon them by their local governments. More recently (and some cases not so recently) for the US and Canada (Which as a Canadian I say is far too often our government is the US's bitch when it comes to following step and step with legal changes, when we should be telling the US government to go fuck themselves.) a lot of legal changes have occurred that mean that some art drawn or otherwise is considered illegal. The same applies for certain types of photos. More recently there's been people who were comic book collectors thrown into jail because some of the comics books they owned were once legal but then got relabelled as child pornography/bestiality/other by said legal changes (More so the former that I'm aware of for any large legal cases). As a result of these changes some of FA's TOS has had to be changed, other parts were simply changes that seem (to me at least) to be part of some sort of purist movement to 'cleanse' the furry fandom of all undesirables, though those undesirables change from group to group. A good example is some of the anti-fursuit people who insist that almost all fursuits are adult suits and are disgusting, all the while most of them in my experience have all sorts of the weirdest shit people draw in their favourites and submissions.

Ultimately though it boils down to the fact that some one that isn't you is calling the shots no matter what you like or don't like. While in the past there wasn't much of anything to compete with FA for fandom centric things, there's far more out there available now or will soon be available.

Also as a note: Many people have been like 'oh just go to twitter, tumbler etc' but then don't stop and think about a tricky bit of internet law (Or are totally oblivious to it) that many of these non furry specific sites they recommend are doing. And that is the TOS for THOSE places do things like 'if you post anything on our service, it instantly becomes our property to use as we see fit'. IN some cases it's even legal for them to do that, in other cases it becomes a little more iffy but a good example is many of the photo sites that host for twitter actually state they will gain ownership of anything you use their service to host. So just think about that in the future.