A Frightening Number of Pro-C People Infultrating Art Spaces

Internet and technology
1

Naturally, let me know how to re-categorize this if necessary. This is a frightening topic that has come up in on the following websites:
-Dreamwidth
-Squidge Images
-Mastodon Instances (multiple)
-InkBunny

User(s) poisoned by a certain, well-known group of pro-c or “neutral-c” “advocates” has created a disturbing trend among anti-censorship art communities. Particularly, the constant vying for use of symbols related to FBI investigations and the defense of users who “don’t take sides.” This group has poisoned the well of many lolisho artists and created a worrisome echo chamber where spaces complacent with child abuse are considered “neutral” on the subject.

The group, which has groomed many artists into their rhetoric, have co-opted anti-censorship and leftist language to try and keep a foothold in these communities. Anytime a website (see the above list) puts their foot down in removal of these users, dozens of those groomed by the initial group crop up to claim absurdities. The groomed users then harass the website(s) users and admins (when they are accessible) over, essentially, banning pro-contact rhetoric and users.

I don’t know if this phenomenon is well-documented, nor do I know for certain if I am portraying things as I mean to. What I have witnessed on the above websites has been genuinely frightening. I have seen users claim that CSAM is “anti-contact” because “no contact is being made” (false), I have seen artists promote work from known pro-contact space(s), and I have seen “centrists” on the matter claim that, as long as a person is themselves not presently raping a kid, these things/this rhetoric is okay.

Has anyone else had experience with this? Do you know what group I am talking about? Do you know what can be done to stop the spread of this pro-c rhetoric, or to at least make people aware of why the group spreading it is bad?

(I do not know if I can identify the group. I would happily do so for moderators and Prostasia staff. This group has a Matrix/Element chat for pro-contacts to discuss their “stance” and convince others towards it. Granted, I also do not want to funnel any further harassment or attention to the anti-censorship mastodon instances who have been fighting against this, hence I do not specify them.)

I am genuinely looking for ways to help prevent the spread of the pro-c and “neutral-c” stance that has invaded anti-censorship art spaces. I do not know if there is a good way to do so, ultimately, but I at least have to make an effort.

Hopefully this was relatively coherent!

2

I’m not sure I’d agree with your characterization of the symbols being discussed. Those symbols did appear in a report years ago, but to my knowledge, they’ve never been tied to any illegal activities, and these days are commonly used among anti-cs as much as anyone else. I’m also not sure I’d agree with art carrying inherent “badness” because of its source, unless the art itself somehow reflects or promotes harmful views.

There are probably others here who have more detailed opinions than I do, as they’re more actively involved in these spaces. I’ve only heard things from others and from viewing posts by mods of these spaces after the fact.

In my opinion, though, the way it’s currently being handled is wrong. Limited moderation abilities cannot be an excuse for discrimination on the basis of attractions or artistic preferences (especially when it undermines anti-stigma prevention efforts, which is what’s currently happening in many of these spaces), nor should the existence of pro-cs give moderators unbridled power to silence critics who have called them out for bad behavior (which has happened to at least a few friends of friends of mine who used these spaces) when those critics have never expressed or supported pro-c views. I’ve also seen guilt by association be used in justifying bans a lot, and I think anyone involved in taboo art should know better than to support that as a concept

I have more to say here, but don’t currently have the time or ability to put it into a cohesive line of reasoning right now. I’ve shared the URL of this post with some friends who can better speak on the unintentional (or more likely, intentional but unadmitted) impacts of these responses.

2 Likes
3

I’ve seen these types rear their heads before. Outspoken pro-contact/pro-abuse ideologues who’ve been trying to inject themselves into these communities. The only thing that can be done is to report them, or avoid communities where they are either tolerated openly, or find groups/iinstances where they are not. Aethy is a Mastodon instance that is friendly to artists and they have a zero-tolerance approach to pro-contact/pro-abuse ideologies, as does Baraag.

I think you’re overstating the prevalence of these types. They’re known to create multiple accounts and be particularly voracious in their attempt to argue their side or just harass others.

I’ve seen it, it’s very annoying to deal with. I’ve been trying to document the prevalence of this group in various communities as part of a report I’ve been working on. I know that they’re the minority, though.

You ban report/ban users who express or sympathize with pro-contact ideologies or behaviors. Treat it like hate speech. There’s no point in trying to convince those who simply refuse to be convinced.

2 Likes
4

Since it was mentioned specifically, I’ll say that Aethy was one of the spaces where I saw a problematic response to this. Mainly in the promotion of guilt by association as a reason for banning, automatically banning people who criticized admins for any reason (and admins made false claims about some of these people afterward), and at least one case of a person being banned because they called out harmful content that leadership refused to ban (in this case ableism).

I know options are limited, but I’d recommend avoiding it, and if you do use it, do so under a throwaway identity where you don’t care if it gets slandered by mods.

In terms of actions to prevent the spread of pro-c rhetoric, I agree with what @Chie said. The people promoting this rhetoric in spaces that are clearly not intended for it are a small group that tries to make a big splash. Deal with individual cases and reports, and be consistent. Sweeping changes aren’t working because this stuff is already against the rules in almost all of these spaces, so any changes end up placing the blame/consequences on uninvolved individuals.

If you want to do something bigger, WORK WITH ANTI-CS WHO ARE ACTIVE IN SPACES WHERE PRO-CS ARE PRESENT. They’ll know the tactics used to spread these ideas and can help you distinguish between well-intentioned takes being misread and pro-c dogwhistles that attempt to spread those views while remaining just within the scope of rules.

2 Likes
5

While I don’t agree with this type of ‘guilt by association’ approach, I do believe that a strong approach against pro-contact idealism is warranted.

I’ve not yet had the opportunity to speak with the admins, but a cursory glance of their policies page does paint a favorable view towards Prostasia as a resource, which I commend them for.

I don’t think Aethy should be avoided for these mis-steps in terms of moderation.

2 Likes
6

I’ve seen that as well, and I am appreciative of it, but I think their actions undermine Prostasia’s work at the same time. They implemented sweeping bans on MAPs, which, as a space for taboo art, cut off many non-offenders from safe and harmless outlets.

I agree that banning pro-cs advocacy from spaces where people are explicitly looking for harmless outlets and fictional content, and may even be struggling to control their irl behavior and are seeking these outlets for that reason, is entirely justified. I don’t think banning anyone who has ever been active in a space where someone with pro-c views was also active at some point is a path to achieving that. In fact, I believe it may do the opposite, allowing pro-cs to continue to spread their influence through the use of little-known dogwhistles while silencing the people who are probably best-positioned to recognize those.

While I did think the moderation practices were worth mentioning, I wouldn’t recommend avoiding it based on those alone (for most people, there are definitely some people whose mental health could be harmed if they were banned from a safe space based solely on an attraction or their membership in another space). That recommendation was based on accounts I’ve received of leadership there lying about people they banned after the fact, in some cases cutting them off from their support networks.

I also think perspective is useful in this conversation as a whole. Put simply, the world is moving away from what pro-cs would like to see it turn into, and the rationale for those changes is solid (and public support of them equally strong). In my opinion, the ability of pro-c ideology to cause any changes, no matter how big a platform it is given, is incredibly limited. I believe preventing people from offending in the world we currently inhabit is a much more effective approach than finding new and “better” ways to stop people from advocating for a world that seems increasingly unlikely to ever exist.

1 Like
7

I also worry about what others think when they see these types spewing their pro-contact rhetoric. One of the biggest things protecting the fiction/art community from legal scrutiny is the fact that it’s harmless, a fact which is carried forward by how little you find pro-c idealism compared to anti-c sentiments.

Many would argue that the mere fact that such a discrepancy even exists serves to discredit the arguments that such materials and fantasies ‘normalize’ real-life child sex abuse, promote CSAM, or even sexualize real children.

1 Like
8

Made an account to comment on this topic, as I have some experience with it.
Its very long, sorry in advance. Hope everything is easy to understand.

Naturally, most MAPs and many other sorts of paraphiles, by default, will look for anti-censorship communities. And since art is a very good outlet for sexual desires you can’t fulfill in real life, it makes sense that there will be a significant amount of MAPs that will go to anti-censorship art spaces. After all, they usually can’t stay in spaces (openly) that aren’t anti-censorship. If they’re open, they’re banned. And then, they move to the next space, and the next.

For our experience (we’re a system), one of our headmates used a mastodon instance. Because it’s anti-censorship, he was able to talk about paraphillia and MAP topics for awhile. But very quickly into joining, he saw that the community was turning away from MAPs and other paraphiles on the whole, because there is a stigma of fear centered around our intentions, by default.

Not only pro-c users were banned, but anyone who was also in a space that also houses pro-c users. People are in those spaces to begin with because others drive them out - Its not usually because they want to be next to pro-c individuals (most are very against that ideology). Still, users were banned only for sharing a space, because that means they “aren’t anti-contact enough” - Never mind that they aren’t advocating for abuse and actively are anti-c, or simply silent on the topic. Just sharing proximity means they aren’t to be trusted.

This conveys the internalized fear towards MAPs (and other paraphiles). The idea that there is an abuser hiding with malicious intent, trying to convert people to their cult, etc. This is not how all pro-cs actually are, and it also isn’t how abusers actually are. No, I’m not defending abuse or contact. Will talk more about this at the bottom.

By playing into this fear, we’re playing into the stigma we all face. By other people succumbing to this fear and banning MAPs for simply existing, they are playing a role in the stigma and pushing others out of communities and into smaller ones, which will become echochambers the smaller they get.

We never implied we were pro-c, but we also tried to avoid the discourse entirely. Im sure people had the suspicion that we were “secretly one of them” - But why we got banned was simply, voicing disagreement with the decisions made on that site, as paraphiles. It was fueled by stigma and an unwillingness to take criticism, but I wouldn’t be surprised if “what if they’re pro-c” was a factor in this. Ultimately I can’t say.

One person we heard (from someone involved longer in the community) was just banned for saying they were scared - Must be pro-c then, definitely not just a paraphile with paranoia and anxiety.

I know this is just an example from one site, and more about that specific site than the entire topic, but I think it illustrates the obvious problem well. The underlying fear of pro-cs in society overrides peoples better nature, and they start to group all of us together, and then cast all of us out “just in case.”

In the end, this fear hurts the entire pro-para movement.

Now onto pro-c people:

To not fear something, to make something better, you have to understand it.

Ultimately its a very complex debate about consent, but I think people have the misconception that people arrive at being pro-c purely because they want to have sex with children. And yes, Im sure there are some like that. And yes, that bothers me too. Because I care about kids.

But thats not why most people end up being pro-c. Its usually where they arrive after reflecting on their own childhood experiences, many of them having had sexual relations as a minor (as in, “I felt I consented then, and I don’t think its fair for others to tell me I didn’t”). So, many pro-cs are abuse survivors, even if they don’t want to be called that all the time.

Many pro-cs are also AAM or MMAP - If we isolate pro-c adults, we also isolate pro-c youth. And where do you think they end up? Together. Alone together.

When you think of the minors who fit that demographic, suddenly you begin to see how isolating all pro-cs for their beliefs is not necessarily a way to protect children. It can be the opposite. I don’t have a perfect answer for this, other than as a community, and as a society, we need to know the signs of abuse and strive to help both the abused and the abusers - to prevent further abuse/harm.

We also need to realize beliefs =/= abuse inherently. If we cast out a group for their beliefs, however, we cut them off from the outside world and let them fester together. That envoirnment cultivates abuse.

Most people try to be good people. Most offendors don’t intend to harm. Most offenders fall in love, and pursue a relationship that they shouldn’t. They’re usually mentally ill, and very isolated, because they are paraphiles, and also potentially pro-c (abusers can still hide behind any label, hence there being so many fandom anti abusers). They will either live in hiding or have a very small community. When you’re miserable, you chase after love. Its very human. Thats not to say its the right choice. I don’t think it is. Its dangerous and can go very badly, especially for someone still developing.

But we have to understand others and not be led by fear. The way forward will always be compassion and understanding. Abusers need help, and while I don’t think art spaces with peers are the ideal spaces to help, I think its better than isolating them away into echochambers with people who will actually encourage them.

I don’t think dehumanizing and ocstrasizing abusers will ever help potential victims or survivors.
I think it will drive them together.
It will create more victims.

Tldr; The bottom line of all this, is that to improve things for everyone and make humanity better, we have to try to understand everyone. And thats not easy. And it also means sharing spaces with people you dont like. It means discomfort. Its easier just to cast people out and consider it someone elses problem. But its not, its all of our problem.

Im not saying pro-c discussion should happen in those spaces, but I think those who lead these spaces need to not be overcome by the fear of the pro-c abuser boogeyman. Because that image is not real (or at least is an incredible minority of an already very small group), and feeding into it in the end only cultivates more isolation and then more abuse. It only keeps the stigma going.

You can’t help someone whos been cast away into an echochamber, because they can’t hear you anymore.
You especially can’t help any of the kids who end up there, either.

3 Likes
9

That’s fair, and like I said, I think not allowing pro-c rhetoric in these spaces is absolutely justified, for various reasons. I don’t think it’s worth spending excess time on, though. As you said, it’s a small group, so constant and consistent bans should work. My issue is that people are trying to innovate where there doesn’t seem to be a ton of room or need for innovation, and it’s leading to the exclusion innocent people who just want a safe outlet

2 Likes
10

I agree with a lot of this at a conceptual level, but I do think it’s worth noting the importance of comfort and safety in spaces like the art platforms being discussed. There’s a lot of people in those spaces who wouldn’t feel comfortable around abusers and those spreading pro-c ideas for various reasons, including people who use fictional content because they want to avoid offending IRL and people who use fictional content to cope with trauma from their abuse. Every space is going to be different, and echochambers are bad, but there is some validity to drawing a line in terms of what can be promoted in art spaces especially

3 Likes
11

The problem isn’t necessarily their size, but mostly how vocal they can be.
I’ve seen them utilize political operative-style tactics, like using sockpuppets and bot accounts to incite flame wars, the creation and spread of propaganda images and memes, and the sharing of misinformation/incomplete information to sell their side.

2 Likes
12

In that case it may be more of a technical problem (i.e. the need to implement IP bans, email bans, autoban specific media, and similar) rather than a social one.

Trolls don’t care how accepted their views are, so nothing in terms of community culture is going to stop them.

13

I think you’re overstating the prevalence of these types. They’re known to create multiple accounts and be particularly voracious in their attempt to argue their side or just harass others.

That may very well be possible. I have sadly been witness to a frightening amount of harassment and disinformation spread by these types in these art spaces, but it could easily be that it’s a minority making themselves as loud as possible. Regardless, I have also seen them successfully recruit, even when they are nipped in the bud as quickly as possible.

I’ve seen it, it’s very annoying to deal with. I’ve been trying to document the prevalence of this group in various communities as part of a report I’ve been working on. I know that they’re the minority, though.

Thank you so much for taking the time to do that.

You ban report/ban users who express or sympathize with pro-contact ideologies or behaviors. Treat it like hate speech. There’s no point in trying to convince those who simply refuse to be convinced.

This is what was done in multiple cases, and the stink put up about it was absurd. You mention Aethy, which Elliot also mentions, and this was one of the first times I’d had experience with this group. I agree that strong anti-pro-c approach should always be taken, and to err on the side of caution whenever possible, which is what I felt was done. I would very much recommend talking to the Aethy admin when you get a chance, they’re really doing the best they can with the recent circumstances surrounding pro-c users and spaces.

1 Like
14

I definitely agree some drawing of the line is necessary for the comfort of others. And thats what makes this such a difficult situation to tackle. Not every place is equiped to deal with that, and people deserve spaces where they aren’t having that forced upon them.

2 Likes
15

That’s one way of looking at it, but even those types of approaches need to be tailored carefully. Allthefallen’s booru had to implement restrictions on the types of social functions newly-created accounts could have in order to help keep spam out.
In doing so, they locked out a lot of legitimate users.

The most surefire way to deal with it is for moderators to familiarize themselves with the social trends that are happening on their site and adapt so they could identify bad actors and remove them.

2 Likes
16

Many pro-cs are also AAM or MMAP - If we isolate pro-c adults, we also isolate pro-c youth. And where do you think they end up? Together. Alone together.

We also need to realize beliefs =/= abuse inherently. If we cast out a group for their beliefs, however, we cut them off from the outside world and let them fester together. That envoirnment cultivates abuse.

I absolutely agree with this. However, I also don’t believe anyone should have to share a space with those people if they have no desire too, much less a community based around artwork. It’s important that there are anti-c people who can talk to pro-c people and help them move away from that ideology and rhetoric. It’s a conundrum for sure, one I think Prostasia and it’s forum is more uniquely built to handle than a place like, say, Baraag.

Most offendors don’t intend to harm. Most offenders fall in love, and pursue a relationship that they shouldn’t. They’re usually mentally ill, and very isolated, because they are paraphiles, and also potentially pro-c (abusers can still hide behind any label, hence there being so many fandom anti abusers).

I don’t entirely disagree with this, but it feels as if it understates the harm it causes. If we had better resources for people with paraphilic disorders, these things might be properly stopped before they happen. But we don’t right now, and that is what’s tragic. So many people could be kept from harm if we as a society could recognize that these people need help, not punishment after the fact. (Which is not to say that punishment is not warranted when harm is caused. Tangentially, fuck USA prisons.)

You can’t help someone whos been cast away into an echochamber, because they can’t hear you anymore.

You’re very much right. But I also don’t agree that communities which are not built or equipped for it should be the place it happens (as you mention).

3 Likes
17

This is very true. I moderate a Mastodon instance, and we had to remove media from another Mastodon instance due to CSAM, not because mods there were lenient on it, but because they didn’t recognize it becoming a problem in time and now a lot of malicious actors view it as the ideal place to post illegal content even though they’ve gotten significantly better about removing it

Don’t want to mention the name for obvious reasons, but it’s one I believe both you and NGH have encountered before based on conversations/blog posts respectively

All that said, I do think it’s better to have restrictions on new accounts than to be banning people with certain attractions or preferences on masse

18

Those symbols did appear in a report years ago, but to my knowledge, they’ve never been tied to any illegal activities, and these days are commonly used among anti-cs as much as anyone else.

My only present evidence is an FBI document and an old 500 page NAMBLA document by similar authorities, linking certain symbols (the triangle, heart, butterfly, and caterpillar specifically) to CSAM trading or seeking. I’m not inclined to be pro-FBI, but I’m also not prepared to fully discount that, either. Moreover, internet server hosts contacted multiple websites hosting said symbols (anti-censorship art websites like Baraag) and demanded their removal under “hate speech.” My opinion on that is less important than it happening overall.

I do concede, of course, that the use of symbols is not static. The Swastika was not always a hate symbol, but became one. “Don’t Tread on Me” has been memed to hell and back and co-opted by the altright. Sometimes it’s hard to keep up with all of it.

I have more to say here, but don’t currently have the time or ability to put it into a cohesive line of reasoning right now. I’ve shared the URL of this post with some friends who can better speak on the unintentional (or more likely, intentional but unadmitted) impacts of these responses.

Take your time. :+1:

19

From what I was able to surmise after studying them, they don’t tolerate pro-contact expression.
I’ve seen instances where users that have contributed content to the site be expunged following reports and investigations regarding allegations of using CSAM or expressing pro-contact beliefs.

20

Baraag limits accounts that “repost” from pro-contact instances or makes pro-contact arguments, but generally don’t suspend people over it unless it becomes egregious.

(This is not me hating on Baraag. I am very thankful it exists and wish it well! This is just a personal observation that has had me quirking a brow in the past.)