I just had 2 of my posts deleted (for the first time), because they are supposedly depicting children in explicit situations.

https://e6ai.net/posts/25866 (https://rule34.xxx/index.php?page=post&s=view&id=9640461)
https://e6ai.net/posts/25975 (https://rule34.xxx/index.php?page=post&s=view&id=9640466)

Both pictures showed harmless, dignified and tasteful 3/4-portraits of slender and petite young women with a curvy (not child-like) figure and small breasts in neutral poses and with neutral expressions, not children at all.
There is absolutely no reason why these characters couldn't have been eighteen or older. There was also nothing thematically related to children (clothing, things, location, whatever) in those pictures.
The pictures were made with yiffymix v41, and not some dubious model with abusive training data. That's what this whole rule is really about, no?
I understand that actual children in "explicit" situations are banned, but if you ban every woman with a delicate frame and small breasts, that's arbitrary and unacceptable.
I object to this and ask that you cancel the deletion. It's not right.
Is this place only for stoneage fertility idols? Do you now get banned, if you like beautiful, slender bodies and not meat mountains with gaping assholes or guys fucking actual dogs and horses?

As a lover of slender-builds and smaller packages myself, I can emphasize, yep. But I'm also a content moderator on furry diffusion and we have to look out for this stuff. All I can say is ambiguous stuff like that, when left to a judgment call, can be a real pain in the butt sometimes lol.

All I can suggest is to upload to more than one place and roll for a second opinion. Try rule34.xxx, it's basically the only other booru that's checks all 3 boxes: AI-friendly, furry-friendly, and pretty active. I'm not super familiar with their moderation strictness but I've gathered that it's pretty lax over there.

Contact NotMeNotYou, probably on e621 or wherever the Discord is if you want a prompt response.

https://e6ai.net/users/5

terraraptor said:
As a lover of slender-builds and smaller packages myself, I can emphasize, yep. But I'm also a content moderator on furry diffusion and we have to look out for this stuff. All I can say is ambiguous stuff like that, when left to a judgment call, can be a real pain in the butt sometimes lol.

All I can suggest is to upload to more than one place and roll for a second opinion. Try rule34.xxx, it's basically the only other booru that's checks all 3 boxes: AI-friendly, furry-friendly, and pretty active. I'm not super familiar with their moderation strictness but I've gathered that it's pretty lax over there.

On furry diffusion you have to be careful not to violate the discord content rules. That's perfectly understandable. Here the no-young-rule has been a bit questionable from the start. Of course I agree that real children must be protected and models trained on abusive material must be banned. There are better ways of handling this, though, like an "allowed models list".
Lucky for me, I just like skinny/athletic and often delicate, but not exclusively, as long it's not too bulky or obese. That said, I don't think it's a fair choice singling out the young-fetish and outlawing people who have always had a place on e621. There is a lot of stuff there (and here) that can be hard to tolerate, such as sex with realistically looking animals (beyond "ferals"), but is tolerated anyway and I don't mind. There are people who enjoy that sort of thing and who am I to judge, when it's all ficticious? In my opinion, if it's within the actual law, it shouldn't be banned here either, especially when the "grey area" apparently stretches so far now that you can't post petite young women anymore without falling victim to that sort of discrimination.

..... but anyway, the point was that the deleted pictures weren't depicting children to begin with. I reuploaded them for a second opinion like you suggested:
https://rule34.xxx/index.php?page=post&s=view&id=9640461
https://rule34.xxx/index.php?page=post&s=view&id=9640466

If you think those have to be deleted, you can delete half my other posts as well, because they look very much alike. Always walking the line, depending on other people's arbitrary judgement like some borderlining-criminal - that's no fun. Then maybe this just isn't the right place for this kind of art after all. Would be a loss to this site and its content diversity, if you ask me, but if you don't want these beautiful gens here, then why do I bother making them and contribute?

For comparison, these are children:
https://e621.net/posts/1795222
https://e621.net/posts/2595561

And these are delicate young women:
https://e621.net/posts/580291
https://e621.net/posts/681305
https://e621.net/posts/3463097

On a side note: Browsing the site, I just found a picture that displays actual, explicit sex with visible penetration between an adult human and an entirely flat rabbit-like girl (some sort of pokemon) with an obvious child body (no ambiguity here...).

I don't really want to link it, because I don't want to be responsible for the deletion of any posts.

But it was approved by Lance Armstrong about 2 months ago... What? And you delete my perfectly innocent portraits of petite young women as some sort of child pornography? Am I missing something? Seriously, why not just roll a dice?

Not only were the posts on rule34 finally approved after pending forever, I also got assured by NotMeNotYou that the picture I was referring to earlier is in fact depicting an adult, so I may as well link it here after all.

So, let's see: https://e6ai.net/posts/19753

Absolutely flat chested, not a curve on the whole body, hips much narrower than that of the human, shoulders extremely narrow, baby-fat on the stomach, straight out of a cartoon for children.

-> that's an adult...

Here's mine: https://rule34.xxx/index.php?page=post&s=view&id=9640461

Curvy woman's body with actual hips, breasts and waist, stomach definition of a woman, normal shoulder width, skinny and athletic.

-> that's a child...

QUESTIONS?? Then talk to a brick wall. You have better chances there to encounter common sense.

When I re-posted these pics on rule34, I couldn't help noticing that they already allow furries of all ages AND AI-generated pictures. They explain in their FAQ that furry art is not covered by any law, so there is no need to ban any of it. I don't understand what the fuzz here is all about, then. It's obviously not a moral issue (see: e621), just legal concerns. It doesn't make any sense, though. No furry gen, drawn or AI-generated, is outlawed by any law, so there is no legal risk having them here. People on rule34 know and respect that.
Furthermore, both "good" and "bad" (trained on abusive/illegal data) models can produce both young and adult furries, so by banning young furries (which apparently includes young adults now as well), you don't ensure in any way that the models used were good ones. There is so much "young" furry training data on e621 already, and it's been used in training all the furry models on civitAI - the ones that everyone here uses. Why would anyone, in this of all places, need any abusive/illegal real-life models? It doesn't make any sense. It's a frickin furry site...

It somewhat defeats the purpose of having a dedicated furry art hosting site in the first place when a generic porn hoster like rule34 is actually ahead of you, while you ban beautiful young furry women because of imaginary legal concerns and misguided arbitrariness. Literally ALL furry art is legally irrelevant and that's all you find on e6ai. It flies so low under the radar, nobody outside actually gives a shit. Sadly, no moderator or owner gives a shit either.

rantas said:
Not only were the posts on rule34 finally approved after pending forever, I also got assured by NotMeNotYou that the picture I was referring to earlier is in fact depicting an adult, so I may as well link it here after all.

So, let's see: https://e6ai.net/posts/19753

Absolutely flat chested, not a curve on the whole body, hips much narrower than that of the human, shoulders extremely narrow, baby-fat on the stomach, straight out of a cartoon for children.

-> that's an adult...

Here's mine: https://rule34.xxx/index.php?page=post&s=view&id=9640461

Curvy woman's body with actual hips, breasts and waist, stomach definition of a woman, normal shoulder width, skinny and athletic.

-> that's a child...

QUESTIONS?? Then talk to a brick wall. You have better chances there to encounter common sense.

When I re-posted these pics on rule34, I couldn't help noticing that they already allow furries of all ages AND AI-generated pictures. They explain in their FAQ that furry art is not covered by any law, so there is no need to ban any of it. I don't understand what the fuzz here is all about, then. It's obviously not a moral issue (see: e621), just legal concerns. It doesn't make any sense, though. No furry gen, drawn or AI-generated, is outlawed by any law, so there is no legal risk having them here. People on rule34 know and respect that.
Furthermore, both "good" and "bad" (trained on abusive/illegal data) models can produce both young and adult furries, so by banning young furries (which apparently includes young adults now as well), you don't ensure in any way that the models used were good ones. There is so much "young" furry training data on e621 already, and it's been used in training all the furry models on civitAI - the ones that everyone here uses. Why would anyone, in this of all places, need any abusive/illegal real-life models? It doesn't make any sense. It's a frickin furry site...

It somewhat defeats the purpose of having a dedicated furry art hosting site in the first place when a generic porn hoster like rule34 is actually ahead of you, while you ban beautiful young furry women because of imaginary legal concerns and misguided arbitrariness. Literally ALL furry art is legally irrelevant and that's all you find on e6ai. It flies so low under the radar, nobody outside actually gives a shit. Sadly, no moderator or owner gives a shit either.

Sounds like a good reason to move to rule34. Although I don't know what the policy is there regarding posting images, but here..... The "no young" rule is being exploited to the point of arbitrariness.

your post literally had the tags cub and young.
With that said, when you look at the cub tag you will find a large amount of images breaking the uploading guidelines that are still present in the gallery. Some even have the prompt in the description and literally contain words like child and loli.

Examples (there are more):

https://e6ai.net/posts/14199
https://e6ai.net/posts/12770
https://e6ai.net/posts/8806
https://e6ai.net/posts/7685
https://e6ai.net/posts/6918
https://e6ai.net/posts/5873
https://e6ai.net/posts/6190

It's very unclear to me what is allowed and what is not since obvious examples like the above get to exist on the site.

voidfly said:
Sounds like a good reason to move to rule34. Although I don't know what the policy is there regarding posting images, but here..... The "no young" rule is being exploited to the point of arbitrariness.

Like I said, from what I gathered, they don't make any distinction between AI generated and traditional art. They also don't ban ANY furry art, because there is no law that would require it. Owners here have a diffuse fear of AI-related legal issues, which is simply irrational. In reality nobody gives a fuck about furry art. It does make rule34 effectively the better furry art hosting site at this time, though. It's a shame, because the colors and aggressive ads there can give you seizures...

jelloponies said:
your post literally had the tags cub and young.

One of them had (the lioness). I didn't tag it as such. I just checked the history and someone else added "young, flat_chested, cub", arbitrarily, maybe to provoke deletion. It's OBVIOUSLY not a "cub". "young" is absolutely relative and subjective. You can make a strong point that a 20 year old is still young. So, what does it even mean? I'd say a cub is definitely young, but that wasn't a cub. Even flat-chested is arbitrary to a point. That other picture I linked is 100% flat-chested and is not tagged as such. Mine had very small breasts, so it depends on your idea of flat-chested...
Of course, I wouldn't tag a nude picture of a petite and skinny woman, like the 2 in question, as "cub" or "young" on this site. How stupid would that be? It's arbitrary enough as is, without stacking the odds against oneself when moving within the grey area way beyond actual "cubs".

jelloponies said:
With that said, when you look at the cub tag you will find a large amount of images breaking the uploading guidelines that are still present in the gallery. Some even have the prompt in the description and literally contain words like child and loli.

Examples (there are more):

https://e6ai.net/posts/14199
https://e6ai.net/posts/12770
https://e6ai.net/posts/8806
https://e6ai.net/posts/7685
https://e6ai.net/posts/6918
https://e6ai.net/posts/5873
https://e6ai.net/posts/6190

It's very unclear to me what is allowed and what is not since obvious examples like the above get to exist on the site.

They all look "young", but in my opinion none of them come close to the one I linked:
(edit: On second thought, those hyenas and that paw-patrol picture do come close. No idea what the reasoning behind approving those as "adult" might be. Apparently none...)
https://e6ai.net/posts/19753
Those others mostly have breasts or something else that at least partially qualifies them as "adult-like". That one has absolutely nothing adult about it, but both Lance Armstrong and NotMeNotYou agree it's an adult anyway.
It's arbitrary madness how that can count as adult and my pictures don't:
https://rule34.xxx/index.php?page=post&s=view&id=9640461
https://rule34.xxx/index.php?page=post&s=view&id=9640466

(sry, had to link them all again here, because the topic is getting a bit cluttered now...)