Chaotic Talks: Don't break a website's rules and then cry censorship

     Oh shoot, you know what I can do now that I have this blog? ARTICLES! I can finally post articles on things I have thoughts on. So what's on today's docket that has me this hyper? The line between censorship and moderation. I was browsing DeviantART when I noticed that a long time account had finally been banned. Normally I would be concerned... if the user was not posting art that would potentially break any website's rules. Naturally they claimed they were being censored on their new account... and, well, I have to wholeheartedly disagree with them. Honestly I'm surprised they lasted that long, especially with how anal DeviantART has been getting as of late.

    For the sake of privacy and to avoid starting drama, lets refer to this person as Canary. You see, Canary had a habit of commissioning fetish art... fetish art of underage cartoon characters. Yeah, that is what we are dealing with here. I stumbled upon their new account prior to typing this where they said their original account was banned and that they would not be bringing back the majority of their uploads. And of course they claimed DeviantART was censoring them. I would be inclined to agree with them if the art they uploaded did not include underage cartoon characters...

    While I do agree DeviantART is overly strict and needs to chill out before the website dies, if they want to disallow fetish art of underage characters, that is their right to do so. It is their website after all. Mind you they need to relax a bit as they are trying to extend this rule to aged up characters and non consensual situations. As an aside, DeviantART, changing the EULA and TOS on the fly like that is not exactly "consensual," if you catch my drift. Seriously, you are going to kill the website if you keep chasing people off like that.

    Back to Canary: The art they commissioned were sexual-leaning in nature, no two ways about it. And I have seen their FurAffinity and Pixiv accounts featuring the stuff they definitely could not post on DeviantART. Look, I do not support censoring artists on the grounds of them being "problematic" or "advertiser friendly." On the other hand, I'd rather not have kids see sexually suggestive or explicit art, however. This is where the fine line of censorship and moderation comes into play. The way I see it is this: If the rule exists (in good faith), then it should be followed. If I create a group for latex art and say "no art of underage characters," I expect you to follow that rule.

    Something I have to point out is that mature/kinky/NSFW art of underage characters is not illicit material. A cartoon character is not a real person. To constitute as CSAM, the subject would have to be a real person and it would also have to have been a real situation that was recorded. No one was actually harmed in the making of that art. Of course, such lovely individuals as Shadman push the boundary of what counts as art and illicit material, but the less said about that degenerate, the better. When regulatory bodies claim that art of fictional characters is illicit and focus on going after artists, they do nothing but harm actual victims of CSAM by not helping them.

    Going after artists is performative activism at its finest. More often than not people ignore the actual predators and these issues persist. Claiming that artists are the problem is censorship. Asking people to not post a type of art as a whole is moderation. It is whether or not the rules are being applied equally that matters here. If you do not want to be associated with a specific type of art, that is your right. As much as I disagree with DeviantART, I respect their decision to not be associated with NSFW art... I do not agree with it, but then again, it is not my website.

    Although it is pretty hysterical when you consider that DeviantART went all in on AI art with DreamUp. AI datasets are never ethically sourced and AI tech bros have made it clear that they want to aggressively replace real artists, which is not consensual I might add. Alas, that is a topic for another discussion.

    And if you are going to cry that I have no idea what I am talking about, that I have never had anything deleted... Are you sure about that? Remember Simon Briggs? Now that was censorship. Simon is not an underage character and was introduced into Phantasm LLC as an adult. Unlike Canary, I actually had a case against DeviantART, and the same went for Alodo when one of the drawings is his 100 locks series got taken down. While we both lean into the anime aesthetic heavily, our characters are adults at the end of the day (on top of not being overtly sexual, but that is beside the point). Canary's uploads featured objectively and officially underage characters in fetishistic situations that were sexual-leaning in nature. As I said previously, these characters are not real people, but if DeviantART does not want that on their website, then so be it.

    I want to make it clear to Canary that I am NOT attacking you in any way. This is an objective and fair critique and an insight into where I stand on these matters. Truthfully you would probably be better off here or on a similar platform. Blogger is actually fairly lenient and cartoon characters are not real people. I mean, for real, DeviantART is a powder keg of tomfoolery. Why do you think I have not posted any latex art in a while, given what happened with Simon?

Addendum 1/5/2025: So I guess Blogger is not as lenient as I potentially thought as I had to take down one of my posts... Not to get political here, but we really do need a digital bill of rights or updates to the constitution to include the internet.

    All of this nonsense with these overly strict standards is a symptom of a bigger problem: payment processors. It does not matter where you stand on the political spectrum, companies like Master Card and Visa have too much power. They could cripple an entire country if they wanted to. And adding insult to injury, they are total hypocrites. So a Japanese dating website for otaku is not okay, but Bad Dragon is allowed to continue unhindered? MAKE IT MAKE SENSE, GUYS! Quite frankly I think payment processing should be made a utility, exempt from any prejudice or preconceived notions.

    And while we are here, let us continue with another user who will probably be facing similar circumstances if not already. Let us call this next artist Cardinal. Cardinal is a different artist who is... they are a shotacon artist who should have stayed on Rule 34. They consistently draw underage characters in overtly sexual situations and posted censored versions on DeviantART. I just checked and yeah, they finally got banned. I checked two years ago and they were still around, so I am surprised it took DeviantART this long to notice them.

    There is nothing I can say in favor of Cardinal. They were breaking the rules since day 1 and their art only got more sexual as time went on. Quite frankly I am baffled as to how they thought DeviantART was a good idea given how strict they are. This artist is basically drawing porn and DeviantART never allowed that, even from the get-go. This person even got banned from Twitter... HOW DO EVEN YOU PULL THAT ONE OFF!? Say what you want about Elon, but he has been pro-free speech for the most part. Twitter is very lenient with NSFW art, but to get banned from Twitter these days is an achievement.

    Cardinal is an instance where I am actually on the side of the websites in taking action against him. At least with Canary it is more fetish than overtly sexual situations, but Cardinal is just there to jack off, consequences be damned. Also Cardinal's art is bad... really bad. They are an artist that finds one pose they are good at it and keeps drawing it. If you browse their art, you will notice that it has not changed from ten years ago, aside from shifting colored pencils to digital art. They only draw one pose and perspective and rely on warping aspects of the drawing to create different size perspectives. Occasionally they will draw a character from the side, but it will still be from the same perspective. 

    Seriously, Cardinal; purchase some art pose books, grab some character sheets from Settei Dreams, AND LEARN HOW TO DRAW. Also for the love of everyone's sanity, WOULD YOU STOP DRAWING UNDERAGE CHARACTERS FOR FIVE MINUTES!?! The only reason you have seen any kind of success is because you have attracted an audience of perverts that are getting off of your "art." They do not actually care about you or your ideas. Also for the love of good writing, your main OC is not powerful, nor are they unstoppable because of your "lore" or "art." And the fact that they have no personality or character outside of they enjoy getting off is an insult to writers everywhere. Your OC is a degenerate, nothing more, nothing less.

    Why am I getting so heated about this? I have some history with Cardinal as I was blocked by them a long time ago. While I am to blame for some of it (debatable, considering I think Cardinal may have anger issues), quite frankly that was a blessing in disguise and I would have forgotten about them had they not spent years stalking my DeviantART page after the block. To see someone waste their potential as an artist on degenerate, low quality, porn art is insufferable, not helped by the fact that art has not evolved in the past ten years. I am aware that my art is not perfect, but also consider the following:

• My Phantasm LLC characters actually have lore, background, and personality.
• My characters are not obsessed with getting off.
• I do not draw underage characters in fetishistic or sexual situations.
• I am actively trying to improve my art, even if progress is slow.

    Chaotic, don't you follow ModeSeven777 though? Yes... but here is the difference: his art is actually GOOD. And while Gretal's age is up in the air, at least he consistently draws adults/adult-like characters getting busy. My interest in Concession is waning a bit, but I will never say his art is bad or problematic. And Concession actually has a story, even if it gets buried in characters having sex or pleasuring themselves... Seriously, Mode, WHAT THE FLIP HAPPENED TO HANZ, RIKTER, AND CUTLASS? COME ON! Good lord, Hanz is going to have an aneurysm when he sees the current state of his team... What was I talking about again?

    We seem to have gone from a nuanced discussion to "cue Hell March, I'm going to go on the warpath about how this one artist sucks..." Let us bring this back in: There is a fine line between censorship and moderation. Websites have their rules and it is ideal to follow them. If you do not agree with them, go somewhere else. Put your money where your mouth is and vote with your wallet. At the same time, do not cry censorship when you openly break the rules. And maybe do not post pornographic art on a website that never allowed that in the first place.

    The whole censorship versus moderation discussion is annoying. Unlike a lot of people, I actually do see some merit to censorship, as long as it is being done in good faith. No, I would not want my kids seeing highly sexual, NSFW art. At the same time, many people have an agenda no matter what their ideology is. They see quashing artists as a way to make themselves look good instead of taking measures to actually improve society. And that is another thing too: People do not respect artists. That is funny given that art is the crux of culture and society. Without art, we have no stories, without stories we have no culture, and without culture we have no society. 

    Keep making art and improving, but pick your battles wisely. Do not die on a hill that is going to get bulldozed in the near future. Instead, take your business elsewhere and make it clear that you are not going to be pushed around. These websites and companies need us, not the other way around. Without us, they go belly up. And if they do not respect us, we will go elsewhere.