Hub logic
They delete my gif that shows explicit induction but all the porn gifs are allowed, tell me about logic...
real life manips are not allowed
Its in the rules.
Its in the rules.
(i didn't see the gif) You can't publish real life people, except from a hypno related official video. For example you can publish entrancement_uk girls, but not random people mannipped.
So, google is a wonderful thing, and I can actually take a look at what got pulled. I'm not a member of the moderation community but what I'll say is that you might want to take it up with them instead of hit up the forums. This is basically all opinion on my end and might be wrong:
The irl stuff exists in a gray area for the hub. The porn images aren't manipulations. They aren't someone's real face, who could potentially be pissed off that their face is used in an odd way, and call their bosses at a photo studio to move a kitchen sink of trouble towards the website. They are a group that specifically creates that content trying to advertise.
That gif shows a VR headset. If that's remixed promotional material, someone can send a legal notice threatening the website. And figuring out if they are even sane is going to be a protracted and emotional process. Figuring that they are in fact sane, they have the law on their side, and the resources to litigate what was what ended hypnochan, over audio files.
Is it risk adverse behavior that defies logic? Yeah.
If it isn't followed can it take down the entire site, over not following up on some emails? Also, yeah.
You did nothing wrong. The image was pretty damn good. Seems like risk mitigation because when you are serving upwards of thousands of viewers a .1% chance of failure is frighteningly significant. And <<techcrunch.com/2008/09/03...-separation-is-now-three/ | since there's what, six degrees of separation between folks in a social network or less>>? This isn't super unreasonable risk mitigation. There's parts where yeah, the logic gets iffy because Disney exists and is litigation happy over any and all of their ip - but the exception proves the rule because they'd probably advertise the creepy relationship their snake has with a young boy if they sued over that IP. Might think about posting it on Hypnopics-collective where the risk mitigation is that "The only people seeing images are one who have an account on the website."
The irl stuff exists in a gray area for the hub. The porn images aren't manipulations. They aren't someone's real face, who could potentially be pissed off that their face is used in an odd way, and call their bosses at a photo studio to move a kitchen sink of trouble towards the website. They are a group that specifically creates that content trying to advertise.
That gif shows a VR headset. If that's remixed promotional material, someone can send a legal notice threatening the website. And figuring out if they are even sane is going to be a protracted and emotional process. Figuring that they are in fact sane, they have the law on their side, and the resources to litigate what was what ended hypnochan, over audio files.
Is it risk adverse behavior that defies logic? Yeah.
If it isn't followed can it take down the entire site, over not following up on some emails? Also, yeah.
You did nothing wrong. The image was pretty damn good. Seems like risk mitigation because when you are serving upwards of thousands of viewers a .1% chance of failure is frighteningly significant. And <<techcrunch.com/2008/09/03...-separation-is-now-three/ | since there's what, six degrees of separation between folks in a social network or less>>? This isn't super unreasonable risk mitigation. There's parts where yeah, the logic gets iffy because Disney exists and is litigation happy over any and all of their ip - but the exception proves the rule because they'd probably advertise the creepy relationship their snake has with a young boy if they sued over that IP. Might think about posting it on Hypnopics-collective where the risk mitigation is that "The only people seeing images are one who have an account on the website."
Mr_Face said:
There's parts where yeah, the logic gets iffy because Disney exists and is litigation happy over any and all of their ip
There's parts where yeah, the logic gets iffy because Disney exists and is litigation happy over any and all of their ip
I highly doubt this rule exists for legal reasons, otherwise all manipped images would be banned, not the just RL manips. It's probably for quality reasons, though I admit a lot of the non-RL manips here on the hub are very low quality (full disclosure, I haven't seen the pic that got removed).
Thf772 said:
I highly doubt this rule exists for legal reasons, otherwise all manipped images would be banned, not the just RL manips. It's probably for quality reasons, though I admit a lot of the non-RL manips here on the hub are very low quality (full disclosure, I haven't seen the pic that got removed).
I highly doubt this rule exists for legal reasons, otherwise all manipped images would be banned, not the just RL manips. It's probably for quality reasons, though I admit a lot of the non-RL manips here on the hub are very low quality (full disclosure, I haven't seen the pic that got removed).
It's more to say that images of Western IP's that feature hypnosis or are extremely popular are the exception that proves the rule. There's no standing rule against posting them to my knowledge, but someone could look at that and say "Does the logic apply there?"
Iirc another big, if not the main problem with irl manips is that, similar to kisekae, you can easily create thousands of decent looking ones with a few single clicks in a software. They aren't bad, and certainly not bad enough to fall through quality control, but they could still potentially flood the hub and would pretty much drown actual artists or manippers, because yeah there would be no effort needed for decent enough content anymore.
The problem with real life manips isn't for quality reasons, without for moral reasons. You can edit a drawing and the only pissed one could be the artist, but if you for example edit a familiar photo and turn it into hypno porn stuff... the thing is more problematic.
