I've gone over the rules, the FAQ, the help pages, the forums, and I still can't come to a conclusion on what e6ai's policies are regarding "young" content (i.e. cub/loli or appearing underage).

The "Avoid Posting List" mentions "Any explicit content featuring characters that are underage, or appear underage" but if you try to flag an image for a rule violation, the only option related to this is "Young human-like character in an explicit situation" which is a bit vague but I'm guessing doesn't apply to anthro characters.

Are the rules basically the same as on e621, where if the character is clearly anthro (e.g. Cream the Rabbit or Li Li Stormstout) it's fine, but if they're essentially human other than some small features (e.g. an elf girl with pointy ears) it's not allowed? When I look up posts for Cream the Rabbit it's all aged-up versions of her except for this one https://e6ai.net/posts/83559 which ironically isn't tagged with young... which makes me wonder if that's the only reason it's still around.

Your site, not mine, I don't care what the policy is either way. Just want to be crystal clear on what the rules are.

dr_crapola said:
I've gone over the rules, the FAQ, the help pages, the forums, and I still can't come to a conclusion on what e6ai's policies are regarding "young" content (i.e. cub/loli or appearing underage).

The "Avoid Posting List" mentions "Any explicit content featuring characters that are underage, or appear underage" but if you try to flag an image for a rule violation, the only option related to this is "Young human-like character in an explicit situation" which is a bit vague but I'm guessing doesn't apply to anthro characters.

Are the rules basically the same as on e621, where if the character is clearly anthro (e.g. Cream the Rabbit or Li Li Stormstout) it's fine, but if they're essentially human other than some small features (e.g. an elf girl with pointy ears) it's not allowed? When I look up posts for Cream the Rabbit it's all aged-up versions of her except for this one https://e6ai.net/posts/83559 which ironically isn't tagged with young... which makes me wonder if that's the only reason it's still around.

Your site, not mine, I don't care what the policy is either way. Just want to be crystal clear on what the rules are.

In regards to Young human-like character in an explicit situation we should probably update this meaning.

Basically, any character that remotely looks young in any explicit or non explicit situation will vary likely be deleted.

This does include anthro/feral characters also, whether it's human-like or not.

Aged-up versions in character's is fine, as long as it doesn't fall under the category of appearance being too "young".

angry_puppy said:
In regards to Young human-like character in an explicit situation we should probably update this meaning.

Basically, any character that remotely looks young in any explicit or non explicit situation will vary likely be deleted.

This does include anthro/feral characters also, whether it's human-like or not.

Aged-up versions in character's is fine, as long as it doesn't fall under the category of appearance being too "young".

Thanks for the clarification! I'm kind of surprised the rules are so different from e621's, but it's good to know.

And non-explicit young images will get deleted too? So like, a safe rated on-model image of Tails the Fox that looks similar to official artwork would get deleted? Not that I plan on creating such images, but that seems a bit odd.

dr_crapola said:
non-explicit young images will get deleted too?

no because they aren't explicit

flowersylveon said:
no because they aren't explicit

As long as they aren't depicting or suggesting anything explicit, it should be fine.

flowersylveon said:
no because they aren't explicit

This might have been a typo, but:

angry_puppy said:
Basically, any character that remotely looks young in any explicit or non explicit situation will vary likely be deleted.

dr_crapola said:
This might have been a typo, but:

actually angry puppy already said it better above
non explicit can count as suggestive

like a young character with massive boobs or being vored

not explicit but it's suggestive leaning

Alright, looks like more of my posts were deleted, this time for featuring an on-model Isabelle from AC (actually not quite on-model, I gave her small breasts whereas she normally has none). The irony here is that if I were to try posting these same images on some place that's made for young content like ATFbooru, they'd get deleted for not featuring a young enough character. Apparently I've discovered a unique class of image that is off limits everywhere, not for being extreme but for being in between standard tastes. AI generated shortstacks have no home. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

dr_crapola said:
Apparently I've discovered a unique class of image that is off limits everywhere, not for being extreme but for being in between standard tastes. AI generated shortstacks have no home. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

I'm pretty sure Sankaku Complex accepts just about anything that isn't actually illegal. They have plenty of straight up loli AI stuff. Problem then is you have to use Sankaku... Hope you have a good adblocker.
Hell I just checked and apparently other people have been uploading most of my non-furry stuff to Sankaku, one's even a pointless rescale I didn't do. They have over 800k posts with the 'furry' tag so I'd say go for it if you just want it shared somewhere.

I think that some rule34 sites also accept most AI stuff but I don't really use them.

busahou said:
I'm pretty sure Sankaku Complex accepts just about anything that isn't actually illegal. They have plenty of straight up loli AI stuff. Problem then is you have to use Sankaku... Hope you have a good adblocker.
Hell I just checked and apparently other people have been uploading most of my non-furry stuff to Sankaku, one's even a pointless rescale I didn't do. They have over 800k posts with the 'furry' tag so I'd say go for it if you just want it shared somewhere.

I think that some rule34 sites also accept most AI stuff but I don't really use them.

I wasn't asking for recommendations for other platforms, though I do appreciate the thought (no sarcasm). I originally chose to upload here because this seemed like the most relevant place for a lot of the stuff I've been generating. It's furry, it's AI, I'll go to the furry AI site, ya know? I visit Sankaku every now and then, and while their content rules are extremely lenient, all their ads and account monetization shit is really annoying, as you said. It's still probably the best option, though. Gelbooru seems to be allergic to AI. At this point I feel like I need to make a spreadsheet of which topics trigger which site admins.

Ahaha and now another of my images got deleted: an image of Pom (from Them's Fightin' Herds). Reason: "Irrelevant to site (Suggestive / Explicit Young content)". For those not familiar, this is a feral sheep character. The only way you could possibly tell she's "young" is by knowing the lore. And even then, she's a sheep. Not "human-like", not anthro; a four-legged, four-hooved literal sheep. I'm pretty sure the payment processors and UK authorities aren't going to come after you because of how old a sheep looks, but what do I know.

I don't think this place is for me. Wish you guys the best.

Let me explain it for you in a way that is easy to understand.
A few months back i posted a few images of charmander/charmeleon m/f
If you are at all aware of pokemon, charmander is smaller than a charmeleon is
Due charmander being smaller than charmeleon, my images were taken down by one of our dear moderators with the reason given (and i quote)

The female charmander here has cub-like proportions (relative to the male): shorter tail, no tail flame, smaller hands, shorter muzzle.
Even though it probably wasn't intended and isn't tagged as such, I'm going to say it's too sus to keep up.

So the "young" policy on e6ai is pretty much that "screw not allowing human characters, if your characters have a difference in size, you are already potentially subject to deletion".
And my personal conclusion was to remove every and any art i had here and never try to upload the rest, because this is clearly not a public board, its something ran by a group of ppl who curate art based solely on their own taste.
No rules.
No consistency.
No nothing.
Just "what we like can stay".

because this is clearly not a public board, its something ran by a group of ppl who curate art based solely on their own taste.
[...]
Just "what we like can stay".

Well, feel free to offer to pay their hosting bills then? XD

bahufaru said:
Well, feel free to offer to pay their hosting bills then? XD

or make their own imageboard
along with coding
people to help run or just do it alone
server bills for hosting
all so simple

Honest question: e621 has massive amounts of ALL SORTS of "underage" characters--all fictional of course--and that has never been a problem as far as I'm aware. What's the reason for it being 1000x more strict on here?

aresthegreat said:
Honest question: e621 has massive amounts of ALL SORTS of "underage" characters--all fictional of course--and that has never been a problem as far as I'm aware. What's the reason for it being 1000x more strict on here?

Because AI will often uses sources from the web to use for generating images. In this case, AI will pull sources from illegal websites that contain real CP to use as a reference/base for it's database when creating an image related to that subject.

angry_puppy said:
Because AI will often uses sources from the web to use for generating images. In this case, AI will pull sources from illegal websites that contain real CP to use as a reference/base for it's database when creating an image related to that subject.

That makes sense. I kind of had a feeling it had something to do with that, but I didn't want to assume.

angry_puppy said:
AI will pull sources from illegal websites that contain real CP to use as a reference/base for it's database

Is it a thing, actually? Save for actual CP-marketed models, which probably exists somewhere, it seems quite implausible, which model creator would choose to take all the legal challenges of getting these references?

Mainstream models never trained on actual pictures of astronauts riding unicorns or galaxies in bottles for their famous Hello World examples. Most likely, generated young explicit content can be done by blending together the "young" and the "explicit" concept, legal when taken separately, which is exactly what generative AI has been designed for...

b1techienne said:
Is it a thing, actually?

yes
it did happened a VERY AMOUNT of few times
its just best to avoid

flowersylveon said:
yes
it did happened a VERY AMOUNT of few times
its just best to avoid

But it would mean CP would taint every picture of young human beings you'd generate, even the most SFW and innocent ones... I'm pretty sure no model beside the ones who stays in the darkest corner of the web don't use any CSAM, and pedos would use LoRAs anyway

b1techienne said:
But it would mean CP would taint every picture of young human beings you'd generate, even the most SFW and innocent ones... I'm pretty sure no model beside the ones who stays in the darkest corner of the web don't use any CSAM, and pedos would use LoRAs anyway

policy is there to be safer than sorry
AI content is still in gray area

By that logic, stable diffusion could have been trained on real bestiality, so anything furry is tainted. Hell, it could have been (and probably was) trained using actual depictions of rape, so anything sexual is tainted.

busahou said:
By that logic, stable diffusion could have been trained on real bestiality, so anything furry is tainted. Hell, it could have been (and probably was) trained using actual depictions of rape, so anything sexual is tainted.

Fallacious thinking, especially when modelmaking teams such as the Chroma team have already taken steps to remove such data from future models.

asscas said:
Fallacious thinking, especially when modelmaking teams such as the Chroma team have already taken steps to remove such data from future models.

I dont understand how that is fallacious thinking
Isn't everyone here using different models? How can we be sure that every model isn't using b*stiality content when you're so sure most models use cs*m content in young image generations?

assgas said:
Fallacious thinking, especially when modelmaking teams such as the Chroma team have already taken steps to remove such data from future models.

Okay, then the original argument (model might've been trained on CP so it's banned) shouldn't apply either.

Disclaimer: I don’t want to advocate explicit young content in any way. I never gen it (intentionally)!
But I must say that I agree with previous posters. The e6ai exclusive rule makes zero sense imo.
If you want to make sure that furry AI models aren’t trained on young content (with or without intention) you should also ban it on e621!
Right now e621 is still a better source for training data than e6ai, because most of e6ai posts were made before the new quality standards were implemented and/or are from the “AI stone age” (SD1.5). All that is not usable for training. Thus one who wants to train today would rather scrape e621 were young is allowed. So you’re bound to get young content in your dataset unless you remove it by hand.
I completely fail to understand what’s the reason for different rules on the two sites.

silvicultor said:
Disclaimer: I don’t want to advocate explicit young content in any way. I never gen it (intentionally)!
But I must say that I agree with previous posters. The e6ai exclusive rule makes zero sense imo.
If you want to make sure that furry AI models aren’t trained on young content (with or without intention) you should also ban it on e621!
Right now e621 is still a better source for training data than e6ai, because most of e6ai posts were made before the new quality standards were implemented and/or are from the “AI stone age” (SD1.5). All that is not usable for training. Thus one who wants to train today would rather scrape e621 were young is allowed. So you’re bound to get young content in your dataset unless you remove it by hand.
I completely fail to understand what’s the reason for different rules on the two sites.

humanoids and humans(young) have been banned to e621 already
which
is literally what you are asking
there is no IRL anthro creatures we can get to have CP from
so thats literally it, no more young hujmans at e621 and that change has been done *checks dating*
8 months ago
https://e621.net/forum_topics/45501

like i said before
it was best to be safe than sorry and while e6ai always had that rule(i believe)
e621 also started on that
there is no way of knowing but still

flowersylveon said:
humanoids and humans(young) have been banned to e621 already
which
is literally what you are asking
[...]

But young anthro (which is btw considered illegal in quiet a few jurisdictions) is still allowed on e621 as far as I know.
On e6ai it was forbidden from the start (I approve of this rule!).

So no, it’s not what I was asking for. I was asking why there are different rules on both sites. The given reason was “that nobody can use the content to train AI for young concept”. But that doesn’t make sense. Whoever would want to do that can just move to e621 for harvesting such highly questionable training data.

silvicultor said:
But young anthro (which is btw considered illegal in quiet a few jurisdictions) is still allowed on e621 as far as I know.
On e6ai it was forbidden from the start (I approve of this rule!).

So no, it’s not what I was asking for. I was asking why there are different rules on both sites. The given reason was “that nobody can use the content to train AI for young concept”. But that doesn’t make sense. Whoever would want to do that can just move to e621 for harvesting such highly questionable training data.

rule34 have got a hold on that by banning the same thing for other young content but still allowing anthros because "technically they aren't human"'
same logic applies here
but on e621 case is more emphasized on "they aren't anthro" so gets banned

not to let it slip that the case from e621
as i am quoting NotMeNotYou

Greetings!

We've got a doozy this time.
Due to challenges stemming from changes in the political and legal environment, both offline and online, we have had to adjust our content guidelines to preserve access to our site. As a result, any content featuring young human or humanoid characters in explicit situations is now prohibited and will be deleted. This change also applies retroactively, and we have already removed all existing submissions featuring such content.

As with all irrelevant content, we will not issue records for uploads that violate this policy; the content will simply be deleted.

Thank you for your understanding, as this was not an easy decision for us to make.

AI is in gray area which is better be safe than sorry
e621 was due to a lot of shit happening on political and legal grounds
they were trying to prevent from the worse as nothing at the time were changed or suggested upon such thing
plus i believe this is more of a people from BadDragon decision than NMNY

AI we can't know for sure what model is someone using or if it could have been trained on some real shit stuff, its like a food factory, we dont know for sure how the factory REALLY works but some other food factories we found "lead poison" and other kinds of heavy metals/chemicals around but only with one specific setting of baking a pie, so its better to avoid it

not sure if my analogy lands but its the best i got for now

flowersylveon said:
rule34 have got a hold on that by banning the same thing for other young content but still allowing anthros because "technically they aren't human"'
same logic applies here
but on e621 case is more emphasized on "they aren't anthro" so gets banned

not to let it slip that the case from e621
as i am quoting NotMeNotYou
AI is in gray area which is better be safe than sorry
e621 was due to a lot of shit happening on political and legal grounds
they were trying to prevent from the worse as nothing at the time were changed or suggested upon such thing
plus i believe this is more of a people from BadDragon decision than NMNY

AI we can't know for sure what model is someone using or if it could have been trained on some real shit stuff, its like a food factory, we dont know for sure how the factory REALLY works but some other food factories we found "lead poison" and other kinds of heavy metals/chemicals around but only with one specific setting of baking a pie, so its better to avoid it

not sure if my analogy lands but its the best i got for now

My argument was there's no way you can know if some of the feral content here is trained on real b*steality
And based on some of the stuff ive seen here, I have no doubt that it was

My initial question is still not being answered: Why the different rules on the two sites?

flowersylveon said:
[...]
AI is in gray area which is better be safe than sorry
[...]

That doesn’t answer the question either. If the policy is “better safe than sorry” they should rather also ban explicit young anthro on e621 as it is here. So still I fail to understand why the different rules on e621 and e6ai.

fluffball said:
[...]
And based on some of the stuff ive seen here, I have no doubt that it was

If you say you have no doubt, it seems you can be sure?
But actually you can’t. It may or may not be. You are underestimating the models ability to generalize. If the model knows what human on feral is (from detailed furry artwork) and it knows what photorealism is (from random photos) it will be able to generate realistic human on feral...

fluffball said:
My argument was there's no way you can know if some of the feral content here is trained on real b*steality
And based on some of the stuff ive seen here, I have no doubt that it was

CP takes priority than bestiality in legal cases
It's more common to randomly stumble upon someone posting animal genitals than humans ones
still sadly that its something that occurs extremely common

silvicultor said:
That doesn’t answer the question either. If the policy is “better safe than sorry” they should rather also ban explicit young anthro on e621 as it is here. So still I fail to understand why the different rules on e621 and e6ai.

not all models were trained using e621 as material
not all models were solely trained using e621

i'm not even into cub stuff but i still can see that it is all fiction, but the moment you take a step further to take it to realism, example being humans and accurate anatomy
its very stretched to say that its fiction when you are on the edge of a real stuff

still all based on the creators intention
models dont have intention
they have prompts and guidance but even that doesnt matter

flowersylveon said:
[...]
not all models were trained using e621 as material
not all models were solely trained using e621

Obviously base models were trained on many different sources and not just e621, the real vanilla base models probably not at all.
But does that make my question less valid?

flowersylveon said:
there is no IRL anthro creatures we can get to have CP from

Anthro artists known for using real children as subjects for their cub/young art are still allowed to post on e621. I don't mean to be argumentative here but I do think it's worth mentioning as it means there is no escaping CSAM influence even when using e621-only models. Ethical generation would have to avoid the tag entirely even with a "pure" model.

weeml said:
Anthro artists known for using real children as subjects for their cub/young art are still allowed to post on e621. I don't mean to be argumentative here but I do think it's worth mentioning as it means there is no escaping CSAM influence even when using e621-only models. Ethical generation would have to avoid the tag entirely even with a "pure" model.

congratulations
you missed the point
and also using real children i just feel like it's either a pedophile or they just used the average anatomy of kids
what else you gonna tell me "they used real adults to be able to draw 2 adults having sex"
its dumb analogy

plus if the artists are drawing ACTUAL KNOWN directed children no matter if its anthro or human or humanoid or feral or whatever
if you see that shit just report it posts or if the artist upload it themselfs report them or just talk directly to a staff and let them know to take that stuff down

flowersylveon said:
congratulations
you missed the point
and also using real children i just feel like it's either a pedophile or they just used the average anatomy of kids
what else you gonna tell me "they used real adults to be able to draw 2 adults having sex"
its dumb analogy

plus if the artists are drawing ACTUAL KNOWN directed children no matter if its anthro or human or humanoid or feral or whatever
if you see that shit just report it posts or if the artist upload it themselfs report them or just talk directly to a staff and let them know to take that stuff down

I'm not missing the point, I'm expanding on it; though with how aggressive and scattered your posts are I can see how you're used to being misunderstood.

weeml said:
I'm not missing the point, I'm expanding on it; though with how aggressive and scattered your posts are I can see how you're used to being misunderstood.

Didnt thought myself as sounding aggressive
I just say swear words like i am a hazbin hotel character

b1techienne said:
Is it a thing, actually?

Yes. I have gotten actual human children while trying to generate furry porn. I do not have the ability to determine how the model generated what it did, but the result was a photo-realistic human child engaging in sex. No LoRAs involved, it was the base model (AutismMix, iirc, which is basically Stable Diffusion XL model + curated e621 content).

labyrias said:
Let me explain it for you in a way that is easy to understand.
A few months back i posted a few images of charmander/charmeleon m/f
If you are at all aware of pokemon, charmander is smaller than a charmeleon is
Due charmander being smaller than charmeleon, my images were taken down by one of our dear moderators with the reason given

I was involved in the removal of that one (and the reason given was my own text). The charmander was not a problem for being a charmander or even just being smaller (size dif), but due to several other characteristics. All of which I included in the deletion reason. She was off-canon in specific ways that made her look underage.

dr_crapola said:
I've gone over the rules, the FAQ, the help pages, the forums, and I still can't come to a conclusion on what e6ai's policies are regarding "young" content (i.e. cub/loli or appearing underage).

Your site, not mine, I don't care what the policy is either way. Just want to be crystal clear on what the rules are.

Reviewing the posts you've made that were deleted. The first several are yordles. Female yordles (because of their more human-like appearance compared to the males) tends to make them much more iffy than one would typically assume. There's a couple here I'm going to reinstate, but not all of them. Thems Fightin Herds characters are sussy because of the art style of the game. Not much we can do about that, unfortunately. Pokemon is a widely known enough IP that some critters can get a pass because everyone knows what an eevee looks like. TFH is not as well known (I actually had to google the character, even though I am aware of the game). Her extra long legs end up giving her that foal look typical of horses (I realize that sheep come out different, but again, perceptions and what people know: there are a lot of animals that get born with "legs they grow into" (and even adult sheep don't have legs like that)).

Moderation on this site has become notoriously bad for relying heavily on personal preferences and subjective decisions. I just saw a post (fully complying with content rules to my knowledge) get deleted with the stated reason being 'Does not meet minimum quality standards (Artifacting or Color Anomalies) eye' when the character is facing away from the camera, with their head far enough away that the actual visible eye already had very little detail to it due to perspective, to the point that any 'artifacting' or 'color anomalies' could not be discerned from normal expected reduction of detail.

And this isn't the only time I've seen this. I've seen images deleted for 'deformed hands', when the hands were not even visible in the image. It honestly seems like this site has some rogue mods making up the rules as they go, and it should really be addressed.

The possibility of CP being present in training data is something that could be true in literally any image generation AI anywhere. If you somehow managed to scalp CP from the internet without knowing that you're doing it, I would have to congratulate you on both being somehow intelligent enough to pull images from data that realistically is buried excessively deep in the darkest corners of the internet--and is also inaccessible through modern search engines since they have underlying algorithms to specifically deny populating their results with illegal material--and then also being stupid enough to allow your training data to be filled up with scalped images without even bothering to double-check through it yourself. There's no way to argue against this besides saying "well, X people are very careful about their training data." Okay? How can you prove that? Verifiably? Are you 100% positive that there's /zero/ chance that illegal material is present in there? If you aren't, then with your own logic you must ban the use of that model simply on the principle that you can't be 100% certain that it can't be used to generate illegal content. There is /absolutely/ real zoo porn present in the training of some of these images, but we're not going to complain about that?

I have to question how the fear of illegal material in training data is even relevant to cub porn. The only difference between cub porn and vanilla furry porn essentially boils down to nothing more than size difference and proportions. Maybe sometimes clothing. Getting real, there are probably images already hosted on this site that were generated with LoRA that contained illegal content in their training data. How do you even go about policing that besides banning cub porn as some knee-jerk preventative measure? Because that doesn't prevent LoRA with illegal material in their training data from being present on this site.

I have to say that, realistically, there is no way you could prove that banning cub porn has a verifiable use as a security measure when equal holes exist elsewhere. I feel like this just ends up boiling down to "the guys who made this site find cub porn disagreeable, so they came up with this cope answer to throw at people who questioned their decision to ban it." Personally, I just can't see any explanation for the ban that isn't overly emotional and flawed in reasoning and it feels dishonest. I would genuinely rather have the answer of "we just don't like it." At least that would be consistent.

ieiji said:
The possibility of CP being present in training data is something that could be true in literally any image generation AI anywhere. If you somehow managed to scalp CP from the internet without knowing that you're doing it, I would have to congratulate you on both being somehow intelligent enough to pull images from data that realistically is buried excessively deep in the darkest corners of the internet--and is also inaccessible through modern search engines since they have underlying algorithms to specifically deny populating their results with illegal material--and then also being stupid enough to allow your training data to be filled up with scalped images without even bothering to double-check through it yourself. There's no way to argue against this besides saying "well, X people are very careful about their training data." Okay? How can you prove that? Verifiably? Are you 100% positive that there's /zero/ chance that illegal material is present in there? If you aren't, then with your own logic you must ban the use of that model simply on the principle that you can't be 100% certain that it can't be used to generate illegal content. There is /absolutely/ real zoo porn present in the training of some of these images, but we're not going to complain about that?

I have to question how the fear of illegal material in training data is even relevant to cub porn. The only difference between cub porn and vanilla furry porn essentially boils down to nothing more than size difference and proportions. Maybe sometimes clothing. Getting real, there are probably images already hosted on this site that were generated with LoRA that contained illegal content in their training data. How do you even go about policing that besides banning cub porn as some knee-jerk preventative measure? Because that doesn't prevent LoRA with illegal material in their training data from being present on this site.

I have to say that, realistically, there is no way you could prove that banning cub porn has a verifiable use as a security measure when equal holes exist elsewhere. I feel like this just ends up boiling down to "the guys who made this site find cub porn disagreeable, so they came up with this cope answer to throw at people who questioned their decision to ban it." Personally, I just can't see any explanation for the ban that isn't overly emotional and flawed in reasoning and it feels dishonest. I would genuinely rather have the answer of "we just don't like it." At least that would be consistent.

I cant help but agree with this. It's perfectly okay if you just don't want c*b to be on the site, but taking down some content because it looks kinda young under the guise of "it could have been made with real CP" makes no sense!
And I also don't get allowing feral art because b*stiality isn't as "high priority"
It's still illegal isn't it?
I'm definitely not advocating for banning feral content though since it's my personal preference, but I feel like my removed generation followed all the rules

I also wanna say I don't want any b*stiality content in case someone tries to mix my words enough to get a different conclusion

ieiji said:
I would have to congratulate you on both being somehow intelligent enough to pull images from data that realistically is buried excessively deep in the darkest corners of the internet

google isnt the only way to search for things
its a search engine for sure but how did you think people used to get urls from websites?
either by sharing or having a crawler which is literally what google is but "highly advanced" over the years

aka
just because YOU cant find it
doesnt mean you can't find it

it's relatively easy to set up something to scrap and craw through networks that nobody has ever found, heard, knew existance or knew someone could access
if you know what you are about to do
through the years people just only used(by majority) google and didnt had to have any other crawlers or search engines leaving some illegal still being able to be found if you know what you are doing

tl dr
it is hard to find that type of content but isnt THAT hard if you have little knowledge and power

but also coming across irl bestiality content you can do that by fucking accident or without your consent

thedeinonychus said:
Moderation on this site has become notoriously bad for relying heavily on personal preferences and subjective decisions. I just saw a post (fully complying with content rules to my knowledge) get deleted with the stated reason being 'Does not meet minimum quality standards (Artifacting or Color Anomalies) eye' when the character is facing away from the camera, with their head far enough away that the actual visible eye already had very little detail to it due to perspective, to the point that any 'artifacting' or 'color anomalies' could not be discerned from normal expected reduction of detail.

And this isn't the only time I've seen this. I've seen images deleted for 'deformed hands', when the hands were not even visible in the image. It honestly seems like this site has some rogue mods making up the rules as they go, and it should really be addressed.

Totally agree. I haven’t been on here very long, but I’ve seen legitimate posts getting removed for questionable reasons which appear to follow the rules, meanwhile, other posts of questionable quality get to stay up. It would be unfortunate if it is due to others not being bothered to tag accurately and/or utilize the blacklist, or personal agendas as you’ve suggested.

I think we can all agree it’s best to be consistent with the rules and encourage more accurate tagging while utilizing blacklists to exclude content you don’t want to see. I understand it’s their site-their rules. The staff volunteer their valuable time here and others pay to host it, so they can do what they want. But taking down art because you don’t agree with it or don’t like it bugs me.

After seeing over 100 deleted posts in my favorites (I’m not claiming they are/aren’t all justifiably taken down), I’ve began looking elsewhere for other alternative sites. I’d rather have to scroll past works I’m not necessarily looking for/are of lower quality versus having to save things before they are taken down. Especially if they are from an unknown director and/or have no alternate source(s), which is pretty common.

busahou said:
Okay, then the original argument (model might've been trained on CP so it's banned) shouldn't apply either.

Especially for ferals, I doubt having human pictures could be in any shape or form be used in generating ferals, beither adult and young.