beard ひげ @beardalaxy@gameliberty.club

@PurpCat it's just interesting to me that Nintendo catches insane amounts of flak to the point of going overboard and straight up lying about and sensationalizing what happens. Like, let's focus on the things Nintendo actually does wrong and also bag on the other companies when they have missteps.

@Aldo2 >"I studied law once"
>doesn't know that the Miller and Dost tests can remove First Amendment protection

Aren't you European anyway?

@PurpCat it's not even bricked in that sense, a console ban does affect the whole console from ever going online, but you can still use it to play games as long as those games are either physical or already downloaded. it's just like having an offline console.

@bleedingphoenix watched the video, pretty interesting. looks like a hell of a film.

@icedquinn i would much rather have someone like vance in office who exemplifies everything i like about trump, nothing i dislike about him, and is far more relatable.

i didn't vote for trump in 2024 but you know, you always hope that whoever wins does some good stuff for the country.

@VD15 these guys are probably on fedi somewhere

@irie it's just a little bit disingenuous to call something the "american party" when you are employing foreigners instead of, you know... americans. i'd like to hear what the policies are but i think elon musk wants what is best for america the country and not what is best for americans the people if that makes sense.

@ChristiJunior wait this is REAL??

@Aldo2 Everybody who posts porn or otherwise sexual content here marks it as sensitive. You can see an example of how to do that in the attached photo.

Hit-Girl is portrayed by Chloe Grace Moretz in live action, but was an existing character beforehand. This is why art of the character is not banned anywhere that loli is allowed. I would argue that posting loli art of Hit-Girl in conjunction with an underage Chloe would intrinsically tie the two together, but I'm trying to be as generous as possible here (for some reason).

I'm not a lawyer, but I believe that some of the things you have posted do not, in fact, fall under proper usage of the First Amendment. I would prefer to err on the side of caution to prevent a potential shutdown of this instance as well as for your own safety. If this isn't something you agree with, as always, you are more than welcome to go to a different instance (or run your own) that would allow you to post such content but obviously at your own risk.

Regardless of the legality of your posts, this instance also has a rule against posting sexualized photos/videos of minors. By posting an innocent photo/video of a minor and using attached text and/or photo edits to sexualize them, you are breaking this rule.

I don't believe that any reasonable person would look at the posts in question and say that they were not created in a sexual manner.

I don't know whether you are playing coy or actually do not know that what you are posting is sexualizing minors, but in either case you need to stop. My suggestion is to just refrain from posting photos/videos of real children and you'll be fine, as that has always been the point of contention. Nobody else has this problem, including users like Jazzy who have been more than willing to correct course when action has been taken against them.

I have said in the past that I appreciate the ability for users on this instance to post about things such as pedophilic desires because of its relation to free speech. This changes as soon as media of actual children is included. Again, you are free to either move to a different instance or make an appeal to @matrix although if the appeal is accepted I will likely move to a different instance because that deviates from my personal ethics.