Can you point out examples where this is happening? Because the mods and admins are unaware.

Otherwise it sounds you’re suggesting killing healthy cells before they have the chance to become cancer cells, which doesn’t seem like great medical advice. (as far as I know. I’m not a doctor.)

You did see the “but it’s not accurate” part, right?

Okay, that took a little longer than expected. Here’s the confirmed list of Lemmy services that have defederated from LemmyNSFW:

partizle.com
aussie.zone
lemmy.ml
feddit.de
lemmy.intai.tech
lemmy.douwes.co.uk
lemmy.serverfail.party
talk.kururin.tech
dormi.zone
lemmy.tillicumnet.com
feddit.dnico.io
lemmy.procrastinati.org
crystals.rest
mlem.lea.moe
lemmygrad.ml
lemmy.design
pcglinks.com
discuss.divergentparenting.space
dmv.social
distress.digital
i.d0ntknow.me
lemmy.hqueue.dev
borg.chat
forkk.me
lemthony.com
lemmy.bleh.au
on.syrma.cc
lemmy.ecliptik.com
ducks.dev
udclemmy.xyz
lemmy.starmade.de
lemmy.calebmharper.com
lemmy.dangilbert.eu
lemmonade.marbledfennec.net
bigfoot.ninja
techy.news
lemiverse.xyz
geddit.social
lemmy.safe-internet.org
sopuli.xyz
lemmy.federate.cc
chat.maiion.com
poptalk.scrubbles.tech
lemmy.borlax.com
lemmyfly.org
civilloquy.com
leddit.social
surlesworld.com
lemmy.fromshado.ws
lemmy.mb-server.com 

On a semi-related note, I created a tool to check which instances have defederated a certain Lemmy server. It works by getting the servers linked instance list, and for each of those check linked instance list, to see if the first server is blocked. It takes (quite) a few minutes to run, and it only ever hits each server once or twice, so it’s pretty chill resource-wise.

As a side-effect, you can also use it to check which of the linked servers are offline in any way, so you could defederate those yourself to limit the amount of needless retries.

As I said, It can take a while to run, so I’ll report back once the script is done :)

Please clear your DNS caches.

Ironically, if you can read this, you don’t have to clear your dns cache ;)

Respect man.

Even though you’re stepping out, you’ve done amazing work kickstarting an essential part of this new ecosystem.

I agree the software can be a bit of a pain in the ass to manage. And humans. They can be quite annoying, especially in mobs.

Again, thanks for helping this revolution get started, and hopefully you’ll find peace in a less demanding role of this movement.

Even though it was short, it’s been a treat working with you.

I honestly think the people complaining don’t understand the word ‘canonical’, causing a giant misunderstanding.

Case in point: @pm_me_upshorts@lemmynsfw.com said in another thread that he’s fine with characters as long as there’s no doubt about their age, yet here he claims everyone in favour of abolishing the rule is a pedo.

FWIW, I don’t care about these kinds of drawings either, I have no stake in this.

I guess my issue is that if a drawn, fictional character looks like an adult, I don’t classify it as child porn. If you think it is, that’s absolutely fine, I just want to rule out we’re misunderstanding each other.

Just to be clear - you think a naked drawing of an adult Lisa Simpson is child porn? Because that’s what we’re discussing here.

So that would effectively mean that if a moderator doesn’t recognize a character that’s clearly drawn to be of legal age, they should just delete it.

I fail to see the logic in that.

What if the only way to know that they’re minors (as in: they don’t look like it) is to know who the character is? And what if you don’t know who the character is?

(Assuming people are operating in good faith here)

If it were up to me, I’d drop Rule 2, but increase Rule 1 so that they look like at least clearly in their twenties.

Correction: Drop all the rules (who cares about the canonical age of a fictional character), and replace it with this one: only allow images of character that clearly look like they’re over 18. In case of doubt, delete.

Honestly, I’d keep canonical age out of it. For example, I don’t know who the person in photo #2 is, but looks old enough to me. If it turns out that it’s an “aged up version” of someone that’s canonically 12… So what? In the picture they’re not 12, and that’s what counts.

So in my opinion 1, 3 and 5 look too young, while 2 and 4 are fine imho.