After an incident where anti-loli false flaggots got an account wrongfully banned for cp, ottman decided to ban loli by making false arguments similar to what 8chan owner jim watkins and gab owner andrew torba made.
Minds userbase is having none of it, and are actively calling ottman out for lying while demanding this decision be reversed.
new edit: ottman is having a meltdown, calling people bots and deleting posts.
edit: the mods need to consider banning the anti-loli spergs on this site for pointless infighting.
Evil is not evil is not evil. Looking at KOS-MOS, at one year old because it's an android but drawn as a fully developed woman who has all the knowledge of the most war-torn adult, and looking at Mieu, a one year old android but drawn as a fully developed woman but who is entirely innocent and clueless of the world and sexuality, and looking at Chachazero, a one year old android (lots of them exist, apparently) who is drawn as an underdeveloped woman but who is knowledgable about the roles of sexuality and maturity in society, and... Hmm... I'm drawing a blank for a one-year-old android that is both ignorant and underdeveloped to round out the quadrant, but you get the point I'm sure one exists.
Each one of the four quadrants starts with "one-year-old android". But KOS-MOS, with a form of an adult and the mind of an adult (if a PTSD-filled psychotic one), clearly isn't "loli" by most definitions except the broadest technical sense. The Terminator isn't a shota, but by strict definition, Arnold Schwartzenegger is, indeed, a shota actor, because that sentient humanoid isn't over 18 years, and he appears naked in some scenes. The scandal!
So your definition of "certain age" doesn't work.
The other three quadrants are trickier. The one I couldn't think of an example of, yeah, obviously shota/loli. Child-like in mentality and appearance (and age, as all four are 1-year-old robots). That's bad. But what of Mieu, physically adult-scale, but mind of a child? Obviously, that's bad, right? The whole point of the laws is to protect child innocence and minds. But if I showed you a picture of Mieu, you would not know she had that tabula-rasa mind. And does that mean innocent idiots are never legally adults? And in quadrant three, does someone with, say, puberty blockers so they don't grow like standard kids never qualify as an adult no matter their age or wisdom? Now, Chachazero, being a SMART one-year-old android, commissioned an adult body to be made for herself. At what point in the data transfer process does it go from Loli to not? If they copy-paste instead of cut-paste, is she simultaneously both despite being the same entity?
There's a reason the official definition for these things is "I'll know it when I see it", because simply defining something as you did, leaves much to be desired. Too many loopholes to close.
So TL;DR: Your definition is bad. The proper definition is "it is 100% subjective, but ideally subjective based upon a communal agreed-upon case-by-case assessment."
[EDIT: And before you say "but true-AI androids don't exist!", they do in anime and video games and books. And we're talking about books, not things that exist in real life. So you need a definition that includes magic, ageless entities, aliens with accelerated lifecycles, and robots.]
The physical age of a non-human is not relevant to the question. A newly constructed Terminator does not look like a newborn, does not think like a newborn and does not act like a newborn, so it does not possess any of the attributes of a child that would appeal to a pedophile. On the other hand only a pedophile would want to sexualise Grogu from the Mandalorean, because despite being described as 50 years old he looks, thinks and acts like a child.
Ah, but the Terminator DOES act like a child. He acts upon pure id and simple instruction. His mental immaturity is, in fact, a part of why he loses in Terminator 1, and is core to the character development in Terminator 2. He is "innocent". There's plenty of scenes in T2 where the actual literal child is giving him morality, sociality, and life lessons, because his own mind is less developed than that of said child. While I would not pretend to know the machinations of how a pedophile works internally, I leave that to your experienced mind, The Terminator does act like some real children would if you'd give them a machine gun, I imagine, knowing the callousness and carelessness of youth.
And that's yet again a reason why it is difficult to define in fictional settings with exceptional circumstances.
But here's a key point. Because the Terminator LOOKS old, you're fine with it, despite the EXACT OPPOSITE being the purpose of Law (It is to protect the innocent regardless of appearance, not protect people who look innocent regardless of actual). You're starting from a biological purpose standpoint, not a legal or societal one: You do not risk harm people before sexual maturity because it puts at risk the future reproduction of your species, but turn a blind eye to those who are past sexual maturity physically, a literal blind eye, you did not see the clear evidence across four hours of film footage that the whole point of The Terminator is that it is not socially mature. A fine standpoint, truly little is more concretely moral than our base evolutionary psychology, but that does not map well to fiction. Exceptions in real life, for example the profoundly disabled, also exist to this measure you're using, but that likely will not impact your day-to-day life.