Comment on Why AO3 Doesn't Have an Official App

  1. PokePotter1 Fri 24 Jul 2026 11:06AM UTC

    Here's the problem, I have with this statement-as long as AO3 has any restrictions on content (plagiarism, copyright violations, child sexual abuse material or any other content that would be illegal to put on the internet), I don't believe that they should be able to say that they support maximum inclusiveness for fanworks.

    Comment Actions

    1. milesthewriter Fri 24 Jul 2026 11:25AM UTC

      ...blue.

      it's as maximum as it can be imo, illegal shit isn't gonna be covered by the team

      (iirc)

      Last Edited Fri 24 Jul 2026 11:26AM UTC

      Comment Actions

    2. FFXQ1W Fri 24 Jul 2026 12:30PM UTC

      No they do support maximum inclusiveness for fanworks. They support fics that have rape, incest, necrophilia and pedophilia, etc… they stick to NYC’s laws about fanfiction, and NYC has essentially no laws about fanfiction, so they can support ALL the fanworks. Also this site was founded on incest so I can guarantee you they’re gonna be supporting all fanworks for a long time

      Last Edited Fri 24 Jul 2026 12:30PM UTC

      Comment Actions

    3. CommaSama Fri 24 Jul 2026 12:48PM UTC

      It’s maximum inclusiveness for FANWORKS. And those types of content aren’t fanworks.

      Comment Actions

      1. KaishaKat Fri 24 Jul 2026 04:36PM UTC

        Your pfp fits the comment perfectly lol

        Comment Actions

    5. Thisisstillfun Fri 24 Jul 2026 01:48PM UTC

      I'm curious about how you think those qualify as 'fanworks'?

      (Also, let's be clear here, these are not referring to staged content designed to simulate a child being hurt with clever camera angles and a well chosen soundtrack when in reality all the actors and production staff were completely safe throughout with safety officers on hand to ensure compliance will all applicable laws and regulations* - if you wanted to jump through the necessary hoops and considerable expense to make one of those for a fan video, I believe that would be OK - and nor does it refer to testimonials ((while I think those are also non-fanworks so would likely get pulled here, they're not illegal)), the ban is on non-staged videos/photos/sound recordings of children being actually abused. I cannot think of a valid reason anyone would want to upload that.)

      *While I'm certainly aware of sexual exploitation in the entertainment industry being a thing, I've never heard of it happening while shooting a sexual abuse scene.

      I admit I haven't checked AO3's rules regarding embedded photos, videos and sound etc. but I suspect even if they don't ban pornographic embedded content outright, they don't host them, and whatever hosting site you wanted to use almost certainly has implemented such a ban - and what sites do allow adult content will definitely have banned illegal ones (also including but not limited to necrophilia, zoophilia, and rape of all descriptions) along with ones that may or may not be illegal based on where you are but are at least agreed to be morally repugnant (including but also not limited to revenge porn and hidden cameras). (And even in places where making recordings with someone who doesn't know they're being filmed isn't in itself illegal, publicly disseminating any resulting intimate content may well be under various harassment laws etc.)

      Does it really need to be explained why it is that websites (and their host servers) do not want illegal content?

      Comment Actions

      1. PokePotter1 Fri 24 Jul 2026 01:50PM UTC

        If AO3 was actually in favor of maximum inclusiveness, they would be prepared to argue in court (via lawsuits and whatnot), that said content being illegal is a violation of the First Amendment (assuming they wish to keep their servers in New York).

        Comment Actions

        1. facingthenorthwind (spacegandalf) Fri 24 Jul 2026 02:09PM UTC

          You....want child sexual abuse material to be legal? Why do you want that?

          Comment Actions

          1. PokePotter1 Fri 24 Jul 2026 02:12PM UTC

            I'd also be okay with rewriting the first amendment to explicitly ban it-as it is, it would be considered protected speech if someone wanted to challenge it's illegality

            Comment Actions

          2. ForestTheCat Fri 24 Jul 2026 02:29PM UTC

            Emo_furry_photo_that_refused_to_load

            i dont think they support it, their just stating the facts

            Comment Actions

            1. PokePotter1 Fri 24 Jul 2026 04:45PM UTC

              Correct.

              I'd really rather not see CSAM here-but I also don't believe that AO3 should be claiming they support maximum inclusiveness by banning it.

              Maybe there's a different phrasing they could be using instead.

              Comment Actions

        3. eunaruna Fri 24 Jul 2026 02:12PM UTC

          The first amendment right does not, and never did, protect against legal action towards CSAM and other such illegal materials.

          Comment Actions

    7. delfinoplaza Fri 24 Jul 2026 04:42PM UTC

      lol what? If they don’t allow felonies they can’t say they’re going for maximum inclusivity?

      Comment Actions

      1. PokePotter1 Fri 24 Jul 2026 04:43PM UTC

        Yes?

        It's completely understandable why they wouldn't allow said felonies-they are abhorrent and shouldn't be legal-but they shouldn't be able to claim that they support maximum inclusiveness because they don't allow said felonies.

        Comment Actions

        1. delfinoplaza Fri 24 Jul 2026 04:45PM UTC

          That’s pedantic to a completely useless degree.

          Comment Actions

    9. Yemi Hikari (Yemi_Hikari) Fri 24 Jul 2026 05:32PM UTC

      Maximum inclusiveness isn't complete inclusiveness, aka maximum and complete are two words that do not mean the same thing, and what you're arguing for is complete inclusiveness, not maximum inclusiveness which are two very different things. Also, everyone focused in on the last thing you listed, but me? Sorry, but allowing users to freely plagiarize and use another person's work is the exact opposite of inclusiveness. Same goes for using another person's work in a way that isn't fair use. This doesn't just protect the original creators of the fandoms we love, but those of us creating fanworks.

      Last Edited Fri 24 Jul 2026 05:34PM UTC

      Comment Actions