# Lewd, sexual, raunchy ads



## guy (Dec 28, 2017)

Hi, so I have my art settings set to general only, I am not sure if that affects the ads or not, but who okays these ads? Do you guys even screen the ads at all, or do you let people post them at will?

Seriously? It's not just obvious there's sex going on, it's freaking animated! 

Are you not aware there are children and minors who visit this site?


----------



## Sunburst_Odell (Dec 28, 2017)

This is why I ultimately left the site. The admins deem literally anything without exposed genitals totally SFW and seem to forget young furries exist.


----------



## aloveablebunny (Dec 28, 2017)

Will using an ad blocker not help to get rid of these?


----------



## guy (Dec 28, 2017)

aloveablebunny said:


> Will using an ad blocker not help to get rid of these?



That's not the point. Does the 12 year old lion king fan know about ad blockers? The point is this site needs people with sense and intelligence to screen these ads. Either that or they need to be sued, or fa taken down for enticing minors, made an example. Too many people in this Fandom think with their little head and don't give a shit about kids in the Fandom, or want to lure them into the sexual side. That's just evil. I hope an example is made.


----------



## Crimcyan (Dec 28, 2017)

Yiff ad's = free yiff

'Nough said????


----------



## Sunburst_Odell (Dec 28, 2017)

Crimcyan said:


> Yiff ad's = free yiff
> 
> 'Nough said????


No! Children don't need to see this stuff. And even non-minors sometimes dislike yiff. Yiff actually nauseates some people, including myself. All ads must be SFW or filtered to show NSFW ads only to 18+ users with the filter off.


----------



## BahgDaddy (Dec 28, 2017)

sunburst_odell said:


> No! Children don't need to see this stuff. And even non-minors sometimes dislike yiff. Yiff actually nauseates some people, including myself. All ads must be SFW or filtered to show NSFW ads only to 18+ users with the filter off.



I thought they were filtered. Huh... That's kind of sucky. This fandom seems a tad sexualized. *is award Most Bestest Understatement Of The Year*


----------



## aloveablebunny (Dec 28, 2017)

Unfortunately, I don't think you'll achieve what you want. Too many people getting out of it what they hoped for. Unless FA really steps up their mod game, I don't see things changing any time soon.


----------



## guy (Dec 28, 2017)

sunburst_odell said:


> No! Children don't need to see this stuff. And even non-minors sometimes dislike yiff. Yiff actually nauseates some people, including myself. All ads must be SFW or filtered to show NSFW ads only to 18+ users with the filter off.



 I am probably twice the age of most people on FA and I don't want to see that shit. I know if I had a child I would not want them to see that, either. And honestly it's shit like this that makes it impossible to give out any FA URL to any of my art or pictures to any non furry. I have to hide the url when I am showing people my pictures on my phone. They'd think I am some kind of freak. And furries wonder why the world looks down on them?


----------



## guy (Dec 28, 2017)

aloveablebunny said:


> Unfortunately, I don't think you'll achieve what you want. Too many people getting out of it what they hoped for. Unless FA really steps up their mod game, I don't see things changing any time soon.



No. It's like county codes. Everyone just grumbles and accepts it and nobody does anything about it- then we wonder why things get so bad. People have to at least try to change a broken system, or something that is just plain wrong.


----------



## aloveablebunny (Dec 28, 2017)

guy said:


> No. It's like county codes. Everyone just grumbles and accepts it and nobody does anything about it- then we wonder why things get so bad. People have to at least try to change a broken system, or something that is just plain wrong.


Looks like you get to be the volunteer!

I don't really have a strong opinion either way on the matter, I just came here to respond to what I thought was a simple post, but did not realize it was going to turn into a moral tirade.

Good luck with that!


----------



## Pipistrele (Dec 28, 2017)

aloveablebunny said:


> Unfortunately, I don't think you'll achieve what you want. Too many people getting out of it what they hoped for. Unless FA really steps up their mod game, I don't see things changing any time soon.


They already did step up to a new level of moderating websites... by "hiring" volunteers to do all the dirty sorting work for literally no money and exposure in return. Needless to say, it'll most likely lead to rather crappy consequences (considering the fact that among of those who asked for a role, I recognized more than one person with rather long history of toxic and abusive behavior), but in terms of saving money that was kinda ingenious, lol.


----------



## silveredgreen (Dec 28, 2017)

From what i've seen the FA staff either have no fuckin clue how to properly run a website or they just don't give a shit. I've known people who were turned away from using the site simply because turning the SFW filter on doesn't do much to help.


----------



## guy (Dec 28, 2017)

silveredgreen said:


> From what i've seen the FA staff either have no fuckin clue how to properly run a website or they just don't give a shit. I've known people who were turned away from using the site simply because turning the SFW filter on doesn't do much to help.



Well. Maybe a lawsuit will fix their wagon. All it takes is one parent who gives a damn about what their child is looking at online...


----------



## BahgDaddy (Dec 28, 2017)

guy said:


> Well. Maybe a lawsuit will fix their wagon. All it takes is one parent who gives a damn about what their child is looking at online...



Is it actually that big of a concern? I'm not a big fan of moral evangelists.


----------



## Pipistrele (Dec 28, 2017)

I kinda like how this thread turned from "There are problems with ads on FA" to "Wow, what a crappy site" in a matter of couple hours, though. Combining with slowly bleeding population on the site, it kinda speaks of both problems of FurAffinity and accumulated frustrations of its users.


----------



## Deleted member 115426 (Dec 28, 2017)

Or kids can you know. Not use the site. Or just suck it up and deal with it. The furry fandom is very "adult". Sorry but it's just the way things are. You don't go to porn hub and expect a kid friendly section. You don't play a shooter and expect a kid friendly option.


----------



## silveredgreen (Dec 28, 2017)

Ovi the Dragon said:


> Or kids can you know. Not use the site. Or just suck it up and deal with it. The furry fandom is very "adult". Sorry but it's just the way things are. You don't go to porn hub and expect a kid friendly section. You don't play a shooter and expect a kid friendly option.



Right but you'd think a fandom that's so obsessed with convincing outsiders that they're _not_ just a creepy sex cult would make efforts to seem right but they don't. Hence why people think we're a creepy sex cult, because we basically are.


----------



## BahgDaddy (Dec 28, 2017)

I do wish they'd make all the vore "mature" content required. It's really a site for adults... or very promiscuous younger people. 

Further, the art itself does not fall into regular porn definitions, since it is drawn, and not actual imagery.


----------



## BahgDaddy (Dec 28, 2017)

silveredgreen said:


> Hence why people think we're a creepy sex cult, because we basically are.



Oh well.


----------



## Deleted member 115426 (Dec 28, 2017)

It's really not kid friendly however much you wish it could be. x.x You are litterally walking into a strip club asking where the kid friendly section is.


----------



## Deleted member 115426 (Dec 28, 2017)

silveredgreen said:


> Right but you'd think a fandom that's so obsessed with convincing outsiders that they're _not_ just a creepy sex cult would make efforts to seem right but they don't. Hence why people think we're a creepy sex cult, because we basically are.


We aren't a sex cult?! MY LIFE IS A LIE! :V


----------



## BahgDaddy (Dec 28, 2017)

Ovi the Dragon said:


> It's really not kid friendly however much you wish it could be. x.x You are litterally walking into a strip club asking where the kid friendly section is.



Not entirely.

FA search results:

Wolf - 1,217,357 total results
Clean - 868,141 results
Mature - 127,459 results
Adult - 221,757

Well, look at that! Looks like we're not that sex crazed after all.


----------



## Sunburst_Odell (Dec 28, 2017)

Ovi the Dragon said:


> Or kids can you know. Not use the site. Or just suck it up and deal with it. The furry fandom is very "adult". Sorry but it's just the way things are. You don't go to porn hub and expect a kid friendly section. You don't play a shooter and expect a kid friendly option.


Except this isn't PornHub or a shooter game. This is a fandom about anthropomorphic animals. Not anthropomorphic animal sex. It just has it.

Just because the staff are a bunch of lazy idiots who are too petrified of losing members because some furries are mad about their lewd ad being taken down from a site where mature content filters exist doesn't mean we should pay the price. FA allows users 13+ to join. They need to mark things mature as mature or make the site for adults only. Period.


----------



## Crimcyan (Dec 28, 2017)

BahgDaddy said:


> Not entirely.
> 
> FA search results:
> 
> ...


Well most of the wolf results could be porn..


----------



## Pipistrele (Dec 28, 2017)

Ovi the Dragon said:


> Or kids can you know. Not use the site. Or just suck it up and deal with it. The furry fandom is very "adult". Sorry but it's just the way things are. You don't go to porn hub and expect a kid friendly section. You don't play a shooter and expect a kid friendly option.


But that's the thing, Pornhub is open about the fact that it's absolutely NSFW, and same goes for gory shooters (all the ESRB warnings and stuff). FurAffinity, on the other hand, positions itself as "combined" community - there's three variations of submission ratings (general, mature, adult), a dedicated SFW filter, lack of 18+ restrictions, etc, so comparison with porn sites and strip clubs is frankly kinda dumb by default. As @sunburst_odell mentioned above, furry fandom isn't pornographic by default, and so is the site.

The problem is that for a site with lack of age restriction and tons of "clean artwork" options, all these filters just, welp, don't work. You still get smutty ads, you still get porn and fetish artwork slipped into your gallery feed (either by artist's mistake or some kind of weird loophole), you still have no option to blacklist particular tags, etc, etc. It's not like FA is primarly focused on pornographic artwork and caters to particular "animal-loving" audience - it's just that it fails at controlling the thing.


----------



## BahgDaddy (Dec 28, 2017)

Crimcyan said:


> Well most of the wolf results could be porn..



I separated it. 71% clean, 10% mature, 18% adult.


----------



## Sunburst_Odell (Dec 28, 2017)

Crimcyan said:


> Well most of the wolf results could be porn..


the three results under "wolf" are saying those are the results of what wolf art is clean, mature, and adult


----------



## Crimcyan (Dec 28, 2017)

BahgDaddy said:


> I separated it. 71% clean, 10% mature, 18% adult.


Hmm, didn't look like that tho. but you don't even need to search up adult or mature content as the stuff is right on the front page and everywhere, while you need to specify you want clean art to get the clean art instead of adult. So that could be why there is such a percentage gap beacuse nsfw is easier to get access to


----------



## Deleted member 115426 (Dec 28, 2017)

It feels like this thread is like those people who always freak out about videogames making people violent or something so I'm not sure if I should waste my breath... Look anyone can do anything they please. If it's not for you, just leave. Just get used to it and ignore it when something rubs you the wrong way. And really people who enter the furry fandom need to expect there to be yiff. Like it's one of the biggest thing in the fandom, and most people love it. You know how mad people would be if you just took everything down because it offended you and caused you no harm whatsoever? Forgive me if I'm harsh. This just seems foreign to me when everywhere you look is yiff. It's just a fact of being a furry that most places have yiff. ( And I think I actually posted somewhere that I love to see all the amazing clean artwork. But that doesn't mean I'm annoyed when something comes up that I don't like. )


----------



## BahgDaddy (Dec 28, 2017)

Crimcyan said:


> Hmm, didn't look like that tho. but you don't even need to search up adult or mature content as the stuff is right on the front page and everywhere, while you need to specify you want clean art to get the clean art instead of adult. So that could be why there is such a percentage gap beacuse nsfw is easier to get access to



You can set your profile to always prohibit Mature and Adult content, which is basically SFW mode always turned on. They then have to make a concerted effort to view anything Mature or Adult. Personally, I don't see too much strange stuff leak through. 

Sometimes I enjoy browsing with SFW mode on, because I like the art for the art. But actually I tend to go to DeviantArt for SFW stuff, because it tends to be a. higher quality and b. less yiff-y.


----------



## Kebechet (Dec 28, 2017)

Ovi the Dragon said:


> It's really not kid friendly however much you wish it could be. x.x You are litterally walking into a strip club asking where the kid friendly section is.



No. It's more like you're walking down a street in Vegas, and someone flashes you. Just because you're walking down a street, in a city full of strip clubs and adult entertainment doesn't mean that those people should expect to be flashed, and that, being flashed by others without consent is ok.


----------



## Crimcyan (Dec 28, 2017)

BahgDaddy said:


> You can set your profile to always prohibit Mature and Adult content, which is basically SFW mode always turned on. They then have to make a concerted effort to view anything Mature or Adult. Personally, I don't see too much strange stuff leak through.
> 
> Sometimes I enjoy browsing with SFW mode on, because I like the art for the art. But actually I tend to go to DeviantArt for SFW stuff, because it tends to be a. higher quality and b. less yiff-y.


You should try tumblr for art, I find it better then fa or da, never had problems with the safe mode on there


----------



## Rant (Dec 28, 2017)

BahgDaddy said:


> You can set your profile to always prohibit Mature and Adult content, which is basically SFW mode always turned on. They then have to make a concerted effort to view anything Mature or Adult. Personally, I don't see too much strange stuff leak through.
> 
> Sometimes I enjoy browsing with SFW mode on, because I like the art for the art. But actually I tend to go to DeviantArt for SFW stuff, because it tends to be a. higher quality and b. less yiff-y.


The ads will still display suggestive art. And some people don't even mark their submissions right on purpose.


----------



## Deleted member 115426 (Dec 28, 2017)

Kebechet said:


> No. It's more like you're walking down a street in Vegas, and someone flashes you. Just because you're walking down a street, in a city full of strip clubs and adult entertainment doesn't mean that those people should expect to be flashed, and that, being flashed by others without consent is ok.


But free boobs? :V Really the thing is it doesn't matter how much you wish things were supposed to be right. Sometimes things aren't what you like in life.


----------



## BahgDaddy (Dec 28, 2017)

Rant said:


> The ads will still display suggestive art. And some people don't even mark their submissions right on purpose.



Our society is filled with Victoria Secret ads, American Pie movie covers, and nude models on magazine covers. Why is this a special criticism for FA?


----------



## Deleted member 115426 (Dec 28, 2017)

BahgDaddy said:


> Our society is filled with Victoria Secret ads, American Pie movie covers, and nude models on magazine covers. Why is this a special criticism for FA?


Like seriously. I mean there's so many KY commercials and I'm like "how's this allowed on TV?" Lol


----------



## Crimcyan (Dec 28, 2017)

BahgDaddy said:


> Our society is filled with Victoria Secret ads, American Pie movie covers, and nude models on magazine covers. Why is this a special criticism for FA?


Beacuse people are sensitive and want to complain about things.


----------



## Rant (Dec 28, 2017)

BahgDaddy said:


> Our society is filled with Victoria Secret ads, American Pie movie covers, and nude models on magazine covers. Why is this a special criticism for FA?


Because furries tell everyone their safe and not sexual deviants but they are so porn crazy that furries are listed in law books as "sexual deviants" no really, my mate had a college class on it when he was training for law enforcement


----------



## Deleted member 115426 (Dec 28, 2017)

Rant said:


> Because furries tell everyone their safe and not sexual deviants but they are so porn crazy that furries are listed in law books as "sexual deviants" no really, my mate had a college class on it when he was training for law enforcement


What the hell? I should sue for profiling and use it all to buy yiff.


----------



## BahgDaddy (Dec 28, 2017)

Rant said:


> Because furries tell everyone their safe and not sexual deviants but they are so porn crazy that furries are listed in law books as "sexual deviants" no really, my mate had a college class on it when he was training for law enforcement



I don't particularly care for what society deems sexually deviant, or why. What society deems, is irrelevant. I'm not afraid to be open about the fact that I deeply enjoy sexualized anthropomorphic art. This is, after all, the era of adult stores and enlightenment. 

I will assert readily that I don't simply wallow constantly in sexual activities simply for their sake, but I do what I'm comfortable with, and enjoy discussing it with others who are similarly comfortable. Sexuality is like any other activity - you can have too little, or too much. I do not talk about it with others who are uncomfortable with it - instead I'll discuss why they're uncomfortable with it, and possibly argue that there's nothing wrong with people enjoying themselves, privately, in the way they choose. This is especially true if it is private, and harms no one.

If furries plaster a yiff billboard up, this would be harmful, and if people prevent furries from being sexually explorative people, this is also harmful.


----------



## quoting_mungo (Dec 29, 2017)

guy said:


> Hi, so I have my art settings set to general only, I am not sure if that affects the ads or not, but who okays these ads? Do you guys even screen the ads at all, or do you let people post them at will?
> 
> Seriously? It's not just obvious there's sex going on, it's freaking animated!
> 
> Are you not aware there are children and minors who visit this site?


Ads are screened. Sometimes things slip through because the people reviewing them are still human. Go to User control panel -- Fur Affinity [dot] net and report the specific ad (include the ad banner image URL and target URL in your ticket) under "Advertising", preferably with a more constructive and less condescending message than your posts in this thread.



Pipistrele said:


> Needless to say, it'll most likely lead to rather crappy consequences (considering the fact that among of those who asked for a role, I recognized more than one person with rather long history of toxic and abusive behavior), but in terms of saving money that was kinda ingenious, lol.


Can't realistically stop people from applying. Doesn't mean they'll be brought on. Holding the fact that people you'd rather not see doing the job sent in applications against the site is... pretty ridiculous, tbh. 

I'll also note that FA is hardly unique in having volunteer staff. Much as paying staff would be nice, there isn't room in the budget. Out of staff's hands.



sunburst_odell said:


> Just because the staff are a bunch of lazy idiots who are too petrified of losing members because some furries are mad about their lewd ad being taken down from a site where mature content filters exist doesn't mean we should pay the price.


I can assure you there are no lazy idiots on staff. Random namecalling because you don't like how lines are drawn in regards to content ratings is unnecessary and rude. If you have _specific_ issues with where the lines are drawn, file a ticket and make a constructive, well-reasoned argument for what you think should be changed and why.


----------



## Pipistrele (Dec 29, 2017)

quoting_mungo said:


> Can't realistically stop people from applying. Doesn't mean they'll be brought on. Holding the fact that people you'd rather not see doing the job sent in applications against the site is... pretty ridiculous, tbh.


It's not solely about the fact that some people who apply on position aren't really fit for moderating anything, it's more about the terms of applying - basically, no money, no exposure, and NDA agreement on top of that. You don't even get a fancy colored username. The unpleasant amount of shady people applying to position is just there as something to think about. With no adequate reasons to participate in the first place, is it unreasonable to assume that such kind of agreement will mostly attract a lot of people with "personal" reasons to participate?

As it was mentioned several times by different people in moderator requitment thread, people who desperately want a moderator status despite having no benefits whatsoever are also the people you _don't want_ to be mods for your site - they'll most likely be either too naive or too shady for such job. While I believe there are at least some people who genuinely want to help, there are also a lot of people who I expect to abuse the hell out of their new status, judging by their previous behavior on the site. For mods to be both reliable and behaved, you need at least some kind of motivation. There's no motivation at all in being an anonymous mod for FA.



> I'll also note that FA is hardly unique in having volunteer staff. Much as paying staff would be nice, there isn't room in the budget. Out of staff's hands.


Welp, that's definitely true, and I even volunteered for a couple of translation-related sites, but FA isn't some kind of humble project by bored enthusiasts - it's a heavily monetized site that has 4 banners for internal ads, 2 banners for external ads, 10+ advertising requests for a page (according to Disconnect), and is also controlled by IMVU on top of that. I don't believe that at least some of the money from ad revenue couldn't be given to hard-working mods, be it even a couple bucks a week on some snacks. In fact, I don't think anybody believes that - the question of "why an ad-heavy site owned by IMVU can't afford itself to reward the mods" was brought up in discussion thread again and again, and aside of basic "we have a budget" excuse, we haven't really got a good answer.


----------



## DarkoKavinsky (Dec 29, 2017)

Pipistrele said:


> But that's the thing, Pornhub is open about the fact that it's absolutely NSFW, and same goes for gory shooters (all the ESRB warnings and stuff). FurAffinity, on the other hand, positions itself as "combined" community - there's three variations of submission ratings (general, mature, adult), a dedicated SFW filter, lack of 18+ restrictions, etc, so comparison with porn sites and strip clubs is frankly kinda dumb by default. As @sunburst_odell mentioned above, furry fandom isn't pornographic by default, and so is the site.
> 
> The problem is that for a site with lack of age restriction and tons of "clean artwork" options, all these filters just, welp, don't work. You still get smutty ads, you still get porn and fetish artwork slipped into your gallery feed (either by artist's mistake or some kind of weird loophole), you still have no option to blacklist particular tags, etc, etc. It's not like FA is primarily focused on pornographic artwork and caters to particular "animal-loving" audience - it's just that it fails at controlling the thing.


All of those features you've mentioned would help out artists so much. That way the creepy fetish people could get their own searchers and other niches as well. When I'm on there I'm looking for styles and potentially things I can learn from.

A blacklisting of tags would be great, as well as even a system to have certain tags white listed would be even better for people who are searching for stuff. Lets say you really like historic artwork or certain clothes or styles. IDK I can see how you could easily program a registry of tags and etc. The main issue is many tags are fill in the blank. 

Depending on how the site's coded it might be easy, it might be difficult. How are tags accessed and registered?  

The site itself is very clunky, and there's many issues. Heck I can't even find my watchers work without individually remembering to click on them. It's 

I've also noticed some ads with almost Japanese style censoring.  It's very irritating seeing some of these ads. I've also noticed the ones that seem to irritate me always are on my screen. I really wonder if thats psychological or if these people pushed out the most money too.


----------



## quoting_mungo (Dec 29, 2017)

Pipistrele said:


> While I believe there are at least some people who genuinely want to help, there are also a lot of people who I expect to abuse the hell out of their new status, judging by their previous behavior on the site. For mods to be both reliable and behaved, you need at least some kind of motivation. There's no motivation at all in being an anonymous mod for FA.


Honestly, given the events that resulted in me resigning before the holidays, I would say there is even more incentive to _not_ apply for the position had it not been anonymous. There is _one_ singular argument I can see against anonymous mods at this point, and it is that they cannot answer questions in newspost comments. Beyond that? The community has clearly shown it does not have the collective maturity to handle knowing who passed down this or that decision.

That is a primary reason mods are anonymous. Because a subsection of the userbase is so hostile, so volatile, that identifying moderators results in harassment. 

I always found a job well done to be my primary motivator, along with doing a good thing for the community. That doesn't disappear with anonymity.



Pipistrele said:


> I don't believe that at least some of the money from ad revenue couldn't be given to hard-working mods, be it even a couple bucks a week on some snacks. In fact, I don't think anybody believes that - the question of "why an ad-heavy site owned by IMVU can't afford itself to reward the mods" was brought up in discussion thread again and again, and aside of basic "we have a budget" excuse, we haven't really got a good answer.


A couple bucks a week would be more of an insult than compensation. Neer mentioned a couple of times in the newspost comments what kind of money would be necessary to fairly compensate staff (I think the figure was around $20k/year/staff member), and that's definitely not the kind of surplus being pulled in by ads. I'm pretty sure dA at least a few years ago used volunteers alongside their paid staff, and they're more heavily monetized than FA ever was. Same for LiveJournal.



DarkoKavinsky said:


> Depending on how the site's coded it might be easy, it might be difficult.


Tacking tag blacklisting onto the current codebase would be a huge undertaking. It's a desired feature, but not one likely to be implemented prior to a recode of the site as a whole.


----------



## Yakamaru (Dec 29, 2017)

I use an Adblock Browser on my phone. I would recommend you use one too if you don't want to see unwanted ads. Personally I don't see any ads at all, but if the problem is as bad as people have been describing here, FA's staff need to do some proper vetting on their ads. 

Lazy work will get you lazy results.


----------



## Pipistrele (Dec 29, 2017)

quoting_mungo said:


> Honestly, given the events that resulted in me resigning before the holidays, I would say there is even more incentive to _not_ apply for the position had it not been anonymous. There is _one_ singular argument I can see against anonymous mods at this point, and it is that they cannot answer questions in newspost comments. Beyond that? The community has clearly shown it does not have the collective maturity to handle knowing who passed down this or that decision.
> 
> That is a primary reason mods are anonymous. Because a subsection of the userbase is so hostile, so volatile, that identifying moderators results in harassment.
> 
> I always found a job well done to be my primary motivator, along with doing a good thing for the community. That doesn't disappear with anonymity.


I understand the logic behind the decision, I just don't think it negates the fact that there are no benefits or motivations for volunteer moderators left. There could be at least some kind of choice between staying anonymous and being open about your status as a moderator (which is more risky indeed, but is also better for the site as a whole, since it makes the whole thing more transparent). Not to mention having NDA enforced on the mods is a bit of an overkill in that case - I can't help but feel suspicious about it.

Job well done can be a good motivator, but most people already have a job to try and do well. Probably a rewarding job, at least when it comes to money. With that line of thinking, I may as well ask people to clean my house once a day for free - like, "Sure, you work for me and get nothing, but there's a satisfaction of job well done!"



> A couple bucks a week would be more of an insult than compensation. Neer mentioned a couple of times in the newspost comments what kind of money would be necessary to fairly compensate staff (I think the figure was around $20k/year/staff member), and that's definitely not the kind of surplus being pulled in by ads. I'm pretty sure dA at least a few years ago used volunteers alongside their paid staff, and they're more heavily monetized than FA ever was. Same for LiveJournal.


To be honest, asking people to review 40 tickets a week for literally nothing, all while site accumulates money on tons of ads, is an insult in itself. dA actually rewards volunteers by mentioning their names, giving them good exposure, and occasionally rewarding them with various advantages. FA, on the other hand, is a complete opposite - no reward, no exposure, all take, no give, and you can't even boast about it due to aforementioned NDA. In that context, even a couple of bucks would be a more respectful offer to the new mods. Maybe there is a budget-related reason for that kind of situation, but again, it's more or less an excuse, and excuses don't fix problems by default, no matter how reasonable they are.


----------



## guy (Dec 29, 2017)

BahgDaddy said:


> I separated it. 71% clean, 10% mature, 18% adult.



How many results on pornhub are labeled, or in truth, are "Clean?"

Sorry, but that's a non starter. I used to not even watch artists who I thought drew porn on FA (My settings are at general so I do not know). Of course if they upload porn as General then change it later I still see it in my inbox. I don't want to see it in my inbox.

Why do people think FA is dedicated to pornography? Because it is not, it never has been, and it never will be. Pornhub is dedicated to pornography. FA is not.


----------



## guy (Dec 29, 2017)

BahgDaddy said:


> Our society is filled with Victoria Secret ads, American Pie movie covers, and nude models on magazine covers. Why is this a special criticism for FA?



Because none of those ads are in kid's classrooms, on Nickoledeon (Although I argue some of the cartoons on that channel are absolutely disgusting)

Many of us humans have suffered trauma/have proclivities to engage in self destructive behavior, for that reason I do not want to expose children to the sacred act of sex, must I explain this basic act of morality that is ingrained in nearly every parent?? To protect their child whom they love from the garbage in this world, that literally destroys homes, hearts, and souls?

Are we so filled with illusions that we do not understand that cartoon animal people have a draw and basis in innocence first? Which is why we show infants, children, and young ones cartoons with anthropomorphic creatures in them?

Will furries who enjoy the adult aspect of the fandom criticise those of us who want to keep it innocent?

I want to add, too, that for a few years in my life I thoroughly enjoyed the adult side of the fandom, furry pornography is in essence, literally perfection personified. I have not seen many things more beautiful, to be honest, but I have not seen things more of a lie, when contrasted to real- life intimacy. I was addicted to furry porn, and it created a terrible malaise of anxiety, loneliness, and brokenness, that I have shrugged, now, as I endeavor to only view clean anthropomorphic artwork.

The fact remains I would rather not expose children or the young to such things. I am glad I turned my life around, I am much happier for it. The truth is men who do not end up with broken marriages and a deeply distorted sense of a woman's worth as a human being, this is fact. Viewing pornography is unhealthy, being addicted to it can end one's hope at having a healthy relationship with their spouse.


----------



## guy (Dec 29, 2017)

quoting_mungo said:


> Ads are screened. Sometimes things slip through because the people reviewing them are still human. Go to User control panel -- Fur Affinity [dot] net and report the specific ad (include the ad banner image URL and target URL in your ticket) under "Advertising", preferably with a more constructive and less condescending message than your posts in this thread.



There is no "Slipping through" of an ANIMATED ad that shows two animated characters from a CHILDREN'S MOVIE engaged in SEX on a website that welcomes 13 year olds. It is either complete and utter, gross negligence, or sheer perversion. In my opinion neither one should ever be tolerated on a website that has a "Clean" or "general" setting, especially one with more clean art than porn.

Please do not call my post condescending if you yourself are not willing to be anything but disingenuine! Why is morality and a desire for decency considered condescending?? Frankly even as an adult I am disgusted by the sex toy ads, the bondage ads, and other ads I see on a website devoted to cartoon animal people. If the powers that be are going to be so careless and negligent then make the site 18+ and I will have nothing further to do with it. I will take my art and my pictures elsewhere, as it is I am ashamed to show people not in the fandom the website. Why even have 13 year olds on it at all?

Thank you for the link.


----------



## Deleted member 82554 (Dec 29, 2017)

Gave me a boner just reading the thread title. :v

If you're not to worried about supporting FA every time when on mobile, install an ad-blocker.


----------



## Ciderfine (Dec 29, 2017)

Crimcyan said:


> You should try tumblr for art, I find it better then fa or da, never had problems with the safe mode on there



yeah the sex porn bot invasion kind of ruins the safe mode on there tbh imo. Even having safe mode in place doesnt stop nsfw content from showing up or seeing it. People have to manually label their blogs as NSFW, 100% of the people dont do that. Seen plenty of porn on tumblr even with sfw mode on.


----------



## Simo (Dec 29, 2017)

and i was not excited


----------



## Deleted member 115426 (Dec 29, 2017)

guy said:


> Because none of those ads are in kid's classrooms, on Nickoledeon (Although I argue some of the cartoons on that channel are absolutely disgusting)
> 
> Many of us humans have suffered trauma/have proclivities to engage in self destructive behavior, for that reason I do not want to expose children to the sacred act of sex, must I explain this basic act of morality that is ingrained in nearly every parent?? To protect their child whom they love from the garbage in this world, that literally destroys homes, hearts, and souls?
> 
> ...


What this guy is reminding me of.


----------



## Simo (Dec 29, 2017)

i was bored


----------



## Ginza (Dec 29, 2017)

guy said:


> Because none of those ads are in kid's classrooms, on Nickoledeon (Although I argue some of the cartoons on that channel are absolutely disgusting)
> 
> Many of us humans have suffered trauma/have proclivities to engage in self destructive behavior, for that reason I do not want to expose children to the sacred act of sex, must I explain this basic act of morality that is ingrained in nearly every parent?? To protect their child whom they love from the garbage in this world, that literally destroys homes, hearts, and souls?
> 
> ...



Lmao what? I have to disagree, porn inherently, isn't unhealthy. Being addicted, yes, but this is more of a problem with one's self than porn. 90% of normal human beings can watch porn, do what they need to do, then move on- no further issues. Becoming so addicted that you sever a relationship with a loved one, points to a deeper psychological issue that should be addressed. I also don't believe watching porn "makes men objectify women". I know plenty of guys and girls who watch it, and all are happy, very moral people. It's a small, and primitive part of ourselves, not an indicator of our ethicality as a whole. In short, no, porn isn't harmful. If you're so psychologically damaged that you become addicted, that's a whole other set of issues...

I agree with your stance on the site being far too pornographic with SFW on, but you are taking it way too far here.


----------



## quoting_mungo (Dec 29, 2017)

guy said:


> Please do not call my post condescending if you yourself are not willing to be anything but disingenuine! Why is morality and a desire for decency considered condescending??


When you talk about wishing for the site to be sued because you are offended by an advertisement, that's somewhere between condescending and rude. When you ask the rhetorical question "do you guys screen your ads at all?", that is condescending. When you ask "Are you not aware there are children and minors who visit this site?", that is condescending. Need I go on? I am not being disingenuous, I am telling you human error can happen and things end up in different "ad buckets" than they maybe should because people, including site staff, are human. Since what you offered was a screenshot of the ad, not a link to the banner image file, I only have your word for it that the animation makes it blatantly sexual; the still in your screenshot is suggestive at best and if I cared to I could trace the elements visible in the ad and draw the scene into something completely innocent without too much trouble. 



guy said:


> Many of us humans have suffered trauma/have proclivities to engage in self destructive behavior, for that reason I do not want to expose children to the sacred act of sex, must I explain this basic act of morality that is ingrained in nearly every parent?? To protect their child whom they love from the garbage in this world, that literally destroys homes, hearts, and souls?


Then parent your children. That is not the job of _any_ website, any more than it is the job of random people you might run into going about your daily life. There are pretty clear rules stating what is and is not allowed in any given rating on FA. If you-as-a-parent think this is not acceptable viewing for your 13-17 year old son or daughter, that's a decision that you have every right to make, and you then have the option of talking to your child and/or using software settings or similar to block the website, depending on how much trust you have for your child. 



guy said:


> The truth is men who do not end up with broken marriages and a deeply distorted sense of a woman's worth as a human being, this is fact. Viewing pornography is unhealthy, being addicted to it can end one's hope at having a healthy relationship with their spouse.


If you do not prioritize pornography over real relationships, there is nothing inherently unhealthy about it. If you have an addictive personality, just about anything can be unhealthy. I personally pass links to clean _and_ adult work back and forth with both my husband and boyfriend, and if anything it strengthens our relationship, because knowing what each of us enjoys seeing helps deepen our understanding for one another. My marriage is fine. My husband and boyfriend have no problem seeing the human value of women. You're painting a horror scenario based on your own failings, and calling it fact when it is anything but.


----------



## Ciderfine (Dec 29, 2017)

While I was on FA when things were SFW settings in place on my profile due to my age, I have been seeing a lot of crop top ads about sex, raunchy spicy offers, places and sometimes cringy adult media focus. Been seeing a lot more of it, but I think even by cutting of the crust your still eating bread and the nature of this place or the nature of what the advertises want cant be covered up.

The crumbs are FA is a the largest site, its super sexually open which brings more people, more ads and with IMVU running it yes there is no oversight or balance. I think its an issue but since I'm an adult and have found better working Ad shaking software on my recent chromebook I don't have to worry about this stuff any more or at all.

Biggest issue for in the past was how random, cringy, clickbaity and poorly done so many of these ads where. It showed many of the adult sites they catered to where pay for play, adult in nature and not really done well? At first I thought you meant the Advertise banners artists on here can pay for, some of them can be raunchy as snorting cumin and allspice but I sadly cant add anything more.  It was annoying but I don't see much of any ad anymore.


----------



## aloveablebunny (Dec 29, 2017)

quoting_mungo said:


> When you talk about wishing for the site to be sued because you are offended by an advertisement, that's somewhere between condescending and rude. When you ask the rhetorical question "do you guys screen your ads at all?", that is condescending. When you ask "Are you not aware there are children and minors who visit this site?", that is condescending. Need I go on? I am not being disingenuous, I am telling you human error can happen and things end up in different "ad buckets" than they maybe should because people, including site staff, are human. Since what you offered was a screenshot of the ad, not a link to the banner image file, I only have your word for it that the animation makes it blatantly sexual; the still in your screenshot is suggestive at best and if I cared to I could trace the elements visible in the ad and draw the scene into something completely innocent without too much trouble.
> 
> 
> Then parent your children. That is not the job of _any_ website, any more than it is the job of random people you might run into going about your daily life. There are pretty clear rules stating what is and is not allowed in any given rating on FA. If you-as-a-parent think this is not acceptable viewing for your 13-17 year old son or daughter, that's a decision that you have every right to make, and you then have the option of talking to your child and/or using software settings or similar to block the website, depending on how much trust you have for your child.
> ...


Thank you, Mungo, for saying what many of us appear to be thinking.


----------



## KILL.MAIM.KILL (Dec 29, 2017)

What do you expect from a website that literally has built-in submission categories for fetishes?
FurAffinity isn't family friendly. Even if there is a SFW mode.
I don't think the creators intended it to be clean.


----------



## Deleted member 115426 (Dec 29, 2017)

KILL.MAIM.KILL said:


> What do you expect from a website that literally has built-in submission categories for fetishes?
> FurAffinity isn't family friendly. Even if there is a SFW mode.
> I don't think the creators intended it to be clean.


You know that is a really good point.


----------



## Ciderfine (Dec 29, 2017)

KILL.MAIM.KILL said:


> What do you expect from a website that literally has built-in submission categories for fetishes?
> FurAffinity isn't family friendly. Even if there is a SFW mode.
> I don't think the creators intended it to be clean.


 
Im voting for you next election.


----------



## SSJ3Mewtwo (Dec 29, 2017)

Because this should have been handled via trouble ticket, linking to a specific ad of which there's concern, I'm closing this.

Yes, staff in charge of advertisements screen them for acceptability according to the site's AUP:  Acceptable Upload Policy -- Fur Affinity [dot] net

Yes, this means that some ads will be potentially unacceptable for some viewers, but that is the structure set in place at this time.


----------

