I hope this isn’t too spicy a topic for the, what, 7th post on this community? But I see that we already have /c/Zoophilia on the instance and it already has an impressive 80 subscribers. Even as a zoo myself, though, I made the decision to block it as I’m firm in my belief that animals can’t consent. What are everyone’s thoughts on the instance growing other communities about other paraphilias? I know we have a lot of lolicons/shotacons/etc. here, so a community for pedophilia/minor attraction would be really cool and I think fit right in. I’ve always wanted a community for that in a reddit-esque style. (They exist as forums, chat-rooms, and mastodon instances, though!) But if it follows in the footsteps of the zoophilia community and everyone there seems to believe kids can consent, I’d have to block it too. And then I’ll be back at zero when it comes to having a reddit-like community of MAPs! 🥲
What do you think about the prospect of more paraphilia communities? Awesome or scary? Good for the instance or bad for it? I’m also interested in hearing everyone’s opinion on creating alternate paraphilia communities exclusively for anti-contact discussions. (If one like that for zoophilia existed I would happily join!)
We might be open to allowing this sort of community in the future, but currently the restrictions we would have to place on a MAP community would probably make it one which would be more of a hassle than anything. Both for the users/mods of said community and for the admins of Burggit in general.
There are other sites made specifically for this sort of discussion which have the tools and moderation to handle it far better than we do. We might open this up a bit in the future and leave it up to user vote, but for now, this is going to be something I would heavily discourage.
I guess I understand. It feels so double-standard-y though. Can I ask what your considerations were/are in allowing the zoophilia community to be on burggit? I’ve been looking for a MAP community in a reddit style for a long time and coming across this instance made me real hopeful. Seeing a community for zoophilia, which is considered in the paraphile communities I’m in to be part of the “big three” (pedophilia/minor attraction, zoophilia, necrophilia) really added to that hope. Why one but not the other? Since you allow pro-contact zoos a community, surely anti-contact pedos can’t be any worse. 😕
@Mousepad@burggit.moe @amaranta@burggit.moe Tagging both of you since you both wanted to know the answer to this.
To be totally blunt, Our server’s datacenter has no issues hosting Zoophillia content. They even joke about a website they have which is hosting bestiality. If the Zoophillia community accidentally or “accidentally” posted real Zoo porn and I got reported to my hosting company, they’d probably laugh it off, and I’d just remove it. There’d be no risk to me, Burggit or any of my or burger and I’s services. Bestiality is also not illegal in a large section of the world, and people generally don’t care as much.
Alright, now let’s take this to a MAP community, even ignoring the fact that a lot of our users have made it very clear they are not in favor of having such a community. And me obviously wanting to please the community that is already here, rather than a small minority of people. There are other issues with it. First off, like others have said, this would get us isolated to kingdom come. On mastodon/pleroma/akkoma this doesn’t matter, you can get defederated by literally 500 instances and still be fine, on lemmy that’d be crippling for the federated instances we have remaining.
Alright, now to the hosting side of things. If a MAP in a MAP community were to accidentally or “accidentally” post real CP, it would just put us in a situation which we’d have to respond immediately. This is already a risk, but having a map community, as much as you might say otherwise does increase its likelihood significantly.
Like I said, if we had a larger moderation team which could monitor things on here 24/7 we might have a vote for it. But it seems that even then, it is a no, since our already established community who has made this site the wonderful place it is. They don’t seem to want this type of community, and we are far more inclined to go with their wishes over the wishes of other groups/individuals.
I can understand the defederation thing but given how much y’all seem to like saying that any viewpoint is welcome here it seems siding with the userbase to disallow a community is pretty hypocritical, no? But I appreciate your transparency. And I personally wouldn’t have the self-control to work with people who could laugh at animal rape but you gotta host somewhere I guess.
Not siding with anyone, to be clear, we never had a vote. Right now, the decision is entirely based around the huge moderation task we’d be undertaking. I was saying that in the future if ever we could handle this type of community moderation wise we might open up discussion about it and potentially have a vote. But currently, as things stand, I would heavily discourage the creation of this sort of community.
Though, to be clear, I think it’s obvious that if a situation did come up where we had a vote, we’d obviously side with the community who are currently contributing and making this place what it is.
This is a pretty good point, actually. Does !zoophilia@burggit.moe have many content restrictions?
From an administration POV, I imagine one being much less controversial is impactful. We are probably already being closely watched by certain groups for any violation as far pedophilia content would go.
No actual porn is allowed to be posted there, per the community creator’s rules. Also disa alluded to zoo porn might be illegal in the Netherlands (where this is hosted) and I’m not 100% sure about netherlands law but I ain’t pushing it.
Someone tried running a similar community on lemmynsfw. Unsurprisingly, it didn’t go well and was a bellwether of what would eventually happen to that instance.
Note @Disabled’s post isn’t outright banning that sort of community, only advising against it because of moderation concerns.