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?
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.
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.