About nine months ago this lifeboat came into existence following massive purges by Reddit admins against non-establishment conforming materials. Those purges never ended, which is why this particular forum has become the overall bastion for KIA2/GG materials.
On the creation of this site we were presented a set of 16 rules which we, the users, were questioned about. Overwhelming we found that the rules were overbearing and redundant.
Many of these rules are redundant, unnecessary, or bad.
The most obvious of which is that there are THREE rules covering NSFW/pornographic material. It was pointed out by myself as well as numerous other users that these were redundant and pointless, and the assumption was that these would be changed as the rules were simply temporary.
It's nine months on.
Those are only the most egregiously obvious.
The reason I make this post today is that our rules are so open-ended and confusing that even our illustrious mods have no idea WTF they mean.
I was personally banned for a day for a rule 15 violation after which u/DomitiusOfMassilia/ admitted he misunderstood what the rule meant. Immediately after I watched him make the same mistake with another. Now, a week after, I notice that the majority of action is taken under rules 2, 15, and 16. Almost all content removals are based on slurs/bad language/insults.
This post is largely upvoted while Dom's statement of removal is largely downvoted. That's just one example. This is becoming far too common. Please do not make the same mistakes that murdered KIA1.
Note that I am not calling out Dom specifically. I think the rules themselves are dogshit tier and must be fixed. I like this community, even if I do think you're a bunch of faggots. And goddamnit u/TheImpossible1 there's no women involved here so kindly fuck off.
Can we please have a serious discussion about our rules and the impacts that they have, and FIX THEM? We do not need SIXTEEN RULES, especially when it's clear not even our mods understand them all.
One more point.
I'm going to assume the point is based on legal issues, since you maintain that "porn" cannot contain the content described by this rule.
This rule functions only with a discernment of intent behind an item's distribution. I'm not great at the legalese game, but this seems very exploitable to me. It largely has to be based on claims, right? Could you append the rule to describe how the intent is verified?
There will be occasions where it's obvious, of course. But as it stands, wouldn't a simple drawing posted online alongside a text message 'this work may not be redistibruted without explicit consent' fall under this as soon as you're notified? What if it isn't the artist or their lawyer contacting you? What if the evidence is falsified?
It's basically the IP law nonsense that youtubers struggle with now. I don't really expect us to receive that kind of harassment, but it's not impossible.
Initial thought: would it be permitted if an archive is available? Legal stuff is real iffy, but that seems like some kind of lead because archives generally only function on public documents (I think? never tested). Then you'd have to make it clear whether we can post archive links that depict rule4-breaking items. I think this has come up on reddit in the past, but I don't recall your ruling.
Yes, because excluding some forms of pornography, most pornography is a commercial product which is created from a voluntary contract.
It's certainly possible that it could be exploited. Like, if Hunter Biden said the laptop's pictures were ISM, he actually has an argument to that. However, these aren't just leaked nudes, some of them are clearly felonies. It's not him and a girlfriend. It's him and a prostitute. Him and several prostitutes. Him, several prostitutes, and crack on a fucking scale. Him and his niece.
I think that at some point there has to be subjective analysis here about the news value of a high-profile person, whom the media is protecting, having documentation of his crimes be publicly available. Compared to some activist or random individual having their private nudes to their ex-boyfriend leaked to someone.
I don't really see how it would make a difference to rule 4.