this post was submitted on 01 Mar 2026

10 points (53.2% liked)

Fediverse

40737 readers

216 users here now

A community to talk about the Fediverse and all it's related services using ActivityPub (Mastodon, Lemmy, Mbin, etc).

If you wanted to get help with moderating your own community then head over to !moderators@lemmy.world!

Rules

Posts must be on topic.
Be respectful of others.
Cite the sources used for graphs and other statistics.
Follow the general Lemmy.world rules.

Learn more at these websites: Join The Fediverse Wiki, Fediverse.info, Wikipedia Page, The Federation Info (Stats), FediDB (Stats), Sub Rehab (Reddit Migration)

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

ruud@lemmy.world

Xylinna@lemmy.world

MrCenny@lemmy.world

TragicNotCute@lemmy.world

automodbeta@lemmy.world

woelkchen@lemmy.world

10

MULTIVERSE has defederated fedinsfw.app for hosting child pornography (lemmy.world)

submitted 3 days ago by kingofras@lemmy.world to c/fediverse@lemmy.world

50 comments fedilink hide all child comments

cross-posted from: https://multiverse.soulism.net/c/soulism/p/51754/multiverse-has-defederated-fedinsfw-app-for-hosting-child-pornography

Hello MULTIVERSE users and off-site visitors alike. We have recently defederated fedinsfw.app due to ongoing child pornography concerns which the fedinsfw admin team are aware of, and do not intend to address. Before I explain the key issue, I'd like to define a few terms:

In Australia, Child Pornography Material is legally defined by the Criminal Code Act 1995, section 473.1 as:

(a) material that depicts a person, or a representation of a person, who is, or appears to be, under 18 years of age and who [...] is engaged in, or appears to be engaged in, a sexual pose [...]; and does this in a way that reasonable persons would regard as being, in all the circumstances, offensive;

[...]

(c) material that describes a person who is, or is implied to be, under 18 years of age and who [...] is engaged in, or is implied to be engaged in, a sexual pose [...]; and does this in a way that reasonable persons would regard as being, in all the circumstances, offensive; or [...]

Jailbait is a slang term for pornography depicting subjects who appear to be of age (adults), but are in fact underage (children; adolescents)

Fauxbait is faux jailbait - pornography depicting adults who appear to be children who appear to be adults.

According to the legal definition of child pornography material here in Australia, fauxbait is child pornography material, because of the implication that the actors depicted represent underage persons. And frankly, we here at MULTIVERSE agree with the law here. Fauxbait is disgusting. Legally and in our opinion, pornography depicting adult women who appear as adults is completely fine. But if someone posts a picture of an adult woman and calls it "fauxbait", we are disgusted and the law is interested. Reality is not objective - the same legal picture of an adult person becomes illegal child pornography when it's posted with a particular framing.

fedinsfw.app hosts a community, !fauxbait@fedinsfw.app, which is for Fauxbait. I have contacted the admin of the site, @lemmyposter212@fedinsfw.app, both privately and in public, pointing out that the community breaks the site's rules 1 and 8. The admin disagrees. Although they dislike the community, they don't believe it breaks the rules, and do not wish to violate their impartiality by banning the community.

We here at MULTIVERSE have no such impartiality. The admin inaction on child pornography violates our Rule 3 on Restricted Violence, in that it's fucking nasty. It's degrading to the women being posted to call them fauxbait, it's dangerous towards the users to expose them to risks of committing sex crimes, and it has the potential to desensitise people to child porn, making them more likely to re-offend in worse ways. We are joining the growing movement of instances defederating fedinsfw.app, and we ask if your instance has not, that you speak to your admins and ask them to do the same.

top 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] aaa999@lemmy.world 5 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

[>]you post one legal pornography

[>]i leave a comment that someone in the legal pornography resembles a minor despite the fact that they do not

[>]you get in trouble

great

[–] AcesFullOfKings@feddit.uk 123 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

eh, I checked the linked community. They have a rule that posters must link to the model's verification that they're overage on every post:

Age verification info for models required; OnlyFans, Fansly profile links are acceptable.

Seems fine to me. This sounds like a whole lot of virtue signalling and pearl-clutching.

There's a very clear line in the sand to me: don't post anyone underage. Posting overage girls is fine to me no matter what they look like. Should the "small boobs" community also be banned because people might mistake a 25 year old with As for a 15 year old? Come on.

What a whole lot of nothing. You/they are accusing them of "hosting child pornography" on the basis that they have nude images of proven-overage adults.

Ragebait title too.

[+] adhd_traco@piefed.social -19 points 3 days ago (1 children)

It's not just about the age of the performers, though. I also think most people here care more about actual harm than legality.

To me it looks like it's about platforming the indulgence of the sexualization of minors. In a fictional sense, but still. Should they allow written rape fantasies of minors?

I'm gonna lean towards that this is rather normalizing and harm producing than helping people. I would love to read science on this, but this is not my field, so hard to research myself.

[–] AcesFullOfKings@feddit.uk 31 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

I just looked at the actual posts in the community, since I didn't before. Most of them don't even look that questionable tbh, although a couple do. But they're all just naked people posing for the camera. It's not like they're dressed as school girls or anything. And every post has the age verification as required by the rule, and most of the images have company watermarks on them. They're professional shots, not amateur candids. There's nothing about the posts that implies that the models are underage other than the title of the community. As someone else said, they could be listed as "legal teens" instead and I doubt anyone would bat an eye.

I also think most people here care more about actual harm than legality.

Well this post is specifically about the legality, trying to frame it as illegal content. But, that aside, I just don't see the "actual harm" being done. If visitors are fully aware that they're looking at adults, and every post explicitly reaffirms the age of the specific model shown, then I don't see the harm there.

Should they allow written rape fantasies of minors?

No, because that's illegal.

this is rather normalizing and harm producing

I just don't agree with the slippery slope argument. It comes down to saying that "well if they're looking at 19 and 18 year olds, then next thing is that they'll be looking at 17 year olds and then 14 year olds!!". Like I said, there's a clear line, and getting close to it isn't the same as crossing it.

[+] adhd_traco@piefed.social -7 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Alright, I don't care about the legal argument. That's for other folx to deal with. I care about a nice more or less ethical porn site.

And btw. Multiverse also agreed with the law, and I can see why.

I get the point of slippery slope arguments. So here's the potential harm I see, which I think you'd agree with is passing a point on the slope we don't want to cross: normalizing indulging in the sexualisation of minors, or just straight up normalising the sexualisation of minors.

If the community calls itself fauxbait, the mental process is one of sexualisation of minors, even if it isn't what's depicted. Just like a written story is just ink on paper and no performer is hurt, it's about the mental process.

They are not looking at these adults and thinking about fucking an adult. Just like the brain would do with a fictional story.

[–] Goodeye8@piefed.social 16 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

You're just taking offense to the community being called fauxbait? So if the community is called tiny titties it's all good?

[–] adhd_traco@piefed.social 8 points 3 days ago (2 children)

If somebody posts a swastika, and uses it to critically talk about the nazi history, or the fertility symbol aspect of it, it's not the same as if you're posting it without comment in the context of a debate about racism, or in a PoC forum, etc.

Context matters and changes what it is we're looking at.

Is it desirable to platform a community that basically says "jerking off to underage girls, but legal"? To put it another way...

I would like to imagine fedinsfw as something beyond the boundaries of ordinary porn sites. It can be so much better. And I say this regardless of this aspect we are talking about, though, just to keep in mind.

[–] Goodeye8@piefed.social 6 points 3 days ago (1 children)

To put it plainly I was asking if the context matters more than the content, because I think it does. I agree the faux bait community shouldn't exist but if you're going argue that content shouldn't be posted in the first place I'm going to disagree. Not because it's my kind of content, at to be clear it very much is not, but because I think that's the slippery slope. That would be saying small flatchested women porn is CP which means men who like those kinds of women are pedos and those women are essentially jailbait. I think that's stupid.

I think if we to improve the state of NSFW content we also need to be very specific in our wording of the criticism because how criticism is worded can change the context and as we agree, context matters. And that's what I want from this discussion, clarity on what people are criticizing. Because the other person is right that the content there is not the problem, but he's wrong because the reason to defed wasn't because of the content itself but rather how it was framed. And I think you also blurred that line with the fiction story example.

[–] adhd_traco@piefed.social 4 points 3 days ago

Looks like we effectively agree.

I think if we to improve the state of NSFW content we also need to be very specific in our wording of the criticism because how criticism is worded can change the context and as we agree, context matters.

Agreed! I think Multiverse made quite the effort and did a decent job. Misunderstandings and mistakes still happen, which is why just talking like this to get to our goal can be useful :)

And I think you also blurred that line with the fiction story example.

Thanks for the feedback. Reading it again now, I wouldn't know how to express it differently. But I can see how this might not be clear to people not living in my head. Useful to know.

[–] Elting@piefed.social 4 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Unless all the guys arguing against you in this thread are teenagers, then they’re just trying to justify their own creepy behavior.

[–] adhd_traco@piefed.social 4 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Maybe. But for anyone reading who might be changing their minds. I'm not trying to step on anyone's toes and guilt trip them or put them down.

Because right now, we can look forward to how good fedinsfw can actually be. It just seems like the fediverse has a beautiful opportunity to re-imagine internet pornography. And it's realising this opportunity that I am arguing for.

[–] Elting@piefed.social 5 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Yeah I like porn but im scared of feddinsfw becoming what reddit is for porn.

[–] adhd_traco@piefed.social 3 points 3 days ago

aye. same.

[–] lemmyposter212@lemmy.world 61 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

Holy wow, WHAT?? We do not permit CP. Full stop.

As Ace@feddit.uk said no one under the age of 18 can be posted and they have to be verified as such. Genuinely it seems like the only issue is the name, which can be changed to clear up any confusion.

I also agree with this that Ace@feddit.uk said:

There’s a very clear line in the sand to me: don’t post anyone underage. Posting overage girls is fine to me no matter what they like. Should the “small boobs” community also be banned because people might mistake a 25 year old with As for a 15 year old? Come on.

and

You/they are accusing them of “hosting child pornography” on the basis that they have nude images of proven-overage adults.

[–] Grail@multiverse.soulism.net 5 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Yes, the name should be changed. The pictures on that community would be completely legal to look at if they were not described as fauxbait, but when they are posted with that framing, they become a crime to look at in Australia (And Finland, according to a Finn on Matrix)

[–] Elting@piefed.social 12 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Im not sure why these people want this kind of thing here. It’s just weird and creepy and trying to justify it makes you look weird and creepy.

[–] Grail@multiverse.soulism.net 4 points 3 days ago (1 children)

There's an argument to be made that this content satisfies a need for some mentally ill people, and I did believe in that argument when I was younger, but hopefully we've all learned from the Epstein files that demand for this kind of thing can be created from scratch in formerly normal people.

[+] AmidFuror@fedia.io -9 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Same reason violent video games should be banned.

[+] Grail@multiverse.soulism.net -8 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Playing video games causes more playing video games. Looking at child porn causes more looking at more child porn.

[–] AmidFuror@fedia.io 7 points 3 days ago (1 children)

For your analogy to work, the content in question has to actually be child porn.

[–] Grail@multiverse.soulism.net -1 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Legally, it is. I agree with the law that cruelty free imitation child porn is still child porn, just like I believe vegan butter is butter.

[–] AmidFuror@fedia.io 5 points 3 days ago (1 children)

BDSM porn is illegal in Australia. I guess that needs to go too.

The word "fauxbait" is already telling you it's not really illegal. It just might be confused with something illegal. You wrote that the same content with a different name would be OK! The name let's you know that these are adult women.

[–] Goodeye8@piefed.social 4 points 3 days ago

fauxbait means fake (jail)bait and jailbait is considered childporn, so fauxbait is about fake child porn. The content itself is not illegal if the participants are all adults but according to Australian laws the framing of the content can make it illegal as explained in the original post. Fauxbait frames the content as "child porn, but not really" and I think if someone made that framing explicit you'd also consider it wrong.

If someone posted an image of small flatchested adult woman with the title "that woman has nice tits" you probably wouldn't think anything of it (unless you're into it) but when that same image is shown and the title is "that fake child has nice tits" it should raise some questions for you, like why even mention child? And that's the issue with fauxbait. There's nothing wrong with liking small women with small tits as long as they're adults, but why is it necessary to take the extra step to frame the adult as a fake child? If you like those kinds of women you don't need fauxbait, you can subscribe to small titties or tiny titties or flatchested of whatever the community would be called. You can get the same content without the "that's a fake child" implication.

If you want to argue that they're not actually implying the fake child porn then why call it fauxbait and continue using it? There are other communities with the same content, just ban the fauxbait community and use a different community. Even if they're not implying it they're still using a name that literally means fake child porn.

[–] Robbo@feddit.uk 58 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

There's an interesting discussion to be had around stuff like the fauxbait community. But if you approach it in such bad faith as screaming "CP!! CP!!!!" it just comes across as ragebaiting to try to invoke the same sort of "but think of the children!" misdirection that we've seen so much of in governments recently.

Look, that sort of content isn't to my taste but I will defend its right to exist. It's legal. The people posted there are adults. There has always been a thriving category of "barely legal" content - look at reddit's "legalteens" or pornhub's constant barrage of "18 year old does this" and "barely legal loses V" etc. Same product, different name. It sounds like the only objection is the relabelling of 18 year olds as "fauxbait" instead of "legal teen", which I agree is distasteful but that doesn't make it CP. You can look elsewhere if it's not to your taste but you can't deny that it's legal content.

I agree with the others about needing a clear distinction between what is legal and what isn't, and we can debate all day about whether 18 is the correct line to draw, but for now you can't call posting 18 year olds and 21 year olds "child porn" just because they have small bodies or are close-ish to the legal boundary. That is approaching the discussion in bad faith.

[–] Wildmimic@anarchist.nexus 0 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

It's not even distasteful, it's simply honest. It is no secret that many men like young women, or else the "barely legal" category wouldn't exist, and this theme is even completely in the open when the US Republicans push for lowering the legal age for marriage.

This exists in nearly every society, from the western "barely legal" porn theme over Mohammed having child wifes to japanese mangas which sexualize schoolgirls. (Edit: This is what the situation looks like in Brasil.) It is therefor important to acknowledge that these impulses exist, make sure children are protected by law and to have a societal understanding that children are harmed if those impulses are made reality.

Those who suffer from having those impulses need ways to cope so that children are safe - either by offering therapy, "barely legal"-porn or "fauxbait", without ostracizing those who choose these things over harming children. If a different label for the same thing helps to even keep one child safe it's worth it. That would be a responsible way to deal with this situation.

It's similar to those having a bad temper and aggressive impulses - giving those people an "out" by offering therapy, from competitive settings where they can live out their impulses (which can be anything from sports over video games to board games) to hitting each other with pool noodles and going into the woods to scream until their throats hurt.

All of it is simply channeling destructive impulses into non-harmful ways to cope, and only an open and honest discourse will help.

[–] ada@piefed.blahaj.zone 10 points 3 days ago (1 children)

lbz and pbz were defederated from lemmynsfw for hosting communities like that, and we are defederated from fedinsfw for the same reason

[–] kingofras@lemmy.world -2 points 2 days ago (1 children)

TIL a significant minority of Lemmy/Piefed users like to look at or reserve the right to be able to look at pornography where the actors bear resemblance to children. And the best arguments they have is FReE sPeEcH and iTs NoT iLleGaL.

Yuk.

I understand the ease of downvoting, but the lack of well laid out arguments gives this entire platform a very yukkie vibe to me.

[–] calcopiritus@lemmy.world 3 points 2 days ago (1 children)

There are at least 3 comments with well laid arguments (hint, they have way more up votes than the post). You have answered to none of them.

[–] kingofras@lemmy.world -1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I’ll just quote you to yourself, as we’re pretty much on the same page:

If you approve someone, you don't need to explain yourself, you would just say "I agree with this guy". There's no substance to it.

However, if you downvote, you are saying "this is wrong". Which is much different. When you accuse someone of being wrong, you should explain yourself, otherwise you're being a dick.

It's fine if someone already answered with what you were going to answer. You can just upvote that guy and move on.

EDIT: I'm absolutely in awe that this comment specifically gathered so many downvotes. And this is a good example of what I was referring to. Lots of people downvoted, and 0 ppl said why.

You may think that those upvotes explain the downvotes, but they really don’t. And they don’t to a small majority of the people, so perhaps you can help out. A good start would be:

You’re getting downvoted because

Or

I’m downvoting your post/comment because

Or if you feel the upvoted comments are indeed addressing my concern “legal porn that looks like CP is morally extremely questionable and either won’t help the growth of Lemmy or would attract people I rather not associate with”, you can copy paste it.

I also want to state this is occurring at a time where we are discovering pedophelia run all the way to the white house.

[–] calcopiritus@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

You went through my comment history and quoted me, to just not read the whole quote.

Here, I'll help you:

It's fine if someone already answered with what you were going to answer. You can just upvote that guy and move on.

As I said, there are already 3 top comments explaining to you why you're being downvoted. I don't need to explain myself when I mostly agree with them, I just upvote them.

If everyone had to explain every downvote, we would have hundreds of comments on each post, and most of them would say the same thing.

[–] kingofras@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago

I think we’ve exhausted this discourse. Peace

[+] peacefulpixel@lemmy.world -17 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

these comments are fucking horrible jesus christ. i mean ik pedophilia is super popular among the demographic of ppl that would be using lemmy but seeing it out in the open like this is rlly gut wrenching. throwing around terms like "virtue signaling" against calling out fetishes that are clearly entertaining the idea of child pornography is some serious gooner brain shit. how disgusting. the main argument i'm seeing being "they're actually of age!!!" too reeks of the "she's actually a 3,000 year old dragon" argument. then why is the appeal that she looks like a little girl. you're just arguing for pedophilia. which makes you a pedophile.

[–] Wildmimic@anarchist.nexus 6 points 2 days ago (1 children)

You know that there are people out there that can distinguish between a fantasy and reality? There are many people out there that have those fantasies that would never touch a 17 year old out of principle. This is a type of roleplay, and as long as there are only consenting adults in play, there is no harm done to anyone.

Denying that those impulses exist is one of the reasons that people who are real pedophiles cant get professional help without fear of persecution. Pushing them into illegality just for having those thoughts is not only not fair (because they don't have a choice who they are attracted to), but also pushes them into the dark corners of society where they cant get help and the really illegal shit happens.

[–] peacefulpixel@lemmy.world -3 points 2 days ago (1 children)

you know i might actually put effort into responding to you but "because they don't have a choice who they are attracted to" shows how far gone you are. this entire comment is making me sick to my stomach. for the record, pedophilia is obviously a fucking choice and has nothing to do with attraction oh my gods. why does that even need saying

[–] Wildmimic@anarchist.nexus 7 points 2 days ago (2 children)

Did you choose who you are attracted to or did you discover it?

You seem to mix some things up. There are pedophiles who have sexual attraction to children but know better, and there are people who rape children because they like the power imbalance.

The first group has simply discovered their attraction (and mostly beat themselves up over it) and would benefit from therapy and support, which they don't get because of people like you. They also can benefit from things like "fauxbait", where they can live out their kink without hurting anyone because there are only consenting adults in play.

The second group are in the Epstein files. They do it because they get off on the thought that someone is helpless. They are not pedophiles, they are simply the worst kind of rapist.

Make sure to direct your disgust on the second group, not the first, because the first one doesn't deserve it.

[–] Grail@multiverse.soulism.net 1 points 1 day ago

I agree that there's a big difference between natural pedophiles (pedophilia as a sexuality) and Epstein pedophiles (pedophilia as a kink).

The research that I've read on the subject suggests that Epstein pedophiles are opportunistic - they offend when there is an opportunity to do so. That could be having a martini on Epstein's island, or it could be browsing Reddit and seeing a post from r/jailbait. During that first encounter, if the person has enough excuses to be able to say it's not that bad, it's not illegal, it's not actually harming anyone, then they are likely to seek out more "content" and re-offend in worse ways.

In other words, if we make cruelty free imitation child porn available to natural pedophiles, we're going to create more Epstein pedophiles. We're not actually helping by doing that. It's counterproductive.

[–] DFX4509B@lemmy.wtf -3 points 3 days ago

I just blocked that instance on my end.