"Nudity and pornography” clause is both overly vague and simultaneously too specific.

“Nudity and pornography must be posted either unlisted, with a content warning, or both.”

As the only reference to unlisted or Content Warn content, this wording is, to my eye, both overinclusive and underinclusive in content coverage.

Specifically:

Nudity and pornography are definitely not the same thing, and should definitely not be lumped together in a catch-all.

"Nudity" traditionally implies means 'female-looking nipples, but not male-looking nipples' - which is...problematic on so many levels, and there is no additional language included here to define 'nudity' as anything other than the (puritanical, misogynist, and transphobic) definition used in the Acceptable Use Terms of siloed 'advertiser-friendly' Social Media like Facebook, Instagram, etc., and I don't believe that meets the "be better" standards that the community aspires to.

The 'bright line' defining "nudity" is...really subjective, even in light of the issues highlighted above.

  • What percentage of the body must be visible for someone to be considered 'nude'?
  • Does the context matter? Who decides?
  • Is Michelangelo's David 'nudity'?
  • Is Venus de Milo 'nudity'?
  • Is a contemporary woman body-painted as Venus de Milo 'nudity'?
  • Is a contemporary man body-painted as David 'nudity'?

Likewise, pornography is given no 'bright line' definition here, and everything above applies to that term, as well.

  • Shibari, but in a skin-toned body suit - pornography or no?

Additionally, there is no mention of any other type of content whatsoever.

  • As proposed, a vacation photograph of Venus de Milo in the Louvre is unacceptable and needs to be unlisted and/or Content Warned.
  • As proposed, fictional violent content (a video capture from Call of Duty) is totally acceptable and does not need be unlisted or Content Warned.
  • As proposed, actual violent content (think "WorldStarHipHop" fight videos) is totally acceptable and does not need be unlisted or Content Warned.
  • As proposed, graphic gore content (aftermath of war, for example) is totally acceptable and need not be unlisted or Content Warned.
  • As proposed, sexually violent content is totally acceptable, and need not be unlisted or Content Warned - if there's clothing involved somewhere, so you don't run afoul of the nudity provision, of course.

To me, after accounting also for 'internet privilege' of having a relatively ubiquitous high-speed connection with no meaningful data cap as many, but not all have, there is no unified 'bright line' that can be defined as truly equitable and easily applied in all cases, except...to codify as an actual requirement the culturally common 'best practice' I've seen discussed across many, many Mastodon servers.

To promote equity and inclusion among all UFOI Mastodon Users, regardless of network connection and individual content sensitivity considerations, Signatory Admins will strongly encourage a culture that users place all multimedia content (included, but not limited to: audio, images, animations, videos) must be posted behind a Content Warning.

Evidence of promoting a culture that users place all multimedia content behind a Content Warning is considered an affirmative defense against defederation

EDIT FOR CLARITY

I've edited the bolded text above to clarify that the suggestion is not about 100% compliance (or even about content), but about admins actively promoting a server cultural value that is normalizes being considerate of others, regardless of content as an affirmative defense against being defederated.

Edited by Jonathon Barton