🇳🇱
@miamiautumn Up until this point I've been tolerant of your account on the grounds that you saw pedophilia as attraction to minors but not necceseraly acting on it, and thus providing therapy or other help to these individuals without judgement. I have no issue with a pedophile who recognizes their feelings are unhealthy, seeks help, and recognizing touching or sexually engaging with children is wrong.
However this post and a few like it seem to suggest that you are tolerant of pedophiles who actually touch little children sexually (contact ideology)... this is the line right here and personally I am ok supporting the ban of this account for now having crossed this line.
I have linked the other moderators and want to give you a chance to speak if you have anything you'd like to say. For the moment my vote is going to be to support a ban.
@freemo @miamiautumn @Sphinx @khird
I'm not really into the issue, does "regardless of their contact ideology" mean something along "no matter how you act on it"?
Not sure, which is the only reason i am giving the OP a chance to respond before I act. My vote may change if they give an explanation I am happy with. Some of their boosts and other comments may suggest they are ok with sexual interactions with minors.
Consider the following post: https://qoto.org/@miamiautumn/105899139124992358
This particular part of that post: "Most pro-contact ideology holds that child-adult sex could exist without an inherent risk for harm greater than potential benefit" seems to suggest that one contact ideology is that sex with minors is perfectly acceptable and non-harmful. Assuming I am interpreting this correctly that would suggest that the account condones adult-child sex, and that such interaction is a "contact ideology"
@freemo @miamiautumn @Sphinx @khird
That's so very borderline... I mean I could see it as a sociological analysis, I know this type of relationships were accepted in the past in some cultures and I can only see with interest people discussing the impacts it had on society
BUT
Arguing for it in political terms, like something that could be done now, that is something that I can't see as acceptable neither.
He is just talking about what those guys think though, not sure about his position and I surely would appreciate him to tell us
I don't think this particular post is banworthy. He's not soliciting, and he's not trying to incite others, so even if he comes out and says "I *don't* oppose such interactions and I think they should be legalised" it's just "unpopular opinions voiced respectfully" which are explicitly allowed by our rules.
The problem as I see it is that he's out of place on a STEM server like QOTO. His entire timeline is about pedophilia; nearly everyone he talks to is on NNIA. He's here to talk about his sexuality, not science, but without being subject to NNIA's restrictions on what can be said on the subject.
@miamiautumn Regardless of what decision the mods arrive at, it might be wise to start hunting for a new home on the Fediverse where you're willing to participate in the local community. If you do this sooner rather than later, you'll be able to port your followers over. If you wait to get banned, you'll lose that option.
It has now been 30 hours since we brought this up. While the moderation team seems to not be pushing for a ban on the original post of concern there is still the outstanding issue of if you have any STEM credentials. Please reply as soon as possible elucidating your STEM credentials, what field your in, and the other questions we asked or else the next step will be to freeze or ban your account until I hear back, thank you.
Thank you for your answer. For the moment that is enough for me to withdraw my vote of ban, and move my vote to "I am undecided on how to proceed, but I dont think thread of a ban is necessarily warranted".
I am of the opinion that while any discussion that encourages or promotes sex with minors is completely unacceptable that a person who is merely attracted to minors, but doesnt act on it, has a right to talk about and express it because to label them as evil for how they feel, even when they know it is wrong to act on it, would only make it harder for them to be healthy moral members of society. Talking about a desire to commit unhealthy actions of any kind without judgement seems to be crucial to minimizing the sexual abuse of minors and maximize the chance for for the person dealing with that.
That said, its a dangerous line to allow the talk of it openly because we need to ensure that doesnt devolve to the point that child pornography is facilitated as a result, or worse yet, sex trafficing. For that reason it is imperative that should such discussions be allowed and respected that they maintain a tone where it is clear that child pron and sex trafficing are unacceptable activities.
The other side to consider is that even with the best of intentions and everything I mentioned above taken into consideration an account like yours will almost certainly hurt the reputation of QOTO and cause servers to block us... now with that said, that is **not** a good enough reason for me to act (and I think my fellow moderators will agree there). I will do what is right and within our rules first and if that means it gets us blocked, then so be it, I dont cave to external pressure. However with those consequences in mind and considering the volatility of the subject we should at least do our best to let people that sexual interaction with minors of any kind will not be condoned. I think it would do you good, and the server if you were to express that explicitly in your account description, that child pornography and sex trafficking is not something you support.. I'm not demanding it of you, but suggesting it since its already what you believe and I think it can prevent a lot of misinterpretations.
As for your STEM credentials, you certainly dont need to post that publicly, we can follow up with that on DM, but it is something we verify from all our users regardless of who they are. Of course it they demonstrate their expertise in STEM and post about it then sometimes we dont need to press the issue so much as someone who doesnt.
In closing, I will wait to see what my fellow moderators think, for now you dont need to worry about being banned or anything until that discussion progresses a bit more, but for the next day or two please try to check in with your account if you can just so we can reach a consensus on this very difficult issue and ensure your perspective is taken fully into consideration while we explore the issue.
@arteteco
We will have to see his explanation. I think at a minimum if it is just a matter of misinterpretation, he should at least specify in his description explicitly and in no uncertain terms that he opposes adult-child sexual interactions. Given the subject matter and the potential for "dog whistles" this seems like a good precautionary measure to avoid misinterpretation of an already dicey subject.
@miamiautumn @Sphinx @khird