Topic: Should financial censorship be forbidden?

Too many porn artists censor their porn with a big patreon logo and say "pay me for the uncensored version!". If one artist does it, too many artists do it.

Why? Are you selling something on your patreon you have to censor to post on this site? Or do you think you're so much better than all the artists giving it away for free and making a career out of voluntary donations from supportive fans they earned, you're entitled to see my money in regular monthly payments before I see your drawings? Don't get me started on the artists who overprice their porn archives or only give it away to long-time financial backers and "trusted friends" (asskissing sycophants) out of the crippling fear that someone might pirate their dick drawings and a poor person might get to see tits without paying. Oh, the horror.

How many of those artists pirated music or games in their lives, or pirated artbooks and reference material to make their porn? The world may never know. But when these artists die or quit, what happens to their work? Who archives it and where? Everyone agrees piracy is based and a fact of life, everyone laughs at Pirate Software's attempts to make his games impossible to pirate, everyone laughs when EA or Sony pulls a number out of their asses and claims 60% of their yearly revenue is lost to piracy, everyone supports Stop Killing Games because they know the loss of art is a tragedy. Why do some artists want to be like EA when drawing werewolves fucking on the internet?

Someone untrustworthy will accuse me of caring too much or getting too upset, because they can't think of any better shit-smearing shame tactics. In truth, when I see e-begging on porn sites without a "I'm injured and disabled and abused and soon to be homeless or dead unless I get half a million dollars in one month" sob story I downvote it and move on. There are countless better artists out there so it is easy to forget about this abusive insulting greedy anti-sharing anti-social anti-art behaviour and move on. Most censored porn advertising uncensored paywalled content gets downvoted to hell. But if this behaviour isn't outright forbidden by site rules with harsher punishments it will catch on and the site will become a cistern for advertisements. It's an insult to the spirit of sharing art.

that's-- that is not what "financial censorship" means.

Just as they have no inherent right to the contents of your wallet, you have no inherent right to the product of their work. If someone wants to share their art for free, that's great, but it in no way entitles you to the art of someone who doesn't wish to do so.
Lots of people steal things is a rather pathetic excuse for engaging in such behaviours yourself.

furry porn is a human right. incredibly privileged bourgeois furry artists are EXPLOITING poor, abused gooners by censoring (?) their art via financial barriers... /s /s /s /s

I thought this was going to be about payment processors.
Also completely agree with Quenir.

I'm disappointed that I thought it would have been a discussion of censorship with dollar bills or coins lol.

My answer to your question is "No."

I hate to be "That Guy", but I want to point out that the Oxford English Dictionary defines censorship as...

censorship
noun: censorship
1. the suppression or removal of writing, artistic work, etc. that are considered obscene, politically unacceptable, or a threat to security.

...What you seem to be against is not censorship but advertising, and art as a vocation. People who are against censorship are advocates for the rights of artists and their freedom to make choices about their art. You don't seem to be in that camp. If you want to narrowly be against *advertisements* for paywalled art being posted on e621, you're entitled to that opinion, but please don't co-op the language of freedom of expression.

Should we call it 'Paywall Censoring'?
Because the artist is censoring their art with a paywall.

Either way, I think it treads a fine line:

On one hand, no one is entitled to an artist's work for free. Or ANYONE'S work for free.
I've made many a 'stop begging for free art & commission the artist' post.

But on the OTHER hand; Treating E6 as free advertising space is scummy. And I think it might even be against the rules, IIRC.
The artists wanting to advertise should pay for banner space. E6 is not their personal advertising platform.

----------

Putting those together, I think it should be (And might be; I'm not 100% on the rules about it) 'It's fine to post art with paywall censoring, so long as you don't ONLY post that art and nothing else.'

---------------------

But I don't make the rules. And I don't have contact with anyone who does. This is only my ten cents on the matter.
Used to be 'my two cents' but, you know; inflation.

Regardless of what you call it, and regardless about how people feel about it, artists often post a lot of artwork for the free enjoyment of all who see it, and it is not at all wrong for artists to want to see some form of compensation for the work they put out, it's not a matter of ego; it's a matter of paying the bills as this is a job for many, and a steady stream of income has long term benefits over a one and done commission for example.

If they want to tease us to entice us into considering supporting them financially, then I fail to see the issue. Seeing sneak peaks is still showing us some of the art, and like another user said, we aren't entitled to see everything they make for absolutely free.

Censor bars in artwork is accepted as it's sometimes a necessity of the culture and local laws a person is from, and it can be used artistically. And you can still admire what you can see. It makes no sense to start banning it just when the artist paywalls an uncensored alt.

Forbidding a post because the peen is pixelated or cropped sounds more like actual censorship than anything, honestly. All it does is limit the ways artists can engage with their audience. You don't have to like it, and it doesn't matter how tastefully you think it's done. Artists already fight an uphill battle against generative AI, they don't need opportunities for revenue streams crippled even more. That's how you get less art from the creators you love, not more.

Since you mention Pirate Software, here's some of his words that are actually pretty sound: "Piracy is often a problem of accessibility, People pirate games because they cannot financially justify paying for it." The problem with using the games argument is that artists also already post a bunch of free artwork usually only teasing Patreon/SubscribeStar exclusives as a bonus, or even release them publicly after a set amount of time. These from individual artists, and not AAA gaming companies who often treat their workers like garbage. It is not directly comparable situations.

If this is something that genuinely bothers you and you don't want to see it, add censored to your blacklist and use it.

That was horrible to read, how entitled can one be? I want my 5 minutes back i spent reading that dribble.

The OP's entitlement here is through the roof.
Don't like their business practices? Then don't watch or support them.

Some artists make a literal living from their artworks. Otherwise, they don't a roof over their heads.
They are not obligated to give you free stuff just because you feel that you are entitled to it.
I'm not even going to bother reading into how "piracy = right to have free porn".

Most artists do not even post on this site and it's the third-parties doing all the posting.
If you see something you don't like, please use your blacklist because it is there for a reason.

Anything that is a straight up low-quality advertisement would already be deleted under our Uploading Guidelines.

fluffermutt said:
"Piracy is often a problem of accessibility, People pirate games because they cannot financially justify paying for it."

He's not the first to say that, but for once he's semi-correct... except in many cases it is/was/likely to be a question of literal access to / availability of media and not only price alone.

OP's questions about preservation and accessibility of art and culture in general are valid regardless. Humans aren't good at keeping important historic records, much less something niche and/or obscure.

Are you for real?

Artists can ask for what they want and fans can decide to pay for it or not...

But using censored art to advertise paywalled uncensored art feels inherently unethical. Especially on a site for sharing art.

Let's not muddy the waters.

redphoenix42 said:
But using censored art to advertise paywalled uncensored art feels inherently unethical.

why?

redphoenix42 said:
Artists can ask for what they want and fans can decide to pay for it or not...

But using censored art to advertise paywalled uncensored art feels inherently unethical. Especially on a site for sharing art.

Let's not muddy the waters.

Bruh. Using censored art to advertise uncensored cart is called 'advertising'. It's right there.
You wanting free art does not mean they are being unethical.

I went into this thread with my earlier post being a good faith view on advertising on E6, but damn man; Your original post and this just scream 'I hate anyone who does not give me free art.'

fuzzy_kobold said:
Bruh. Using censored art to advertise uncensored cart is called 'advertising'. It's right there.
You wanting free art does not mean they are being unethical.

I went into this thread with my earlier post being a good faith view on advertising on E6, but damn man; Your original post and this just scream 'I hate anyone who does not give me free art.'

Accusing me of hating is unethical and in bad faith. Advertisements don't have to be censored. They'd likely see more clicks if they weren't censored. You can't muddy the waters by pretending it's just advertising I'm against. The distinction is self-evident.

Let me ask you this. What if every artist did it? What if every single artist on the website took their porn away and replaced it with censored versions and said "Pay up or no uncensored version"? What if all artists engaged in this negative behaviour?

redphoenix42 said:
Accusing me of hating is unethical and in bad faith. Advertisements don't have to be censored. They'd likely see more clicks if they weren't censored. You can't muddy the waters by pretending it's just advertising I'm against. The distinction is self-evident.

in what way is the distinction self-evident?

redphoenix42 said:
Accusing me of hating is unethical and in bad faith. Advertisements don't have to be censored. They'd likely see more clicks if they weren't censored. You can't muddy the waters by pretending it's just advertising I'm against. The distinction is self-evident.

artists sell art. it's an exchange of goods and services. they advertise a small sample of their product to get clients to sell to. maybe i'm muddying the waters or am not being evident tho

redphoenix42 said:
But using censored art to advertise paywalled uncensored art feels inherently unethical. Especially on a site for sharing art.

Are shareware games and game demos unethical, if the full game isn't free?

redphoenix42 said:
Accusing me of hating is unethical and in bad faith. Advertisements don't have to be censored. They'd likely see more clicks if they weren't censored. You can't muddy the waters by pretending it's just advertising I'm against. The distinction is self-evident.

Let me ask you this. What if every artist did it? What if every single artist on the website took their porn away and replaced it with censored versions and said "Pay up or no uncensored version"? What if all artists engaged in this negative behaviour?

You are not going to get many friends here, i can tell you that much. Using "What if's" to argue your point is like pissing into the wind. But to humor you, i suspect people would have gotten used to it if all the porn here were behind a paywall. Artist deserve to get paid for their hard work, and yet most of them share their art freely with us. It's not "Negative behaviour," that's just you being jealous and bitter. Grow up.

redphoenix42 said:
Accusing me of hating is unethical and in bad faith. Advertisements don't have to be censored. They'd likely see more clicks if they weren't censored. You can't muddy the waters by pretending it's just advertising I'm against. The distinction is self-evident.

Let me ask you this. What if every artist did it? What if every single artist on the website took their porn away and replaced it with censored versions and said "Pay up or no uncensored version"? What if all artists engaged in this negative behaviour?

I mean absolutely no offense, but is English your first language?

Because either:
You don't know what 'unethical' is (No, me accusing you of hating something is not unethical in any sense.)

A translator is giving you close approximations to the words you really mean (Which would not be your fault, if you are not a native speaker)

Or you are trying to use big words to make an argument from verbosity.

Who the heck claims someone is being 'unethical' for saying 'You sound like you hate paywall content'?
And you have used 'self-evident' multiple times now to avoid giving any actual evidence or defense of your own stance.

Also; It's not arguing in 'bad faith' to point out that you sound like you hate paywall censorship.
AT BEST, you could claim I made an ad hominim attack, except I was not being insulting. I was pointing out how your posts look to me. So even that would be incorrect.

-------------------------------

And to continue; What if's don't really argue your point.
And if every artist DID do that; Well, e6 would have to decide if it should charge money to host 100% advertising content from every furry artist on here.
Me? I'd go back to the early days of furry on the internet, when pictures took 30+ minutes to download; I'd just read furry stories.

--------------------------

Oh, and then an artist would realize that they could get more people to buy their stuff if they gave away some free art, and other artists would follow suit, and everything would go back to how it is now.

The bottom line is that artists are kind enough to use their hard work and practice to give us free art.
So demanding anyone advertising their hard work and practice be banned/removed from the site because you personally don't like it is petty and selfish.

You know OP, if this thread wasn't so hostile and display a sense of entitlement towards artists, it would've been received a lot better. It might've even produced a productive discussion.

Also

redphoenix42 said:

But using censored art to advertise paywalled uncensored art feels inherently unethical. Especially on a site for sharing art.

In e61's own words (the help/about section):

E621 is a mature furry imageboard. It is based off, and inspired by, Danbooru.
Our mission is to archive and distribute the best / strangest / most excellent furry-related artwork, regardless of content, for all those who wish to view it

It's not exactly correct to call e621 an "art sharing site" since that makes it sound closer to places like FA or deviantart. An advertisement with sufficient artistic merit still falls under the website's mission, regardless of intent.

redphoenix42 said:
What if every artist did it? What if every single artist on the website took their porn away and replaced it with censored versions and said "Pay up or no uncensored version"? What if all artists engaged in this negative behaviour?

What if the world was made of pudding?

Just because you do not like something does not make it unethical. Your personal feelings and desires do not dictate what is good and what is evil. Learn to tell the difference between your own personal negative feelings and what is morally wrong. Stop calling something unethical when what you mean is "this upsets me". Stop dressing your personal feelings as objective truths about morals.

Blacklist
~alternate_version_at_paywall ~full_version_at_paywall ~uncensored_version_at_paywall and be done with it

A lot of you sure do have a lot of hate in them, huh? This reads like a youtube comment section

I will just note one thing: paywalling art is not "compensation for work" or an "exchange of goods and services", it's a form of rent. A commission is compensation for work.

Now e6 is obviously not gonna change anything about IP laws or become a piracy site so that debate is irrelevant to the site. The only real questions here are:

- Does the censorship diminishes or the advertisement outweights the value of an image to e6 below the quality standards?

- Do we risk being flooded by censored art?

I think the answer to the second question is clearly no, but the first is more a case-by-case thing

redphoenix42 said:
Let's not muddy the waters.

The individual crashing into the forums wholly unprompted to say the things you have has forfeited the right to present themselves as a voice of reason.

There's been many on-point retorts presented here, so I'd like to contribute 2 different ones before putting this to bed.

redphoenix42 said:
Advertisements don't have to be censored. They'd likely see more clicks if they weren't censored.

Considering how upset you are that you can't see what's under that pixelation, I imagine at least some of them might see a lot less clicks if people got what they wanted from the work without clicking to another site. That's also why some people publicly release uncensored works after they're released behind a paywall; if you already got what you wanted, then there's no incentive to pay other than moral obligation. Considering how poorly your moral compass is calibrated, I can understand why they don't feel comfortable in relying on that.

On a fundamental level, people are entitled to compensation for the fruits of their labors, whether they are a construction worker or a furry porn artist. If they produce something of value to others, then they have the right to receive compensation commensurate to that value. I see no reason to applaud those that choose to forgo that profit, but I also see no reason to cast aspersions on those who are unwilling - or potentially unable - to do so. Some people live in poverty, some people were disowned by their families at a young age, some people are trying to pay off debt; I'd hesitate to question the morality of how a creator monetizes their works when you don't know their financial situation. Even for those that could live without it, at what level of financial stability do you feel they have no right to censor their works to incentivize contributions? Once they can afford health insurance in the US? Once they can afford to fix their car? Once they can afford to replace the aged equipment they use to create their works? Once they can start putting some money into savings? Once they can afford to eat out once a month? At what point in between living out of their busted Honda Civic & strutting out of their Ferrari Testarossa do you draw your line? I can understand drawing it somewhere, but unless your perspective is "it's morally wrong to censor your work because my daily masturbation preceding without minor annoyance or inconvenience means more than feeding your child", & you're familiar enough with the artist's finances to know they're above your line, what right do you have to make demands of them?

We do not allow excessive censorship to the point of reducing a work to nothing but an ad because people have to pay to advertise on this site, not due to some a moral viewpoint against it. If that's not enough, you've been given plenty of advice for adjusting your blacklist accordingly; I recommend you take it, as further meritless complaining will be taken as a refusal to blacklist. If that is still not enough for you, then I'm sorry, we cannot accommodate your dissatisfaction.