It should go without saying that this is not an emergency. The Arizona state legislature looks like it will adjourn on May 23rd***, so there are 90 days from then for some planning. If the bill is not vetoed, the ACLU or another organization might sue to prevent the law from going into effect during that window, and a Court might issue a "stay" during the waiting period before the law goes into effect. I can't put any odds on any of this, since I am not a lawyer, I just know how to use a search engine, but don't freak out in an unhelpful way until we know for sure.

also we dont know what fully she signed or vetoed today yet. in fact a couple minutes ago aparently a news station was joking about not knowing what is signed or vetoed yet today and were wondering if she is gonna try and break last years veto record.

thegreatwolfgang said:
It took about the same time for the governor to veto the last bill.

that says 6 days between. meaning we most likely wont find out till tomorrow.

amontillado said:
https://www.aol.com/news/exclusive-gop-bill-seeks-sledgehammer-163353436.html

Honestly, it's long past time for e621 to leave the US, period. end of story. FULL STOP. Now there's a federal ban on the horizon.

I just remembered bills just as radical as this one have been proposed with the alleged intent of making less extreme bills seem reasonable. This is something that has allegedly happened before; they propose a bill that, say, bans something entirely despite knowing it has no chance of passing only to make less extreme versions of the bill seem like a reasonable compromise by people who would otherwise be against it.

I'm not saying that i believe this is the true intent behind that porn ban bill, and i would be surprised if it was, given the affective and cognitive damage doomscrolling all day every single day did to some people during the 2020 lockdowns.

electricitywolf said:
I just remembered bills just as radical as this one have been proposed with the alleged intent of making less extreme bills seem reasonable. This is something that has allegedly happened before; they propose a bill that, say, bans something entirely despite knowing it has no chance of passing only to make less extreme versions of the bill seem like a reasonable compromise by people who would otherwise be against it.

I'm not saying that i believe this is the true intent of that porn ban bill, and i would be surprised if it was, given the affective and cognitive damage doomscrolling all day every single day did to some people during the 2020 lockdowns.

honestly the utah guy is kinda infamous. every single extreme one that (seemingly) even the majority of republicans dont want to touch to the point they die before a single vote is usually because of this guy.

joeyski said:
Considering that today is the last day that she can veto this bill and we haven't heard anything today, it's safe to say that the bill is becoming law now. They have no plans to move the servers out so the alleged contingency is purging all explicit content on the site, this driving the user base away, killing the site.

Farewell E621, it's been fun.

Yeah that's not happening
These things get some kind of grace period, you can't sign something into law then attack sites minutes later

A purge of all explicit content would literally kill the site so I'm not sure why anyone would think that's somehow the plan

donovan_dmc said:
Yeah that's not happening
These things get some kind of grace period, you can't sign something into law then attack sites minutes later

A purge of all explicit content would literally kill the site so I'm not sure why anyone would think that's somehow the plan

Because it's literally the only way the site can survive without having to violate everyone's privacy
Y'all can't move the servers cause it's too expensive and you don't want to have everyone's privacy violated, so the site dies regardless of what we do now.

joeyski said:
Because it's literally the only way the site can survive without having to violate everyone's privacy
Y'all can't move the servers cause it's too expensive and you don't want to have everyone's privacy violated, so the site dies regardless of what we do now.

My man, moving the servers is expensive but they aren't just going to let the site die

regsmutt said:
BD's other operations (f-list, furrynetwork, the dick store, etc)

These too, BD has other sites, it is in their best interest to keep as many alive as possible for advertising reach

joeyski said:
Because it's literally the only way the site can survive without having to violate everyone's privacy
Y'all can't move the servers cause it's too expensive and you don't want to have everyone's privacy violated, so the site dies regardless of what we do now.

Don't mistake 'will not spend the money to move when not necessary' with 'cannot afford to move.' BD's other operations (f-list, furrynetwork, the dick store, etc) would ALSO be negatively impacted to the point that it would be worth moving.

joeyski said:
Because it's literally the only way the site can survive without having to violate everyone's privacy
Y'all can't move the servers cause it's too expensive and you don't want to have everyone's privacy violated, so the site dies regardless of what we do now.

did you miss the part where we mentioned tomorrow is the deadline?

its 5 days from the hand in date with a exception of sunday meaning if 5 days is past sunday the deadline has one extra day. just like last time. I looked back at the last bill's forum discussion and everybody was freaking out last time too till we realized the deadline was the next night. in fact looking at all the bills she vetoed today they were all submitted on the 6th, putting it in that 5 day except sunday period. 2112 was submitted on the 7th. and she always signs/vetos bills on the last possible day looking further into her record. Which is a good and bad thing. good because it means she carefully thinks about things till the last minute rather than signing/vetoing haphazardly. bad because it kinda leaves people in suspense

regsmutt said:
Don't mistake 'will not spend the money to move when not necessary' with 'cannot afford to move.' BD's other operations (f-list, furrynetwork, the dick store, etc) would ALSO be negatively impacted to the point that it would be worth moving.

honestly the the BD store is a a lot more awkward since arizona is where they actually make the toys.

kathyohneke said:
did you miss the part where we mentioned tomorrow is the deadline?

its 5 days from the hand in date with a exception of sunday meaning if 5 days is past sunday the deadline has one extra day. just like last time. I looked back at the last bill's forum discussion and everybody was freaking out last time too till we realized the deadline was the next night. in fact looking at all the bills she vetoed today they were all submitted on the 6th, putting it in that 5 day except sunday period. 2112 was submitted on the 7th. and she always signs/vetos bills on the last possible day looking further into her record. Which is a good and bad thing. good because it means she carefully thinks about things till the last minute rather than signing/vetoing haphazardly. bad because it kinda leaves people in suspense

I'll go by your word then. But don't be surprised when it gets passed tonight and everyone starts panicking over it like they've been for the past week

joeyski said:
I'll go by your word then. But don't be surprised when it gets passed tonight and everyone starts panicking over it like they've been for the past week

honestly dont see why she would. she vetoed similar bills before. in fact yesterday she vetoed a bill basically saying "same bill as last year. nothing changed. my opinion hasnt changed. stop it" and has consistently vetoed any anti free speech or anti LGBTQ+ bill

kathyohneke said:
honestly dont see why she would. she vetoed similar bills before. in fact yesterday she vetoed a bill basically saying "same bill as last year. nothing changed. my opinion hasnt changed. stop it" and has consistently vetoed any anti free speech or anti LGBTQ+ bill

Because she could run out of time to sign/veto bills, thus allowing the bill to pass without proxy

joeyski said:
Because she could run out of time to sign/veto bills, thus allowing the bill to pass without proxy

looking into it, as far as I can tell, she never once let time run out on a bill the entire time she had this job.

joeyski said:
Because she could run out of time to sign/veto bills, thus allowing the bill to pass without proxy

Stop with your doomposting, you can see how many bills she has signed/vetoed just two days ago.

thegreatwolfgang said:
Stop with your doomposting, you can see how many bills she has signed/vetoed just two days ago.

damn, that pronouns one she vetoed, SB1002, is kinda wild in how bad it is despite it's minuscule length.

it states that, without explicit permission from the student's parents, not only are faculty not allowed to use refer to a student using "A PRONOUN THAT DIFFERS FROM THE PRONOUN THAT ALIGNS WITH THE STUDENT'S BIOLOGICAL SEX."* they're also not even allowed to use nicknames unless said name "IS COMMONLY ASSOCIATED WITH THE STUDENT'S NAME OF RECORD" which is mega-fucking stupid and could definitely lead to potential problems, and it's also a really vague standard.

*they didn't even specify third-person here, meaning that, depending on how pedantic someone wanded to be, they could argue that either the third-person, gender non-specific they would be acceptable regardless since the second-person, gender non-specific you was considered acceptable.

thegreatwolfgang said:
Stop with your doomposting, you can see how many bills she has signed/vetoed just two days ago.

Well the bill passed now, so technically it's no longer doomposting.

joeyski said:
Well the bill passed now, so technically it's no longer doomposting.

https://azgovernor.gov/office-arizona-governor/news/2025/05/governor-katie-hobbs-legislative-action-update-3

Thanks, now we can all panic. Bill will go into effect 90 days after signing, so we have until August 21st.

Well, it's been nice here for whatever it's worth. Lets see if there is a plan as to the future of E621 that includes its survival.

thegreatwolfgang said:
https://azgovernor.gov/office-arizona-governor/news/2025/05/governor-katie-hobbs-legislative-action-update-3

Thanks, now we can all panic. Bill will go into effect 90 days after signing, so we have until August 21st.

Even if whatever contingency plan does actually work while saving the site in it's entirety, it's gonna become illegal anyway once that law in Utah passes

so we've got 90 days to figure out a contingency plan? doesn't seem like enough time to pack up and move but idk.

good thing i've got all my favorites downloaded

Can't help but wonder how the law is supposed to work.

"A COMMERCIAL AGE VERIFICATION SYSTEM THAT DOES NOT CAUSE OR ALLOW THE INDIVIDUAL'S IDENTIFYING INFORMATION TO BE TRANSMITTED TO ANY FEDERAL, STATE OR LOCAL GOVERNMENT ENTITY"
...
"A COMMERCIAL ENTITY OR A THIRD-PARTY ENTITY THAT PERFORMS THE AGE VERIFICATION THAT IS REQUIRED BY THIS SECTION MAY NOT RETAIN ANY IDENTIFYING INFORMATION OF THE INDIVIDUAL AND MAY NOT CAUSE OR ALLOW ANY IDENTIFYING INFORMATION OF THE INDIVIDUAL TO BE DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY TRANSMITTED TO ANY FEDERAL, STATE OR LOCAL GOVERNMENT ENTITY."

How would you be able to prove or disprove compliance, if the entity isn't allowed to retain identifying information, and can't transmit any identifying information to any government entity (which includes the police and courts, as they are government entities)?

I'm incredibly surprised and disappointed Hobbs let this through, since even a site that tries to comply would have no way to defend itself from any issues that arise (e.g. a minor swipes their parent's ID, uses it to get access to a site with porn, parents find out and sue the site, how would the site be able to prove in court that the minor got in with false/stolen ID? or even simpler, some clout chaser falsely accuses the site that a minor accessed a site with porn, how could they identify the minor never did?).

Karens who refuse to parent their iPad kids and Neo-Puritans are going to be the end of us all. I assume that the staff has a back up plan in case this did happen, but right now all we can do is wait until they make an official statement.

watsit said:
Can't help but wonder how the law is supposed to work.

"A COMMERCIAL AGE VERIFICATION SYSTEM THAT DOES NOT CAUSE OR ALLOW THE INDIVIDUAL'S IDENTIFYING INFORMATION TO BE TRANSMITTED TO ANY FEDERAL, STATE OR LOCAL GOVERNMENT ENTITY"
...
"A COMMERCIAL ENTITY OR A THIRD-PARTY ENTITY THAT PERFORMS THE AGE VERIFICATION THAT IS REQUIRED BY THIS SECTION MAY NOT RETAIN ANY IDENTIFYING INFORMATION OF THE INDIVIDUAL AND MAY NOT CAUSE OR ALLOW ANY IDENTIFYING INFORMATION OF THE INDIVIDUAL TO BE DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY TRANSMITTED TO ANY FEDERAL, STATE OR LOCAL GOVERNMENT ENTITY."

How would you be able to prove or disprove compliance, if the entity isn't allowed to retain identifying information, and can't transmit any identifying information to any government entity (which includes the police and courts, as they are government entities)?

I'm incredibly surprised and disappointed Hobbs let this through, since even a site that tries to comply would have no way to defend itself from any issues that arise (e.g. a minor swipes their parent's ID, uses it to get access to a site with porn, parents find out and sue the site, how would the site be able to prove in court that the minor got in with false/stolen ID? or even simpler, some clout chaser falsely accuses the site that a minor accessed a site with porn, how could they identify the minor never did?).

Thats the whole point of this bill, its written in a way to make compliance impossible.
even if you were to block AZ you could still have a case brought against you if anyone in AZ were to access your site through other means.

The "of which more than one-third is sexual material that is harmful to minors" part intrigues me. Presumably there to protect Twitter and the other social networks owned by billionaires that don't want to get sued? I wonder how an actual amount like that could ever even be proven given the sheer amount of content posted to social networks.

Half joking here, but also a somewhat real question: What if we just flood e621 with all the cute, wholesome SFW furry art we can and keep the explicit content below the one-third amount? Relocation is obviously preferable here, but if other states are going to start passing laws like these with a similar threshold, it could well be beneficial to not be classified as a "porn website".

A COMMERCIAL ENTITY OR A THIRD-PARTY ENTITY THAT PERFORMS THE AGE VERIFICATION THAT IS REQUIRED BY THIS SECTION MAY NOT RETAIN ANY IDENTIFYING INFORMATION OF THE INDIVIDUAL AND MAY NOT CAUSE OR ALLOW ANY IDENTIFYING INFORMATION OF THE INDIVIDUAL TO BE DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY TRANSMITTED TO ANY FEDERAL, STATE OR LOCAL GOVERNMENT ENTITY.

Oh lol, I'm noticing that there is NO prohibition on selling or sending this data to a private company or corporation. So there you go. Your identity tied to embarrassing private information is up for sale to the highest bidder.

Well, thanks alot for the short sightedness Ms. Hobbs.😝 I expected better of her. And as for that bill in Utah that makes porn a federal crime, wouldn’t that only effect Utah?
EDIT: It’s a federal bill.
https://gizmodo.com/gop-senator-introduces-bill-to-make-all-porn-a-federal-crime-following-project-2025-playbook-2000600994

I hate prudes and “Do gooders” on both sides of the political aisle for doing stuff like this.
So what’s going to happen to the site?🤨

johnthelizard35 said:
Well, thanks alot for the short sightedness Ms. Hobbs.😝 I expected better of her. And as for that bill in Utah that makes porn a federal crime, wouldn’t that only effect Utah?

No. It is not introduced as a state bill (only affecting Utah) but a federal bill (applies to the entire country).

regsmutt said:
No. It is not introduced as a state bill (only affecting Utah) but a federal bill (applies to the entire country).

I just replied with an edit and a link.👍

johnthelizard35 said:
Well, thanks alot for the short sightedness Ms. Hobbs.😝 I expected better of her. And as for that bill in Utah that makes porn a federal crime, wouldn’t that only effect Utah?

And looking it up, the person suggesting this is apparently a complete idiot that not even his own compatriots want to be with him

faucet said:
The "of which more than one-third is sexual material that is harmful to minors" part intrigues me. Presumably there to protect Twitter and the other social networks owned by billionaires that don't want to get sued? I wonder how an actual amount like that could ever even be proven given the sheer amount of content posted to social networks.

Half joking here, but also a somewhat real question: What if we just flood e621 with all the cute, wholesome SFW furry art we can and keep the explicit content below the one-third amount? Relocation is obviously preferable here, but if other states are going to start passing laws like these with a similar threshold, it could well be beneficial to not be classified as a "porn website".

assuming we're only talking about visual content (and we don't cheat and count comments, and forum posts, and blips as "material")*, if we stopped accepting explicit and questionable works right now we'd need to have 5,963,648 new safe-rated posts added to reach the required 2/3. that'd mean we need to double _all_ of the posts ever made with exclusively safe content and then 22.7% more and we'd need to maintain that ratio.

Zoinks!

dba_afish said:
assuming we're only talking about visual content (and we don't cheat and count comments, and forum posts, and blips as "material"), if we stopped accepting explicit and questionable works right now we'd need to have 5,963,648 new safe-rated posts added to reach the required 2/3. that'd mean we need to double _all_ of the posts ever made with exclusively safe content and then 22.7% more and we'd need to maintain that ratio.

Impossible unless generative AI is used and these AI-generated posts are allowed on here.

justkhajiit said:
Impossible unless generative AI is used and these AI-generated posts are allowed on here.

well, if we did count all text posts as "material", and assuming all of our text content is wholesome enough, which, given our rules isn't _too_ hard to belive, we'd be at 70.86% non-pornographic material already.

edit: using this method, to remain over the 2/3 required I think we'd need text content to be ~93% non-explicit.

faucet said:
What if we just flood e621 with all the cute, wholesome SFW furry art we can and keep the explicit content below the one-third amount?

They'll probably find some dumbshit technicality to still hit e621 with their shenanigans.

dba_afish said:
assuming we're only talking about visual content (and we don't cheat and count comments, and forum posts, and blips as "material"), if we stopped accepting explicit and questionable works right now we'd need to have 5,963,648 new safe-rated posts added to reach the required 2/3. that'd mean we need to double _all_ of the posts ever made with exclusively safe content and then 22.7% more and we'd need to maintain that ratio.

It's not simply being explicit/questionable that would be a problem, but "sexual material that is harmful to minors". There are a number of Q/E posts that aren't sexual in nature and/or wouldn't fall under their definition. Interestingly, the bill also doesn't specifically state visual material, just material in general ("EXPLOITS, IS DEVOTED TO, OR PRINCIPALLY CONSISTS OF DESCRIPTIONS OF ACTUAL, SIMULATED OR ANIMATED DISPLAYS OR DEPICTIONS OF ..."), so it includes written works. Which raises the question of how forum posts and comments and such should count. It's undeniable that someone's comment, question, etc, on a website is material on that website, which is being distributed as anything else, so how should text be counted toward whether a given site is "more than one-third ... sexual material"?

faucet said:
The "of which more than one-third is sexual material that is harmful to minors" part intrigues me.

Pretty much anything can be "harmful to minors" under the right conditions....I expect that the bill author(s) had specifics in mind, which the rest of us will find out the hard way.

It is sad that this is what the internet has become. States implementing these new laws and bills that are clearly not practical and only hurt instead of protect. This new bill basically just makes this site illegal with no way to save it. I know there are other sites similar to this one like FurAffinity, but this is the only site that I know where artist can upload videos and has a video player built in. I have been on this site for a long time now, but I truly don't see this site surviving. I hope it does survive, but if it doesn't, it was fun while it lasted. Thank you to everyone that keeps this site running and the community.

thegreatwolfgang said:
https://azgovernor.gov/office-arizona-governor/news/2025/05/governor-katie-hobbs-legislative-action-update-3

Thanks, now we can all panic. Bill will go into effect 90 days after signing, so we have until August 21st.

Unbelievable.

So tired of the world being run by out of touch prudes and idiots

Really hoping we get to learn what the plan for this site is soon, it would really suck to lose it...

This is honestly just really depressing me.

faucet said:
The "of which more than one-third is sexual material that is harmful to minors" part intrigues me. Presumably there to protect Twitter and the other social networks owned by billionaires that don't want to get sued? I wonder how an actual amount like that could ever even be proven given the sheer amount of content posted to social networks.

It's likely to avoid catching Wikipedia in it. As many of you might know, Wikipedia contains sexual material. And if this bill required age verification for any site that contains sexual material, it would require Wikipedia to do age verification. Every time someone messes with Wikipedia, everyone gets mad. They might seem stupid, but they are not stupid enough to mess with Wikipedia.

The billionaires' thing is likely true as well.

Just have it always return 2/3 (+1) random safe posts in results but include a CSS tag so people can hide those posts with 3rd party stylesheets/ublock.

Millions of little kids are on Insta and Twitter watching Ukraine dudes getting blown up losing their legs and people spreading their assholes on cam but e621 is obviously way worse 💙💙💙

oneohthrix said:
Millions of little kids are on Insta and Twitter watching Ukraine dudes getting blown up losing their legs and people spreading their assholes on cam but e621 is obviously way worse 💙💙💙

Instagram is owned by Mark Zuckerberg and Twitter is owned by Elon Musk, so of course they're exempt from this bullshit bill.

faucet said:
The "of which more than one-third is sexual material that is harmful to minors" part intrigues me. Presumably there to protect Twitter and the other social networks owned by billionaires that don't want to get sued? I wonder how an actual amount like that could ever even be proven given the sheer amount of content posted to social networks.

Half joking here, but also a somewhat real question: What if we just flood e621 with all the cute, wholesome SFW furry art we can and keep the explicit content below the one-third amount? Relocation is obviously preferable here, but if other states are going to start passing laws like these with a similar threshold, it could well be beneficial to not be classified as a "porn website".

We could start allowing SFW fursuit and sculpture stuff, reduce quality standards for SFW artwork, temporarily increase quality standards for NSFW artwork, and mirror SFW stuff from e6AI and vice-versa.

On a related note: I'm surprised there is no mention of this bill in e6AI.

isfaputa said:
Just have it always return 2/3 (+1) random safe posts in results but include a CSS tag so people can hide those posts with 3rd party stylesheets/ublock.

I doubt that it'd be determined based on how much stuff is shown per-page.

also, unrelated but the user account has a built-in css stylesheet.

That's why when something looks like it's happening for a third time you don't wait for it, you go and execute a plan in case shit hit the fan (like it did) or if they keep going every year...

Just waiting for the other shoe to drop of what type of content will be purged "just in case" so e621 will survive...it was fun while it lasted guys.

Guys at spacebattles.com have an interesting idea for a way to circumvent the new rules:

That's... weird. And stupidly easy to game? Like, okay. Your porn site now has a little page on the side with two low rez lolcat pictures for every bit of porn you got. 2/3rds SFW, guv, no trouble, no trouble.

oneohthrix said:
Millions of little kids are on Insta and Twitter watching Ukraine dudes getting blown up losing their legs and people spreading their assholes on cam but e621 is obviously way worse 💙💙💙

Apparently, it's less of a concern for a 13+ platform to have things kids shouldn't be seeing than it is for an 18+ platform to have things kids shouldn't be seeing. Truly inarguable logic.

johnthelizard35 said:
Guys at spacebattles.com have an interesting idea for a way to circumvent the new rules:

again, it would almost certainly be based on the amount of material hosted on the entire site, not the amount of material hosted per-page. otherwise every website that allowes any amount of NSFW content, Wikipedia included would have pages that violate the rules.

Now we wait from Bad Dragon about the "contingency plan."

I'm actually surprised that Hobbs signed off on it after having previously vetoed it twice. I wonder what changed her mind?

well. this is disapointing. Im sure they got a plan to move the site. after all it isnt just E6 thats effected but several website they own so they pretty much have to move.

At least these bills have a limited lifespan. because frankly they are so unworkable and so likely to cause massive amount of identity theft that they'll pretty much have to get rid of them eventually.

kathyohneke said:
well. this is disapointing. Im sure they got a plan to move the site. after all it isnt just E6 thats effected but several website they own so they pretty much have to move.

At least these bills have a limited lifespan. because frankly they are so unworkable and so likely to cause massive amount of identity theft that they'll pretty much have to get rid of them eventually.

staff on the discord have said BD is assessing the situation and has had a plan in case this happened. I suppose we'll find out what said plan entails within the next 90 days.

kathyohneke said:
well. this is disapointing. Im sure they got a plan to move the site. after all it isnt just E6 thats effected but several website they own so they pretty much have to move.

At least these bills have a limited lifespan. because frankly they are so unworkable and so likely to cause massive amount of identity theft that they'll pretty much have to get rid of them eventually.

And that's assuming that it makes it through court cases intact. I know the FSC among other entities is actively fighting this shit.

eldfjall said:
And that's assuming that it makes it through court cases intact. I know the FSC among other entities is actively fighting this shit.

true, they have a case going to the supreme court about these types of bills overall.. although with the current supreme court i have very little hope of that going over well.

hiddenbird said:
staff on the discord have said BD is assessing the situation and has had a plan in case this happened. I suppose we'll find out what said plan entails within the next 90 days.

I just hope it's not going to be a "difficult decision to shut down the site" plan

thegreatwolfgang said:
https://azgovernor.gov/office-arizona-governor/news/2025/05/governor-katie-hobbs-legislative-action-update-3

Thanks, now we can all panic. Bill will go into effect 90 days after signing, so we have until August 21st.

Okay, cool.

Can I go back to hate-mongering now, without my post getting hidden?

johnthelizard35 said:
Guys at spacebattles.com have an interesting idea for a way to circumvent the new rules:

The state/federal government are the people who write and enforce these rules. They're not going to care about technicalities.

notknow said:
That's why when something looks like it's happening for a third time you don't wait for it, you go and execute a plan in case shit hit the fan (like it did) or they keep going every year...

Just waiting for the other shoe to drop of what type of content will be purged "just in case" so e621 will survive...it was fun while it lasted guys.

I hope the people at BD are competent enough to enact a plan that isn't just "get rid of all the porn." But judging how this entire situation has unfolded, I wouldn't put that plan (or a plan of similar quality) out of the realm of possibility.

Ultimately, "you deserve what you tolerate." The American people are too weak to repel the intrusions on our right to privacy (or rights in general), so we don't deserve these rights. Simple as.

Seriously, why do people think the site would scrub all porn rather than move the servers

E621 is an advertising platform for BD, why would they just roll over and let it die, or outright kill it

iirc we've been told that moving the servers would be extremely expensive/time consuming and wouldn't really be viable as anything other than the last possible option

Will the news on the home page get updated any time soon?

hiddenbird said:
iirc we've been told that moving the servers would be extremely expensive/time consuming and wouldn't really be viable as anything other than the last possible option

And you think purging ~77% of the site is less of a last resort than moving servers? I guarantee you the site would die overnight

no-one-you-know said:
I just hope it's not going to be a "difficult decision to shut down the site" plan

well that isnt gonna happen considering everything they own, BD, f-list, furry network, etc are in arizona so shutting them down would basically mean going out of business completely. I doubt they would just roll over and die. also doubt they'll disable NSFW stuff in here because E6 is essentially a advertisement website for their toy business.

This year has been so crazy that I could see anything happen.

That being said, if Bad Dragon basically decided to shutter e6 and cut their losses, I'd fall out of my chair in disbelief because it'd mean that they didn't have any kind of plan for this sort of thing and I just can't see that.

donovan_dmc said:
Seriously, why do people think the site would scrub all porn rather than move the servers

E621 is an advertising platform for BD, why would they just roll over and let it die, or outright kill it

Yes, it is an advertising platform, but we don't know how much this specific site contributes to their profits, as they have other platforms. The higher-ups at BD might decide it's too much of a hassle to relocate the servers if they decide that E621 doesn't drive enough traffic to their site to warrant the effort. If that did happen, E621 would likely be sold as a last attempt to grab some value from the site before the bans are enacted. Likely to a shady(ier) company that wants the domain name for advertising purposes. I don't think this outcome is likely. I'm sure the higher-ups have already made a plan months ago, and if they didn't, well, that's concerning in itself.

indigoheat said:
This year has been so crazy that I could see anything happen.

That being said, if Bad Dragon basically decided to shutter e6 and cut their losses, I'd fall out of my chair in disbelief because it'd mean that they didn't have any kind of plan for this sort of thing and I just can't see that.

sanity_dance said:
Yes, it is an advertising platform, but we don't know how much this specific site contributes to their profits, as they have other platforms. The higher-ups at BD might decide it's too much of a hassle to relocate the servers if they decide that E621 doesn't drive enough traffic to their site to warrant the effort. If that did happen, E621 would likely be sold as a last attempt to grab some value from the site before the bans are enacted. Likely to a shady(ier) company that wants the domain name for advertising purposes. I don't think this outcome is likely. I'm sure the higher-ups have already made a plan months ago, and if they didn't, well, that's concerning in itself.

again, not just e6, the whole deal, BD + Dragon Fruit Ventures + all of their stuff, is an AZ operation. they'd all be subject to this.

you can't cut off the finger to save the hand if the problem is a beartrap clamped onto the wrist.

sanity_dance said:
Okay, cool.

Can I go back to hate-mongering now, without my post getting hidden?

If your post was simply hidden before, take it as a sign that you should stop whatever it is you were doing.
If you don't care, I guess the least they could do is slap you for Disruptive Behavior.

dba_afish said:
again, not just e6, the whole deal, BD + Dragon Fruit Ventures + all of their stuff, is an AZ operation. they'd all be subject to this.

I keep forgetting that. My apologies.

Moving is the only realistic option, then, if it can be done.

Damn, so the bill passed? Is it time to say goodbye to e6?

In addition to e621 being a substantial advertising platform, I feel like this site means more to BD staff than just being a purely business-related venture.

I mean I could be wrong, but it just seems like staff (both paid and volunteers) have put far too much time and effort to just hand-wave it all away even if you ignore the advertising benefits. Just take into account the effort to enforce minimum quality standards for submissions, minimum standards for tags (with complex aliasing/implication logic that continue to be refined by users to this day), moderating comments on submissions, etc. all allowing for the curation of a massive archive of quality art.

e621 could've easily just been ran like a site such as rule34 and probably fulfilled most of its advertising goals, but it wasn't. To me that implies e621 is clearly more than just a means to an end for BD staff, so I would be absolutely shocked if they just... Let it disappear.

sylenial said:
In addition to e621 being a substantial advertising platform, I feel like this site means more to BD staff than just being a purely business-related venture.

I mean I could be wrong, but it just seems like staff (both paid and volunteers) have put far too much time and effort to just hand-wave it all away even if you ignore the advertising benefits. Just take into account the effort to enforce minimum quality standards for submissions, minimum standards for tags (with complex aliasing/implication logic that continue to be refined by users to this day), moderating comments on submissions, etc. all allowing for the curation of a massive archive of quality art.

e621 could've easily just been ran like a site such as rule34 and probably fulfilled most of its advertising goals, but it wasn't. To me that implies e621 is clearly more than just a means to an end for BD staff, so I would be absolutely shocked if they just... Let it disappear.

There's a single bd staff member that's involved in day to day site operations, that's NotMeNotYou
Were it not for him and the rest of the voulenteer staff advocating extensively I would take a very good bet the policies over everything would be much more lax
Hell, we nearly got ai generated content forcefully allowed on this site until the head admin managed to compromise to redirect it to a different domain rather than being dumped here

I'd bet more on the influence and reach e6 has being the reason BD keeps us around rather than any like for the site itself

donovan_dmc said:
There's a single bd staff member that's involved in day to day site operations, that's NotMeNotYou
Were it not for him and the rest of the voulenteer staff advocating extensively I would take a very good bet the policies over everything would be much more lax
Hell, we nearly got ai generated content forcefully allowed on this site until the head admin managed to compromise to redirect it to a different domain rather than being dumped here

I'd bet more on the influence and reach e6 has being the reason BD keeps us around rather than any like for the site itself

BD higher ups tried pushing you guys into allowing AI content on the site? lmaooo. The site would've been cooked.

donovan_dmc said:
There's a single bd staff member that's involved in day to day site operations, that's NotMeNotYou
Were it not for him and the rest of the voulenteer staff advocating extensively I would take a very good bet the policies over everything would be much more lax
Hell, we nearly got ai generated content forcefully allowed on this site until the head admin managed to compromise to redirect it to a different domain rather than being dumped here

I'd bet more on the influence and reach e6 has being the reason BD keeps us around rather than any like for the site itself

That's a little unfortunate. Ah well. Props to each and every one of you who've helped hold the fort here, in that case! You've all done great work. o7