Comments:FanFiction.Net adult content purge felt across fandom two weeks on

From Wikinews, the free news source you can write!
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Back to article

Wikinews commentary.svg

This page is for commentary on the news. If you wish to point out a problem in the article (e.g. factual error, etc), please use its regular collaboration page instead. Comments on this page do not need to adhere to the Neutral Point of View policy. Please remain on topic and avoid offensive or inflammatory comments where possible. Try thought-provoking, insightful, or controversial. Civil discussion and polite sparring make our comments pages a fun and friendly place. Please think of this when posting.

Use the "Start a new discussion" button just below to start a new discussion. If the button isn't there, wait a few seconds and click this link: Refresh.

Insta me gelderbloemAlyssa

Start a new discussion

Comments from feedback form - "Whether this article was bias ..."

Whether this article was bias or not has nothing to do with the issue itself, because the general event is the same no matter what details are given. The problem is that the authors were capable of removing the literature themselves if they have been notified properly, considering this rule has not been properly enforced for years. Even then, there was absolutely no consideration that these authors may only have one copy of their works on A more effective way would have been to send a copy by email to the owners' accounts or (as you see on popular websites like Facebook, particularly their "privacy" setting) create a block that would only allow the owner to view it until the content is edited and approved. It was well in their right to remove the stories, since it was in their guild lines in the first place, but I would say a good 2 percent (probably even less) of the mass inappropriate fanfiction material comes from bad organization of the guild lines themselves. I am pretty curtain a good 90 percent of internet users skim or outright ignore rules and only look at the guild lines for ratings. The "MA IS NOT ALLOWED" should be placed at the bottom of the ratings, not the top, so it isn't skimmed over since many have the argument of "confusion with the ratings" from what I have seen. That way, the notice is directly after the reader has properly read the ratings and would immediately catch their eye according to the direction they are reading. People are naturally inclined to remember the things placed at the END, rather than the beginning, which is a conclusion most writers can draw from experience.

All in all, if you skimmed over the details in that long wall of text, the only problem is an error of proper communication and lack of record towards what would be done with the author's material. After all, for all we know, some of these authors were unavailable during the deletion and have not found out about it until recently.

Now lets focus on less-solid details:

I've noticed on this list that these fandoms listed all have one thing in common, popular yaoi (boyXboy) communities (particularly Hetalia). Wiki is an inaccurate source, and this article is likely bias, but there is also a POSSIBILITY that the information might be ACCURATE. Unless you have solid proof that it isn't, such as an article with an actual list of the number deleted, I am going to point out a theory:

That this is a poorly-concealed attack on slash communities.

I am familiar with almost everything on the deletion list, excluding Twilight (which I honestly don't want to look into after hearing about a few details of the events inside, so I'll leave that up to you to "not" find some sort of yaoi community and prove me wrong).

I would appreciate if someone could post an actual list on the numbers deleted, since I believe this to be a theory. Homestuck was not listed (the Homestuck fandom is known for some interesting things, possibly beyond the rating scale for inappropriate material, and is likely more popular than Hetalia due to the recent popularity boost from their kick-starter). (talk)07:57, 7 January 2013

Comments from feedback form - "This article is clearly biased..."

This article is clearly biased and does not accurately report the facts of the situation. There was no purge, the stories removed were in violation of the ToS for FanFiction.Net and any that were removed in error or via misunderstanding were able to be completely reposted. The Change.Org petition is full of misstatements of facts and outright fabrication which harms the footing of any attempt to use it as a legitimate argument. At the end of the day FFN is a private site and is free to declare whatever hosting rules it chooses to for the works on it and also has the right to remove any story which violates those rules as is agreed upon by the users of the site whenever the chose to post a new story. Anyone complaining about the enforcement of a contract they agreed to has no standing at all. (talk)14:34, 9 November 2012

I am in total agreement with you.

It did seem to me that the article came across as biased.

FFN certainly has every right to do what they want on their website, and those who gripe about free speech do not seem to realize just what it really means, or that there is more to the bill of rights and the constitution than just 'free speech'. Free speech does not apply to a private website that has TOS that they expect users to follow.

Censorship and everyone's idea of what's TMI is all different.

It is the owner of the website that has the final decree about who is violating the TOS and who to boot off the wbesite, and whose work to dump off the website. To finally get the kick to the curb shouldn't have been that big of a surprise. Just because the owner of the site took too long getting it cleaned up...oh well.. all the griping about 'losing hard work'? That's silly and a joke. There is NO WAY anyone did not keep a backup of all their 'hard work' no matter what any site is used for, everyone backs up their stuff elsewhere.

It just seems silly to see the cry-baby antics from supposedly grown up people who are wah-wahing to the Huffington Post and anywhere they can online about this. It isn't their website, they agreed to the TOS, and if the website wants to change the ratings and ages onto the website, it is their perogative to cleanit up whenever they want 2002 or 2012. (talk)04:17, 15 November 2012

Comments from feedback form - "I agree with this quite seriou..."

I agree with this quite seriously. I have been in contact with alot of Author's who lost stories and 90% of them said they had been threatened with deletion not even days before the purge and their stories at worst mentioned breasts and butts in detail. Nothing explicit at all from my stand point. ~ShadowRyan

2602:306:37A0:5180:F91E:609:DE54:5718 (talk)23:45, 12 November 2012

Purging of Stories in FFN, a chain that limits the "unleahing of the author's imagination?"

I don't believe that purging of stories in FFN should be made a big deal. After all the only ones that are deleted are the stories with adult content. Not that I'm saying that all the stories with all the adult content should be erased. In fact, I read some of those and I do agree that some works with this content is noteworthy. It's not that I'm insensitive to the feelings of the authors whose stories have been the victim of the purging.

But still when they first entered FFN, all of the authors who have registered in that site already knew of the rules. It is stated plain and clear-- MA (stories that explicitly writes about adult interaction) isn't allowed. I wholeheartedly agree to the person who had commented that some of the authors made a big fuss because they are caught doing something they shouldn't. Besides, they can post it to other sites and anyway, I'm an active reader in FFN and I haven't seen any of the stories thoroughly purged, it keeps coming and coming...Believe me, I know. They can't possibly delete all that. Anyway, if they really hate it so much why not just stop patronizing and using FFN altogether. There are a lot of other sites that allows MA content and definitely lets would be authors to "Unleash their imagination" to the fullest extent of the word.

Xhuizini (talk)16:10, 7 August 2012

An CU article created 7 months ago on ED?

Strange when the page history shows that it was only created 11 days ago.

Patrick M (TUFKAAP) (talk)00:29, 18 June 2012

Erk. :( You're right. I don't visit ED because Australia occasionally blocks it and I've been advised there are legal consequences for possibly viewing some of it. Hence, difficult for me to verify like I should have. :(

LauraHale (talk)00:48, 18 June 2012

Eh, it's a minor error. It happens to everyone.

Patrick M (TUFKAAP) (talk)13:18, 20 June 2012