Mangadex to purge titles for legal reasons

[Xnot]

Sometimes public actions are taken due to policy changes before we've had the chance to completely communicate the changes. While this could be improved to some degree, some matters can put the site's longevity at risk, so it should be somewhat understandable that some titles disappeared before we've had the chance to work out how to word an extra rule or support channel reply. We're not intentionally trying to keep people in the dark about this.

I also believe it's pointless to debate the existance of tags, personal staff opinions, or morality of the content. We just can't have it on the site going forward, it is what it is. It'll be gradually removed as mods get notified, no one's getting retroactively mod-actioned over it, just don't add it anymore.

 

[Tscheddov]

Why not just remove the chapter like you did after dmca hit.
At least keep the metadata

 

[Angry_Panda]

If you jerk it off to little kids, go and do it elsewhere; there are sites that specialise in that.

This. 100%.

 

[Scannedlate]

This. 100%.

Noraneko Shoujo doesn't have little kids - that's what makes the post from this admin both false and insulting.

 

[B4z73rd]

Stop the misinformation. Titles being removed depict sexual activity between characters that are minors, either in appearance (handled on a case-by-case basis) or confirmed in the dialogue. It's about law and compliance with it. If you jerk it off to little kids, go and do it elsewhere; there are sites that specialise in that.

So, it sounds like I was kinda in the ballpark.

That means you won't allow this series to return? It's about high school kids and a working adult. It's has a plot, and we're kinda working on it for the plot. The sexual content is just a bonus. I don't want to be a dick about this, but it was Incorrectly tagged Loli.

 

[Tscheddov]

Sometimes public actions are taken due to policy changes before we've had the chance to completely communicate the changes. While this could be improved to some degree, some matters can put the site's longevity at risk, so it should be somewhat understandable that some titles disappeared before we've had the chance to work out how to word an extra rule or support channel reply. We're not intentionally trying to keep people in the dark about this.

I also believe it's pointless to debate the existance of tags, personal staff opinions, or morality of the content. We just can't have it on the site going forward, it is what it is. It'll be gradually removed as mods get notified, no one's getting retroactively mod-actioned over it, just don't add it anymore.

If thats what it is. Be it.
I won't support this any longer.

 

[UnnamedPlayer]

Stop the misinformation. Titles being removed depict sexual activity between characters that are minors, either in appearance (handled on a case-by-case basis) or confirmed in the dialogue. It's about law and compliance with it. If you jerk it off to little kids, go and do it elsewhere; there are sites that specialise in that.

If it's about the law, the implementation is bad, since it's legal in most countries outside of the puritan america.

 

[yogurtman250]

As for the comment by the blue guy, read the Content Policy. It's there, has been for a while now.

How out of touch is the staff team Jesus Christ 😭

 

[BestBoy]

She sure doesn't look 18 🤷‍♂️

 

[Scannedlate]

If it's about the law, the implementation is bad, since it's legal in most countries outside of the puritan america.

It's even legal in America thanks to Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition. I am not a lawyer, but I am of the somewhat-informed opinion that depictions of non-obscene sex between cartoon characters are legal despite recent legislation from Texas. Certain platforms are entitled to their unwarranted trepidatiousness...and bad-faith characterizations of their user base, I might add. And we are just as entitled to voice our discontent and, if necessary and after failed attempts at resolution, consider other options.

She sure doesn't look 18 🤷‍♂️

No cartoon character does, because they're not real people. They are ideas, and they do not have "ages" as actual people do.

 

[yogurtman250]

Allow me to don my cap of speculation.
quickly wraps head with tin foil

This has nothing to do with the recent law(s) passed in Texas. Its much simpler; Money.

We all know and love that payment processors have effectively unchecked control over what we are allowed to spend money in the digital age and use that power to force their prerogatives on merchants. How does this affect MD? Well you need a payment processor to process all those donations users are giving every month, and if Mr Big PP comes over and sees something he doesn't like. Well, it plays out kind of like you would think a mafia shake down would.

There is also the advertising side of things. Some may have noticed after a certain event that there was an seemingly an increase of one type of title that was being uploaded to MD (Porn. Its porn. lots of porn) . Well most businesses don't like their brand/product being put next to that kind of content which makes it harder to find people that will give you money to advertise on your site (well at least the non-shadey businesses).

It's a mix of both, judging on Neko's posts about this.

 

[B4z73rd]

Sometimes public actions are taken due to policy changes before we've had the chance to completely communicate the changes. While this could be improved to some degree, some matters can put the site's longevity at risk, so it should be somewhat understandable that some titles disappeared before we've had the chance to work out how to word an extra rule or support channel reply. We're not intentionally trying to keep people in the dark about this.

I also believe it's pointless to debate the existance of tags, personal staff opinions, or morality of the content. We just can't have it on the site going forward, it is what it is. It'll be gradually removed as mods get notified, no one's getting retroactively mod-actioned over it, just don't add it anymore.

It's a shame that you guys won't reconsider it after the mounting evidence that it was inaccurately labeled to begin with.

 

[Oobaka-san]

First off, this does seem to be going a bit far, considering it took down Stray Cat Girl, which does not look like that (I was always confused by the Loli tag). That character is one I would've completely believed as a college freshman if she wasn't wearing a uniform to school, and I got the impression that she was in her last year and 18 or older. In short, that one seems to have been given the same treatment as an old article written about Keijo, essentially suggesting that no one could be flat at eighteen.

Second, I just wonder whether this will be limited to the "Mature" content or will extend to other works, possibly even ones that are only in the "Suggestive" area or even the "Safe" slot. Depending on what exactly the standards are it could be all too easy for all sorts of things to be taken down. I mean, it wasn't long ago I heard of a bookstore hiding Dragon Ball for fear it would get them in trouble.

 

[Z3RYX]

Good to know that MD supports overreach and censorship.

But more importantly, I would like to call for the demotion of EtherealNeko.
As an admin and therefore representative of MD, lying and then closing the thread is not a good look.
They not only let their personal opinion and emotions take over instead of explaining the situation matter of fact (like Xnot), but they also implied this rule to always have been in effect, instead of a recent policy change.

As a matter of fact, Rule 3.1.1 specifies CP/CSEM, which does not include fictional content in most jurisdictions. Why is a site that primarily deals in piracy afraid of a few laws about fictional children? If we take Rule 3.1.1 literally, then almost every manga uploaded is illegal due to copyright infringement, but I guess we gonna be selective in the laws we enforce.