Earlier quoted context omitted.
The defining feature of child pornography is that it includes an actual child . Drawings, animations, and written works that depict fictional children in sexual situations may be quite icky to me, but to claim that they are the same as something depicting an actual living child is to deeply miss the point.
I don't think I did claim they were the same thing. Drawings of child pornography are repulsive (to me) and I wouldn't use a website where I would expect to encounter such. I think most people feel the same way. That creates a problem if you want to run a website that is so free of speech as to admit drawings of child pornography but also has the ambitions to retain a large audience - the two are mutually exclusive.
> I'm not sure CP is a good advert for Mastodon.
-
> I don't think I did claim they were the same thing.
Are you contradicting yourself?