I’m not entirely sure how reputable this source is, but last month there was an article about how Twitter will allow nude photographs of children as long as they’re “artistic.”
Here’s what the terms of service actually say. Does this sound like allowing “explicit photos of children” to you?
Artistic depictions of nude minors in a non-sexualized context or setting may be permitted in a limited number of scenarios e.g., works by internationally renowed artists that feature minors.
Yeah, the title is quite clickbaity… unless they - the article publisher - view “non-sexualized nude” images as “explicit.” (The same way some people think bikini pictures are porn.)
Still, it’s quite interesting (read as: hypocritical) how Twitter crack down on Japanese drawings yet has no problem with this. Assuming it is true, of course.
Sex workers talk about a “whorearchy” that places sex work into a hierarchy of stigma, with street based sex workers on the bottom, and porn stars and sugar babies towards the top. The same is true of art. When it’s produced by Hollywood in shows like Big Mouth, PEN13, Sabrina, or by what Twitter calls “internationally renowned artists,” then it’s acceptable to depict minors in a sexual or nude context. But when it’s fan artists or sex workers creating exactly the same content, then it is stigmatized and banned. These even appiles when Hollywood art would unquestionably be categorized as child pornography under today’s standards. This is a hypocritical double-standard for sure.
I’m appalled by this sudden decision; Didn’t Twitter recently ban NSFW art(namely that of the Japanese variety)? Also, pedophiles still wouldn’t have any reassurance, as those who hate them wholeheartedly will tear them apart through peer pressure and intimidation tactics. The higher ups likely won’t actually get involved in monitoring their website’s community, so this seems like a bust. It’s almost as if this is an excuse to crack down on innocent MAPs indirectly, and attract all sorts of notoriety/publicity in the process.
Explicit images are a violation of federal law, therefore it is impossible for them to do so without violating that very law. It is possible they’re allowing nudity, which isn’t necessarily sexual or something akin to Vietnam Girl.
The cartoon equivalent of nude art is probably okay too, but what people really want there is porn or sexualized works and not merely just nudity. And it is true that Hollywood gets away with things that would put others away for decades.