[DanBC]

Tumblr was sharing images of child sexual abuse, not just regular porn. It's only when they discovered the images of child sexual abuse that they took action. They'd left user generated porn content alone for many years.

That's not "puritan idiots", that's people who are aware of the harm caused by the distribution of images of child sexual abuse to the survivors of that abuse and to their business from law enforcement activity.

[Freak_NL]

A former Tumblr-employee reported that this was a change that was already being developed (the NSFW-filter that is) for over a year, and was announced within the company in September. The child porn was merely a catalyst.

A good amount of advertisers don't like porn, so you can't monetize Tumblr as effective. Tumblr's investors want a return on investment, and the former approach allowing any legally permitted content didn't work for them, so they resorted to this. They surely did their research, and are betting that the ban on erotic material is the most effective way of increasing the revenue of Tumblr.

[yulaow]

The problem is, their solution just destroyed whoever used nude art or in general their bodies as a mean of expressing themselves while doing nothing to abusers (especially pornbots are still active just as before)

[DanBC]

Sure, but they're not responding because they're puritan idiots, they're responding because not doing so risks their business. Specifically, they risked being added to European block lists in use by almost all EU ISPs. Of course there are ways around this, but no business wants to tell its users to install Tor Browser Bundle to visit a website.

[yulaow]

I understand this, what I am saying is that their current solution is totally ineffective and just PR, and if someone is gonna check the actual situation all the reasons that could put tumblr in the European block list are still there.

[pmlnr]

> not doing so risks their business

The response should have been better filters for illegal content, not cutting off "adult" content. (" because in my opinion, there's nothing adulty in a fantasy artwork from the 70s which, the horror, shows both male and female uncovered breasts.)

[DanBC]

I'm not saying it's a competent response. I'm saying it's not a response from puritanical idiots.

[pmlnr]

How is it not? How is banning nudity on a platform that rose on top of sex-positive attitude is not a puritan decision?!

[fulafel]

Do you have a reference for this block list rumor? Sounds worrying.

[DanBC]

It's not a rumour, it's well known that many ISPs use the IWF blocklists. https://www.iwf.org.uk/become-a-member/services-for-members/...

The blocks are supposed to be used for individual pages, not the domain. https://www.iwf.org.uk/become-a-member/services-for-members/...

In the past the IWF could only take action when an image was reported to them. Recent changes (2013) mean they are now allowed to search out this content.

Those blocks should take the form of "splash pages" warning that the content is illegal. Some of the splash pages provide links to charities working with potential offenders to reduce their likelihood of offending. https://www.gov.uk/government/news/tackling-illegal-images-n...

But Interpol has a list of "worst of" content where the domain is expected to be blocked: https://www.interpol.int/Crime-areas/Crimes-against-children...

Together this means that a site that has images of child sexual abuse, and which does nothing to proactively stop that content, is likely to face increasing levels of regulations. It's also a pretty poor look for advertisers. I'm not saying that Tumblr's response makes any technical sense. I am saying that it makes sense from a business perspective.

[chmod775]

> many ISPs use the IWF blocklists.

Only UK ISPs, which translates to "hardly any" in an European context.

The UK is the outlier here. In some other European countries blocking websites may even be illegal unless some court was involved or the website contains outright unlawful content.

[pjc50]

Most ISPs use the "Internet Watch Foundation" blacklist. I'm not convinced that there was any real risk of Tumblr being added to it en masse.

(I believe there was an incident a few years ago where an image of an Iron Maiden album cover on wikipedia got flagged, though)

[msla]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_Watch_Foundation_and_...

NOTE: The image is on the article above the fold.

> On 5 December 2008, the Internet Watch Foundation (IWF), a British watchdog group, blacklisted content on the English Wikipedia related to Scorpions' 1976 studio album Virgin Killer, due to the presence of its controversial cover artwork, depicting a young girl posing nude, with a faux glass shatter obscuring her genitalia. The image was deemed to be "potentially illegal content" under English law which forbids the possession or creation of indecent photographs of children. The IWF's blacklist are used in web filtering systems such as Cleanfeed.

You can see from my note how much long-term effect this had on Wikipedia.

[DanBC]

The block on that page was for four days. Of course that had no impact on WP.

[chmod775]

> Most ISPs use the "Internet Watch Foundation" blacklist.

You mean: "Most ISPs in the UK".

That is very different from "most ISPs in Europe" or "most ISPs".

[fulafel]

I would very be surprised if most eu isps used a secret blacklist (contents not publushed) maintained abroad and legit communities/platforms like tumblr could just be banned out of the blue. Would it even be legal?

[pjc50]

I don't buy this on timing grounds; there will have been people posting child abuse and moderators deleting it from day 1 of Tumblr. What changed now? It has to have been FOSTA/SESTA fallout or pressure from their payment processor. Or the cost/benefit of the moderation got out of hand.