Comment on Why AO3 Doesn't Have an Official App

  1. 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