IIRC this was discussed in the original post in astolat's journal and thought was leaning towards having a theoretical but not actual system of age-restricted material - where everything is hosted on one archive but if you're not logged in you have to click a button saying you're over 18 and if you are logged in you have to be over 18 - or say you're over 18 - to see R18(NC-17) material.
My thoughts on this are pretty mixed since I've been reading "adult" material for many years, since well before I was technically of age to do so, and I don't and never did feel particularly disturbed. (Although I'm aware that the notion disturbs some authors...!) OTOH, I understand the desire by people running things to cover their asses. The only thing I do feel strongly is that under-18s should not be ghetto-ized away. And I wonder what the response is to under-18s writing the porn...!
Additionally, in light of the recent LJ events, it's obvious that much of what gets archives, websites, journals and fic.'s shut down is a perceived danger to the "childrenz".
Yeah, but on an indirect harm principle - that something about the content will lead to children being harmed - as opposed to a direct harm principle where children are actually harmed by the existence of porn/the reading of porn. the latest kerfuckle - as I understand it, and comments on CNet aside - was that the interests function allowed paedophiles to network. Not that anything paedophiles were doing on LJ was harmful to children. the veracity of this is obviously debatable but I do think that was the underlying principle there.
no subject
My thoughts on this are pretty mixed since I've been reading "adult" material for many years, since well before I was technically of age to do so, and I don't and never did feel particularly disturbed. (Although I'm aware that the notion disturbs some authors...!) OTOH, I understand the desire by people running things to cover their asses. The only thing I do feel strongly is that under-18s should not be ghetto-ized away. And I wonder what the response is to under-18s writing the porn...!
Additionally, in light of the recent LJ events, it's obvious that much of what gets archives, websites, journals and fic.'s shut down is a perceived danger to the "childrenz".
Yeah, but on an indirect harm principle - that something about the content will lead to children being harmed - as opposed to a direct harm principle where children are actually harmed by the existence of porn/the reading of porn. the latest kerfuckle - as I understand it, and comments on CNet aside - was that the interests function allowed paedophiles to network. Not that anything paedophiles were doing on LJ was harmful to children. the veracity of this is obviously debatable but I do think that was the underlying principle there.