What is Burggit’s policy on posting content from social media, say, youtube or tiktok, that has underaged people in them?
This is an example from youtube https://yewtu.be/watch?v=tBsqPcl-w7o
The girl in this video is 15. Would something like this be breaking the instance rules?
It’s not allowed. If you don’t like it then here’s the door. 🚪 Freaking tired of entertaining this stupid bullshit. It’s obviously being used as wank material for others to get off to.
To be clear, is this a modification on the rule:
No content involving junior idols, child models, or anyone under the age of 18 in revealing clothing, questionable poses, or questionable situations
to instead be
No content involving junior idols, child models, or anyone under the age of 18
or something more like
No content involving junior idols, child models, or anyone under the age of 18 in revealing clothing, questionable poses, questionable situations, or in any context intended to be used as sexual material
or in fact no rule edit?
3rd one: https://burggit.moe/comment/121842
No content involving junior idols, child models, or anyone under the age of 18 in revealing clothing, questionable poses, or questionable situations
I know it probably doesn’t make a difference but if stuff like this will be allowed on this instance, I’ll be gone. I don’t have a problem with drawings of underage characters but this would certainly cross the line for me.
Couldn’t you block the community? There is definitely content on Burggit that doesn’t appeal to me (this included), but I just block it and it goes away.
But this is simply not just “not appealing to me”. The idea of using an instance that would tolerate such content while also allowing erotic or pornographic drawings of underage characters would simply disgust me because the pedophilic implication would be evident. (Simply imagine social media content involving one of your underage relatives would be shared in such a community and then a bunch of creeps tried to groom them or send them suggestive or sexual messages because this would most certainly happen.)
According to the rule I cited it’s obviously not allowed anyway.
This video has been on YouTube for almost a year and the channel has similar content stretching back 2 years. It’s obviously not illegal content. Additionally this isn’t some leaked video from a bedroom, this is undoubtedly content published in a fully legit manner. Also there’s nothing illegal about being a pedophile unless you act on it, so your disgust and irrational fears are irrelevant.
I never said that the content is illegal or even anything about legal aspects. I simply explained why such content on burggit.moe would be highly problematic in this context.
As with everything else, context is key! There’s also nothing wrong with the word “nigger” on its own. If somebody were to say “Nigger is an extremely offensive slur”, there would be nothing wrong with it in my own opinion. But of course saying “You’re a stupid nigger” to a black person is extremely wrong.
The kind of video OP posted is also harmless on its own but in the the given context of this instance I would consider it harmful.
Edit: That comparison might be stupid but I think it’s clear what I mean.
I’m with @Ki2qMxpIILke@burggit.moe on this. There’s some related discussion here.
I’m a bit conflicted on this. If YouTube allows this, I don’t want us to be seen as more restrictive than YouTube. Then I took a look at the comments on this video and to be frank, they’re gross. So, idk.
I don’t want us to be seen as more restrictive than YouTube.
Context is important. If that video were posted to pornhub, it would likely get removed. The context changes from “let’s appreciate fashion” (commenters aside) to “let’s jerk off to a 15 year old”. We wouldn’t say that pornhub is in general more restrictive than youtube, though.
I don’t think YouTube allowing it is a good enough argument to allow it here, especially since they also allow the comment section. Given that you’re not sure whether or not it should be allowed, it might already be against the rules since they ban content involving “anyone under the age of 18 in… questionable situations”.
Both replies to this comment raise very good points. I’m likely going to lean towards “No” but I want to see what others have to say about it first.
The way i’m seeing this is: OP is asking whether using larger social media platforms as a shield would make this content permissible. There’s what appears to be existing unofficial precedent (nsfw) suggesting this is the case so far in different circumstances, but in that instance i think it could end up as a debate on whether childbirth is a “questionable situation” regarding the child (assuming there’s no questionable posing involved).
I couldn’t find evidence of Yuli Kruchkova somehow coercing Mari into producing the videos on the example content’s channel, which weighs against the “questionable situation” argument here. Both channels appear to focus the majority of the videos into fitness content rather than fashion, weighing against the “child model” part of the rule.
This leaves out 2 questions - whether a channel focused on fitness can fall subject to the “questionable poses” part, and whether the comments section is enough to make it fall into the “junior idols” part of the rule. Within the childbirth community’s precedent context, this happens to not be the case, so assuming the “questionable poses” part is ignored for purposes of discussion i’d weigh towards allowing the example content so long as there’s no focus towards the “junior idols” part.
