Concerned Users of Derpibooru

@Background Pony #89B9  
The way I see it:
 
It’s like a new fancy pub opens up on your street, you and your friends all go there, and things are generally great for years…
 
Then they suddenly decide they aren’t going to serve anyone that likes football anymore, nothing illegal, totally within their rights as a business.
 
You don’t like football, not really a sports guy, but you recognize that isn’t really fair.
 
When you complain, they tell you that “you can always go somewhere else” if you don’t like it.
 
But the only other pub in town is kinda dingy, run down, and the bathroom’s busted.
 
The next closest pub is three towns over.
 
Dropping the analogy, the implication is clear.
 
“Do as we say, because we both know you don’t have anywhere else to go.”

@Cammera  
Neat, I’ve been ignored on the forums all day.
 
Guess I just have no presence or charisma then, whole different problem.

Based on the use of the word “trivializes” in the new rule I’m guessing all portrayals must be educational/informative or negative.
 
Also, someone apparently said that the change would be reverted once certain conditions were met but that could take a century, but I can’t find it… Did I hallucinate it?

@The Walhi Llama  
Passive pressure works both ways basically.
 
 
@The Walhi Llama  
Have a howdy too.
 
@Wiimeiser  

 
They instated that with the BLM policy as well I believe. Have had a hard time keeping track of everything being said with this one.

@doloresbridge  
I’m not sure if I should ask for examples or not, because personally I’ve never seen it go like that (and I’ve been on the web for two decades and seen new standards that could be called censorship enacted several times in response to issues on multiple sites, the biggest two I remember being the two google incidents on tv tropes, where they had to cut most of the porny tropes, and rename several other problematically named tropes as well as step up enforcement of existing standards and the site is so much better for it), and it sounds like an example of the slippery slope fallacy to me.
 
It always seems like that when so-called censorship is enacted, it’s because there is some underlying issue that needs to be dealt with (losing ad money, dealing with a clique of trolling/harassing users that don’t quite cross the line, etc.) or something that they didn’t consider came up and they needed new standards to deal with it and the easiest and most sensible way of doing so is to come down hard on the problematic stuff, while only going further when necessary. Plus there’s always the question of what do the people who create and maintain the site, who have absolute control outside of what their webhost is willing and unwilling to allow, want to host. You don’t have to like it, but it’s their decision.
 
(That came out more verbose than I expected)

@Background Pony #89B9  

 
Well, let’s just say I’ve seen communities start trying to improve themselves and then go to even banning not just certain political ideologies but even certain methods of reasoning and debate. I would post examples but I’m not sure it’d count as offsite drama or break a rule. I will say that I’m not against improvement or trying to protect the vulnerable in principle just make sure your doing it under a clear framework that doesn’t lead to confusion or a power grab to a few.
 

 
I’ve actually tried to bring that up in this up. The possibility of external pressure may mean they have no choice, but they still handled the actual groundwork very wrong and deleted legitimate criticism while giving a variety of answers. I think the distrust is legitimate. I don’t want to fully burn the bridge but I completely understand the paranoia.
 

 
I think that trolling is sometimes used as an excuse, sometimes is legitimate. I will say that I am absolutely against harassment and blind antagonism.
 

 
This is the weakest line of your reasoning. Don’t use it. Because a lot of mods and admins can be completely arbitrary and saying because they own the site that its their right and we shouldn’t protest would hurt your ability to mobilize against anything that a site does that you don’t like. I don’t even mean this for Derpibooru but just in general.

@doloresbridge  
Legitimate, no (due to “being bullied into this position” and in turn bullying the users of Derpibooru into same position), justified, yes.
 
@Wiimeiser  
https://derpibooru.org/forums/meta/topics/ask-the-mods-important-questions-jk-it-s-politics-again?post_id=4832983#post_4832983

@Barhandar  
Yes, that was the one.

@Background Pony #89B9  
Rules 0 and N existing means that you can’t “not quite cross the line”, if persistent hostile-but-not-explicitly-against-the-rules behavior is identified you’re supposed to get banned. Though enforcement is clearly lacking, given one of the examples two weeks ago was not extending subsequent bans to people who are only active during Pride Month and do nothing but antagonize LGBT when active, because their previous ban was too long ago to count (i.e. failing to take context into account).
 
@doloresbridge  
Note that “protecting the vulnerable” requires them actually being vulnerable, if you’re protecting someone who can stand up for themselves (willingness doesn’t account because the competent specialist for solving willingness to stand up issues is “the psychologist”) for “being vulnerable”, you are actually debilitating them and rendering them more vulnerable in the future through making them dependent on your protection.

@doloresbridge
 

 
I disagree. Let me explain why.
 
Yes they can be arbitrary and so on and so forth, and there’s nothing that you can do about it except convince them that they’re wrong. You can mobilize as you put it, but in the end that will only work under some circumstances. In the end, I believe this xkcd explains it succinctly, just consider it about site rules and cries of censorship rather than free speech:
 

 
(and in this case, they’re showing a lot of images and certain artists the door because they don’t want to be associated with them, and a few others are showing themselves the door in response)
 
The siterunners are in control and can decide what goes and what doesn’t in the end. If they decide (as in this case) no Nazi promotion, glorification, or trivialization, and can’t be convinced otherwise, then that’s that. And in the end that’s how it should be. No one should decide how the site is run except the site runner(s) and the webhost, who gets to decide if they want x associated with them (for example, the Daily Stormer dehosting fun. I followed that for weeks with a gleeful grin on my face). I doubt more than a few percentage points will drop off from site traffic over this change, if that. If there was a mass exodus, which I suspect won’t happen, then maybe you’d have a point, but I doubt there will be.
 
And as I said, you don’t like the moderation policy here, you can either deal, or find (or start) another site that will better fit your standards (and it was either in this thread or another, but one user compared it to starting your own country. It’s really not. It’s fifteen to thirty dollars a month and the maintenance of the software on top of keeping your userbase within the confines you set while the host keeps your site up and running, saving you the trouble, vs. taking control of a chunk of land, building and maintaining its infrastructure, policies, laws, etc. The two are absolutely not comparable).
 
(Again, I’m getting verbose. Must be my annoyance about this whole sordid affair)

@Zerowinger  
if they see lossing their authority as a punishment, they need to have it removed and come down to earth.  
Even without that we don’t trust a lot of the staff anymore, simple as. They’ve proved undeserving.

@Background Pony #89B9  
Here’s the thing though. A private company can do basically whatever they’d like. However as long as Derpibooru wants to maintain at least an image of caring about it’s community, I believe that they do have an obligation to listen.

@Background Pony #89B9  
That xkcd comic is a false equivalence in the framework of this argument.  
DeRPI isn’t an art thread or even, for the purpose if the argument, a community: deRPI is an archive of pony art that built its community based on tollerance via neutrality. The community that built around these principles feels betrayed that they were violated and wants to return to neutrality and open discourse— neither of which has been displayed by most of the staff, which has been managing the archive inconsistently because of what I assume to be internal infighting, as the head of operations does nothing in an attitude that comes accross as very let-the-kids-argue. You have to realize that in this, even the handlers are being cowtowed against their will. They didn’t even know.  
Even more, the xkcd guy approaches most situations as what he is, an engineer. His experience doesn’t really apply to an art community formed by people at the edge of societal norms. We’re really closre to flower power or something.

@Background Pony #89B9
 
People should really stop trotting out that xkcd image all the time
 
It becomes a bit of a problem when sites supplant public forums (and claim to be free of censorship/whatever)
 
That’s not to say derpibooru is big enough to be considered such, but what you’re essentially doing is equating the law to morality, and that doesn’t end well. People are arguing for free speech and freedom from censorship as a moral right within this scope

@Background Pony #8AC8  
>a private company  
Reminder that they’re crowdfunded by us.  
And that its possible a single guy took the choice without consulting the rest of the staff.

@Cammera  
It did?
 
Because reading the mod responses in this and the other threads tells me that the site has never been neutral, nor was it built around neutrality. It’s apparently always had a rule against promoting Nazism and hate groups, as well as inflammatory art and the like, on top of banning things that could get them in legal trouble.
 
So I suspect that there was a disconnect between how certain people have seen the site and how it actually is, and now that the disconnect is no longer there, certain people are bitching about it.

@Background Pony #89B9  
You’d have a point if the people in charge were following their communities lead on the matter and applying their reasoning fairly to the content they host.  
In this case, the people in charge are dictating to the community based on pressure from a source outside of said community, and applying their reasoning to an arbitary portion of the content.  
And on top of all that, the people in charge aren’t even unified on the matter.

@Array  
Whhile that is a debate for elsewhere, as it’s getting political, the site’s legal rights override your moral rights in all cases, I’m afraid.
 
Here’s a court decision about said rights you talked about, actually: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2020/02/first-amendment-doesnt-apply-on-youtube-judges-reject-prageru-lawsuit/
 
Also, a question I’ve always had: what moral right do you (general you) have to make a site owned by someone else host views that you hold but they want nothing to do with? Assuming that someone else is a non-government entity, of course

@Background Pony #BA40  
And?
 
Site runners can choose whether or not to listen to their community. Nothing you stated changes that.

@Cammera  
Would certainly explain the lack of consistency in things. And crowdfunded, even more so. I doubt every person contributing is going to be onboard with censorship.
 
It’s not like a solution doesn’t exist, it’s been the standard for many years. Filter it. You don’t see me on a holy crusade against the things I don’t like.
 
I would also wonder how the single person theory works out. It would have to be site owner or somebody higher in rank than the other moderators. Otherwise it wouldn’t get enforced. Maybe it’s a small group of mods strongarming the rest? Hard tell as I don’t think we get to see what goes on behind the scenes.

@Cammera  
And, in this case, if you disagree with the decision, take away your dollar. If enough do over this decision, they may change their minds. If not, then oh well.
 
Honestly, that’s your only real recourse aside from complaining about it on the forums

@Background Pony #89B9  
Please read again what Array said:  

 
Just because Derpibooru can ban whatever kind of image it wants doesn’t mean it should. By preventing expression in a particular way the site is reducing the utility users enjoy from it and indicates to them that future curtailments may happen. The community is saying “No” and although it cannot physically prevent such changes from going into effect, it can legally protest and boycott the site.

@Background Pony #2A39  
I did read it, and my thoughts on it were exactly what I posted.
 
Especially the question I asked at the end, because, as far as I can see that’s what it boils down to. It seems like certain people are saying that they have the moral right topic certain things on this site that the admins do not want here, in spite of the latter bouldering they don’t want those particular things, and the former are crying free speech and/or censorship and/or making claims about the site that were never true to get their way
 
To use an analogy, say I set up a writing critique group at a local casual dining restauarant, open To all who sign up, with clearly defined policies on what is and isn’t allowed (I use this analogy because I was part of such a group until it disbanded for reasons unrelated to behavior. Fortunately we never encountered the scenario described here) One day, someone new joins, and through an unforeseen loophole, manages to bring in something that, while not against the rules, is not something I want to be read in my group. Say, a long screed praising Hitler. Is it really his moral right to keep bringing similar stuff on the grounds of free speech If I change the rules to disallow such crap and tell him not to do so, and tell him to not come back if he keeps doing so? Because that’s how I see this situation.
 
If I’m wrong feel free to explain how.
 
(Same bgp, just changed to my tablet from my desktop)

No one is saying that Derpi CANT ban whatever they want. They absolutely can. If they wanted to ban every picture with the letter E in it, or every picture with trees, they are well within their rights and can do so whenever. No one is arguing against this fact.  
We’re simply concerned about an art platform which up until very recently, simply said “don’t like it? use the tags” and that was that. Now that they’re banning certain images under uncertain rules with no transparency about what’s going on behind the scenes, and little to no feedback from the site leaders, we’re worried about where this leads to.  
Again, they’re free to do whatever they want. They could ban everyone who disagrees with what’s going on, and we’d just have to take it as it is. But so long as we can fight for freedom of speech, even if we don’t believe in or support the ideologies in question, we should. As artists, it should be our duty, since our entire hobby, profession and career revolves around the unquestionable right to freedom of expression.

The cartoon really frustrates me - not only because of its obnoxious smugness, but because of its myopic take. Sure, it’s not technically wrong in what it says, but it completely ignores all sorts of contexts, such as any moral dimension there may be to the question of diversity of thought and expression vs hysterical mob censorship, and the question of whether the tactics of hysterical mob censorship of the unlike could perhaps have the potential to be manipulated and channelled in a way that did have a tendency to infringe “freedom of speech”, not only in the broader way any normal person understands it (i.e. you can say what you want without having your life, livelihood and career destroyed by frothing fanatics or power-mad officials), but even in the very narrow way the 1st Amendment defines it (i.e. vis-a-vis the official coercive power of the constituted state).