this post was submitted on 01 Mar 2026

7 points (52.2% liked)

Fediverse

40865 readers

120 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

7

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

submitted 1 week ago by kingofras@lemmy.world to c/fediverse@lemmy.world

52 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

[–] JensSpahnpasta@feddit.org 2 points 5 days ago (1 children)

As a feddit.org user, I'm really interested how this discussion about instances obeying local laws will turn out when it's about child porn.

[–] Grail@multiverse.soulism.net 2 points 5 days ago

For the record, I believe feddit.org goes far beyond the legal requirements with respect to zionist hate speech.

[–] AcesFullOfKings@feddit.uk 128 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (11 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.

load more comments (11 replies)

[–] lemmyposter212@lemmy.world 66 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week 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 1 week 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 1 week 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 1 week 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 -12 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Same reason violent video games should be banned.

[+] Grail@multiverse.soulism.net -9 points 1 week 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 8 points 1 week ago (1 children)

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

[–] Grail@multiverse.soulism.net -2 points 1 week 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 7 points 1 week 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 3 points 1 week 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 61 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week 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 2 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week 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 8 points 1 week 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 -8 points 1 week 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 7 points 1 week 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 -4 points 1 week 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 4 points 1 week 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 -3 points 1 week ago

I think we’ve exhausted this discourse. Peace

[–] aaa999@lemmy.world 6 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week 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

[–] DFX4509B@lemmy.wtf -3 points 1 week ago

I just blocked that instance on my end.

[+] peacefulpixel@lemmy.world -20 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week 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 7 points 1 week 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 -4 points 1 week 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 8 points 1 week 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 week 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.

load more comments