Hi all,
I've noticed that many of the recent posts are links to Bluesky (or X) pages, which I understand is much more convenient than uploading images directly to the community, but given that an account is required to view "adult content" on these sites, the posts are essentially blank for anyone without one. (Also, even if I had an account, I'd probably need a second one for interacting with posts like this.)
Is there any way we could encourage posters to submit more material directly to the community rather thank link to account-required sites?
Thanks,
- another horny fur
5 Comments
OwOarchist@pawb.social · 8 pts · 119d
At the very least, links to the Nazi trash site Xitter should be banned.
FatherPeanut@pawb.social · 2 pts · 119d
This'ere has been a bit of a hurdle for myself too, I've often gone searching for their content in places that are often not their intended place of posting just because the account requirements. Not that I feel it should necessarily be required, but mayhamps restrictions could be relaxed a bit? If the only content that can be put here directly is stuff made by this very community, we aren't exactly a big pool to select from. Throw in that Lemmy seems to attract many of the people who reject big social media services (that require accounts), and that severely cuts down on what most of us can view.
I'm trying to think this out, from the perspective of the content creator. Those who make money do so through donor services or onlyfans-like models, so the more their content is shared with sources, the better it is for them (minus paid content). From the perspective of the non-moneymaker, who only wants to share this content with no expectation of financial incentive, I could see some people who aren't big on having it shared to other platforms, yet considering the point of uploading it is to share it, I feel this minority is so small that it won't really pose an issue.
If the community admins see this, I dont mean any shame or disrespect by this critique. If you do want me to pitch some ideas forward on proposed edits, I'll gladly, but these here are my honest thoughts on the current setup:
I will say, the rules in general feel a bit heavy-handed in a way that really doesn't make me feel too keen to even attempt posting. Rule 1 is a bit limiting, as I can't see what is gained by imposing these limits. Rule 3 is rather large, and feels somewhat regulatory, but this seems like a symptom of size, since it does perform a very valid function. The usual method other communities do, "[M/F] A Night Out (Spicefox)," seems to cover the bases well, and since it's standard practice in other communities, we could probably shorten the rule length. I don't see why Rule 4 exists, since we're all consenting adults in a space for adult content. And rule 7, I don't know what those terms mean, and could use just a quick definition.
DarrenTheFoxcoon@pawb.social MOD · 1 pts · 117d
A lot of the Rules are holdovers from when FursuitSex was on Reddit. (Still is, technically -- if your community is large enough, Reddit won't let you leave. Wonder if that change was made post 3rd-Party Apps Debacle, hmmm 🤨)
And if the rules seem ham-fisted, it's for the same reason that e.g. certain machinery needs signs that say "Do Not Stick Fingers into Moving Gears" -- it's a rule because someone who did not think things through needed it to be.
Rule 1:
Rule 3 did feel a bit unnecessary here on Lemmy, I'll grant you that. But then I discovered that, in lieu of Lemmy actually having a tagging system, Lemmy-UI sites like Tesseract actually make use of that same bracket system to auto-tag posts. So I guess it stays for now.
Rule 4 almost seems unnecessary too, but I wanted to be more exact than "No Spam". And recently some chud made a "got any of them Telegram links?" post, bleh 🤦♀️
Rule 7 is essentially "don't do anything that makes me add more rules". Gus and Air Bud are two goofy live-action films where a normal non-talking animal joins a sports team because technically the rulebook doesn't say the players have to be human.
(Apologies if I sound like an exhausted snark in the above. I've had to explain this sooooo many times over like 10 years)
FatherPeanut@pawb.social · 1 pts · 116d
Oh nay, you don't sound snarky there. It does get me thinking though, and I'm halfway asking if you or anyone else seeing this knows of some tools that do this, of using a 3rd-party "Bluesky viewer", or "Twitter Viewer" website. Whether it's capable of directly embedding for the Lemmy post, or capable of still allowing non-logged in access for the viewer. I can recount one such service for Bluesky/X, yet I haven't attempted to see if it embeds.
A rundown of how I perceive it in action: A service (3rd-party Bluesky viewer, 3rd-party X viewer...) is linked/embeded within the Lemmy post, then within the body of the Lemmy post, the direct link to the original source (Bluesky, X...).
I don't know if these websites have baggage associated with them, like removing control from the content creator, or some datafarming systems, but I wonder if these'd be something you're receptive to.
DarrenTheFoxcoon@pawb.social · 1 pts · 103d
Something like either Telegram's "Instant View" or YouTube embeds (the latter of which does already work on Lemmy with a basic URL) would certainly be peachy.
Someone simply gotta roll up their sleeves and contribute code to Lemmy (open source 👌 )