One of the admins at lemmy.blahaj.zone asked us to purge a community and all of its users because they thought it was full of child sexual abuse material, aka CSAM, fka kiddy porn. We assured them that we had checked this comm thoroughly and we were satisfied that all of the models on it were of age.

The admin then demanded we purge the comm because they mistook it for CSAM, and claimed that the entire point of the community was to make people think it was CSAM. We vehemently disagreed that that was in fact the point of the community, but they decided to defederate from us anyway. That is of course their choice, but we will not purge our communities or users because someone else makes a mistake of fact, and then lays the responsibility for their mistake at our feet.

If someone made a community intended to fool people into thinking it was kiddy porn, that would be a real problem. If someone of age goes online and pretends – not roleplays, but pretends with intent to deceive – to be a child and makes porn, that is a real problem. Nobody here is doing that.

One of the reasons we run our instance the way that we do is that we want it to be inclusive. We don’t body shame, and we believe that all adults have a right to sexual expression. That means no adult on our instance is too thin, fat, bald, masculine, old, young, cis, gay, etc., to be sexy, and that includes adults that look younger than some people think they should. Everyone has a right to lust and to be lusted after. There’s no way to draw a line that says “you can’t like adult people that look like X” without crossing a line that we will not cross.

EDIT: OK, closing this post to new comments. Everything that needs saying has been said. Link to my convo with the blahaj admin here.

  • @Bendavisunlv6
    link
    English
    241 year ago

    They said that you were okay with the fact that users were specifically trying to make it seem like they were underage. Good to hear the other side of the story.

    • Mikey Mongol OPMA
      link
      English
      361 year ago

      I explicitly denied that several times, as you can see.

      • @Bendavisunlv6
        link
        English
        141 year ago

        Their misrepresentation of your position is arguably slander in the legal sense in that it attributes a criminal intent to you. I would not be cool with their statement remaining as is. They can say that y’all disagreed about whether it was child fetishization in the first place, which is accurate.