@rats hm i feel like you can't allow that even without no rules

@rats double negative

@doorroo the tos they're referring to (which i replaced like a week ago i think so im not sure how they saw it) specifically said both 'nothing illegal in the united states' and 'virtual child pornography', which i was wording in that way to ill-advisedly troll-retort to the people that were calling shota 'child pornography' in the first place

@rats i see, doesn't saying 'virtual' technically just mean online so it would include actual though?

@doorroo i guess someone could misread it like that, but i was intending to use the term as legally defined to mean 'simulated'

@rats you'd have to specify virtual means drawn/digital depiction or use a different word, so he was technically right

careful misster ratte

@doorroo i like really didnt come up with this term, it's the language used in https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/198/1083/597166/ for example

but they're technically right because they're making it less specific by just dropping the 'virtual' in a way that implies i'm breaking the law

i don't blame them because i wrote that thing like an asshole which is why i changed it