I think it's partly because Inkbunny allows/allowed cub porn on their site. That's something I keep hearing about InkBunny.

Plenty of people already had accounts at Inkbunny and used them. The people who didn't presumably had an issue with the content permitted or not permitted at Inkbunny.

What confuses me is people not going to DA for furry art. Might be that people don't like it 'cause they can't draw porn there and submit it without being banned. Weasyl, I believe, will be the same in the future. I don't think it's about zoophilia or beastiality, but more about the porn aspect of it. If the site wants to be known for porn than I think the furries will be okay, but if not FA is the place they will have to turn to unless they want to try So Furry or another furry site that not as many people frequent. I think the only reason people don't go to InkBunny is due to the cub stuff. All of the babyfurs that liked to get their rocks off to baby dicks couldn't do it here anymore so they moved to that site and that is what that site is known for now. Even though you can find other material on it, it's know for it's baby dick. I don't like to go on that website, as I had a friend that ONLY was on that site, for that very reason of seeing baby dick on the front page and in people's favorites. Though, I would LOVE to be on Inkbunny 'cause of the name.

That's what Inkbunny's keyword-based blocking is for. The idea is that if you don't like it, you don't have to see it - either by blocking a keyword, or the artist. It works throughout the site. If FA had implemented such a system, Inkbunny probably wouldn't even be around, or as big as it is now, because the issue would have been resolved with "don't like it? block it."

Many people do use dA, but furries really like their porn, so it'll never be the central site for a majority of them.

Just because you can block it does not mean that the site is not known for it. If I send someone to a site I don't want the first thing they see while going through the general site is cub dick. I got turned off by the images when I registered to hang with a friend, a babyfur that got "trolled" off FA. I ended up abandoning my account since I didn't want people knowing I was on the site since after joining I had people asking if I was into that type of porn. It's not the image I want for myself. It's about the image of Inkbunny, not so much the system of the site. However, child pornography is illegal in America. If it was kept on FA would no longer exist. The server location of Inkbunny is in The Netherlands, where child pornography is legal, I am assuming. There was no way FA would not to remove it all. The greater whole of the community was a better choice than the small group of babyfurs.

The more I think about the furry culture the more disgusting it gets...

Firstly, your concern is entirely reasonable and I can understand your decision.

That said, virtual child pornography is not illegal in America; the Supreme Court overturned that law in 2009, on the grounds that it might restrict protected speech under the first amendment (i.e. porn involving underage characters may have artistic/literary merit). It is only illegal if constructed from images of real children or otherwise involves them in its creation.

Furries also aren't children under U.S. law ("child" refers to "homo sapiens"). If they were, you'd get issues with using monkeys and orang-utans for animal research, etc. The law is similar in other countries. This is why Inkbunny bans humans in sexual situations; it removes a lot of legal headaches (Germany, for example, outlaws depictions of bestiality; two animals together doesn't count).

FA removed cub porn because it was affecting relations with its donation processors, not because it was illegal and they feared a government crackdown. Inkbunny is hosted in the Netherlands due to other security concerns; for one, U.S. authorities have a nasty habit of compromising servers within their jurisdiction.

There are many things that some find disgusting, like the use of diapers or Nazi paraphernalia. We feel it best not to judge any specific fetish.

A lot of what I know about child pornography came up through a problem with DeviantART 2008 or so. They had people posting real pictures of children on the site. The person making the picture was from a country in which it was legal for them to do this. I believe this was around the same time they also cracked down on pornography as a whole on the site. However, I read the topics on that and learned from it. Didn't know that the laws changed over the years on that subject, however I am not sure if it was photography or drawn images that was the spark of that topic.

You saying the reminds me of the problems. Wasn't it Paypal that dropped and withheld money due to adult images on the site, then they found this new company where they did not like that those cub images. Though, I still do believe it was still on the same ground as being worried about government problems by funding a site that hosts some images like that. From a large company standpoint I would be worried.

I'm just thinking of it in the terms that you have people that are crazy over porn mixed with all of these groups that have weird fetishes that all interact with each other, then they go into the public light and play off the fact that they do not do that. Well, the groups that do not do either of those things that really believe that no one else is horny like that tell everyone else those statements, and the people that do such things hang back and sell their art and throw fetish parties in a hotel where everyone is mixed, like the Baptist/Bootlegger situation. Directed at the community as a whole, not in the topic of Inkbunny.

I believe dA does allow photographic nudity in some situations, and differing laws would be an issue for them, especially as they are more of a family-friendly site and offer prints (part of the reason IB is so strict as well, since it originally offered them).

Yes, that's essentially the issue. PayPal didn't like adult in general, furry sites went to AlertPay, who ultimately didn't like cub (or possibly cub/bestiality, not sure). I believe they said it wouldn't be worth their time due to the risk of the cost if it became a legal issue. Of course they never restarted AlertPay funding.

I think there are more important things for society to be worried about than what people are drawing or thinking about.