To those who accused me of homophobia, let me say this:

My concern is not with gay people, Pride, or LGBTQ+ expression. If ever the government tries to outlaw you, I'll be out there in the streets to defend your rights.

My concern is with pornography of any kind being posted on large general-purpose instances without strong containment.

Sexual content should be clearly labelled, opt-in, and kept out of general public discovery. That should apply equally regardless of orientation.

Adding the NSFW hashtag, a CW and blurring images is not a sufficient firewall.

I support free expression, but free expression still needs sensible boundaries so public social spaces remain usable for people who do not want explicit sexual material in their feed.

People who want to post or view legal pornographic content should go to or set up specialist instances.

@staff
#mastodon #fediverse #pornography

Replying to @admin@burnout.cafe

Discussion of porn

@admin @staff

"Adding the NSFW hashtag, a CW and blurring images is not a sufficient firewall.

I support free expression, but free expression still needs sensible boundaries so public social spaces remain usable for people who do not want explicit sexual material in their feed."

So, this is the most important point. It's still not clear why you think CWs and blurring is enough.

I think a tagging and content warning culture is a wonderful thing. It is a consent model, instead of a top-down "everyone follows these rules" model.

Those who want to see a type of porn and those who want to make it can find each other. Those who do not want to see it can rest assured they will not be shown one without their consent.

Content warnings are a consent check. "Hey, do you want to see a gay porn image? I won't show it to you unless you say yes."

If you click past a content warning, then click again to unblur an image, you have said twice "Yes, I really really do want to see this picture".

Jul 4, 2026, 19:03 UTCen