Topic: Ya seen the new ToS?

donovan_dmc said:
My man, what
If anything mass reporting is only going to cause problems, and considering you're the one encouraging it, those problems would fall back on to you

aacafah said:
2. I'm not pretending they aren't there, I'm giving them an opportunity to stop it & move on. You are currently beefing your own, so I'd recommend taking heed.

have fun showing people the site considers protecting users only here to troll and who openly boast about it to be more important than keeping the site an healthy place

again, punishing people for mentioning the obvious bad actor is an obvious bad actor while letting them go scot free is how we as the entire fucking world got into this mess

this is a fucking textbook example of that, ban me and a week later he or the latest far right shithead here to cause trouble will do their thing on another thread, where the cicle will being again and again

the only thing gained by keeping him here is making the site a worst place and ensuring more people like him will arivve

the only thing gained by banning me for pointing out is showing people on the site that ´´civility´´ matters but only really when its about people taking issue with obvious trolls, who are allowed to do as they please

I would offer that the best solution might be to just completely delete (or hide or whatever) the last few messages so more people don't engage and spiral this whole thing out of control.

eranormus said:
(a lot of shit)

Dude just move on, there is more to moderation that just slamming down a hammer at any slightest hint of a troll

Staff notes exist, and history is considered in future punishments, they are not getting off scott free

I should know better than most here, I was a moderator not even a year ago

Your insistence is far more disruptive than the original post ever was

I know people with a literal fetish for yiff addiction. Don't kinkshame the yiff slave.

Anyway, it seems to me like the new ToS is mostly just about 'cover your ass' legalese, right? Can it be made so it only shows up once per account? I was already logged into the site on both my desktop and my phone, and accepting it on my desktop did not mark it as accepted on my phone.

When I did accept it on my phone, my account was still already logged in, so it's not like it had logged me out.

furviewingaccount said:
It was put out on the second I think, but I got the big popup asking me to agree to it today. Looks like they got a real lawyer to write up this one. There's an arbitration clause so that's fun. I'd be interested to hear people's thoughts, especially if they're more fluent in legalese and can actually understand any of it. I've got no clue if there are actually any meaningful changes.

edit: From the BD staff member. Take with your preferred amount of salt:

Have they mentioned anything about being redirected to a URL "E926.net"? I got sent there and it was asking me to input user login data, which I refused to do because the entire site felt wrong. If you search "e926" on google, it does come up as a webpage which has the e621 logo and a bunch of the same nested links, but they do not take you to e621.

ender_malcolm said:
Have they mentioned anything about being redirected to a URL "E926.net"? I got sent there and it was asking me to input user login data, which I refused to do because the entire site felt wrong. If you search "e926" on google, it does come up as a webpage which has the e621 logo and a bunch of the same nested links, but they do not take you to e621.

e926 is e621 but with a safe filter on, it is run by e621, and your accounts are linked there, so your login works on both.

ender_malcolm said:
Have they mentioned anything about being redirected to a URL "E926.net"? I got sent there and it was asking me to input user login data, which I refused to do because the entire site felt wrong. If you search "e926" on google, it does come up as a webpage which has the e621 logo and a bunch of the same nested links, but they do not take you to e621.

Clarification on this one: e926 is an alternate site to e621, which only displays SFW posts.
It's also frequently used for testing new features. The popup in question had been deployed there for a few weeks, for example.

The links in the current popup take you there because the text for the terms of use is exactly the same for both sites. It's safer to get sent to the SFW site from the NSFW one than the other way around.

That said, the fact that you cannot actually see things like the Code of Conduct or the Privacy Policy without first accepting the terms of use is definitely an oversight.
We will be correcting that in a future update.

cinder said:
Clarification on this one: e926 is an alternate site to e621, which only displays SFW posts.
It's also frequently used for testing new features. The popup in question had been deployed there for a few weeks, for example.

The links in the current popup take you there because the text for the terms of use is exactly the same for both sites. It's safer to get sent to the SFW site from the NSFW one than the other way around.

That said, the fact that you cannot actually see things like the Code of Conduct or the Privacy Policy without first accepting the terms of use is definitely an oversight.
We will be correcting that in a future update.

Thanks for the clarification, and yeah that makes sense. I did notice I couldn't direct to either page for the terms of use or ect, which you mentioned. You also can't follow the forums link, or basically anything with e621 in the url.

hal_greaves said:
I want to stress that this is my own personal opinion and that this does not reflect on the staff as a whole or reflect any change we're going to do - but I personally feel like the writing is a bit on the wall on this one. I think most political entities are going to realize that site-level restrictions are basically worthless because anybody can simply VPN around them, and the next step here will be subjecting it down to the device level. While that of course takes a burden off my shoulders, the larger implications there are pretty obvious, but I can't see Microsoft or Google or any other company that controls the physical access points refusing to adopt device level implementations. And that's just going to be that, then.

I agree with your personal opinion. The effectiveness and universality of hardware-level verification remains to be seen, but the trends are obvious. The walls are closing in, one way or another. This ToS update isn't bad on its own, but its existence is a sign of the changing times. Eventually, computing and web browsing will become even more restrictive than now, in some way. Anything "questionable" like e621 will be the first to go, and even if this website manages to dodge the mounting piles of random laws about age verification, fictional porn, forced user tracking and so on from every country on the planet, the increasing friction of accessing it will eventually put the viability of all spaces like these into question.

Save everything. Things aren't about to get better, and they'll probably get much worse much faster than people think.

8. Monitoring and Enforcement; Termination
We reserve the right, but are not obligated, to monitor, review, or remove any User Contributions in our sole discretion, without notice to you, for any reason.

Well that's an interesting way to cover one's ass, in the face of this whole UK thing.

9. Content Standards
These content standards apply to any and all User Contributions and use of any Interactive Services. All User Contributions must in their entirety comply with our Code of Conduct and all applicable federal, state, local, foreign, and international laws and regulations. Without limiting the foregoing, User Contributions must not contain material that, outside of clearly marked fantasy, within art, or in-character contexts:

• [...]
• Involves unsolicited commercial activities or sales, including without limitation, any contests, sweepstakes, or other sales, advertising, or marketing activities or promotions not authorized by us.

Alright, this point really needs some clarification I think.
I mean, this won't negatively affect paywall previews or posts advertising the existence of patreon alts, right? Much as I may personally dislike previews in particular from showing up in my searches, that's what tagging and blacklisting is already there for. Where exactly does the new TOS draw the line for what's considered advertising?
Or maybe previews and such are already covered and explicitly given authorization in some other document that I can't recall right now.

eranormus said:
have fun showing people the site considers protecting users only here to troll and who openly boast about it to be more important than keeping the site an healthy place

again, punishing people for mentioning the obvious bad actor is an obvious bad actor while letting them go scot free is how we as the entire fucking world got into this mess

this is a fucking textbook example of that, ban me and a week later he or the latest far right shithead here to cause trouble will do their thing on another thread, where the cicle will being again and again

the only thing gained by keeping him here is making the site a worst place and ensuring more people like him will arivve

the only thing gained by banning me for pointing out is showing people on the site that ´´civility´´ matters but only really when its about people taking issue with obvious trolls, who are allowed to do as they please

He's gone now. Continue about your day.

swedenyes said:
Alright, this point really needs some clarification I think.
I mean, this won't negatively affect paywall previews or posts advertising the existence of patreon alts, right? Much as I may personally dislike previews in particular from showing up in my searches, that's what tagging and blacklisting is already there for. Where exactly does the new TOS draw the line for what's considered advertising?
Or maybe previews and such are already covered and explicitly given authorization in some other document that I can't recall right now.

I don't think anything about this is all that new. this, or something like it, has been in the ToS/CoC for a long time.
essentially, pieces entirely meant for self-promotion or product promotion, that lacks artistic merit on its own, or adulterates the artistic qualities of piece are not allowed. stuff like YCH promos, commission sheets, and I think Patreon-cencored stuff that is really distracting and annoying about it were already regularly deleted.

dba_afish said:
I don't think anything about this is all that new. this, or something like it, has been in the ToS/CoC for a long time.

Yeah, that was my first thought, but looking through the old TOS someone linked to earlier I didn't see explicit mentions of commercial use the way the new ToS does, and I got worried. Looking at the CoC now, I see it does explicitly mention that:

1.9 Advertising

• [...]
• If you are an artist or content owner, you are permitted to advertise products and services you may offer. You may do so in the "description" field of your posts, on the artist page, and in your profile description.

Which probably counts as explicit authorization being granted for the purposes of the new ToS.

I still think some clarification there that the CoC covers that situation could be welcome - but then, I didn't get to read it without accepting the ToS. Maybe it'll read better in the future when the links to the CoC work.

You know, I've been thinking about this since yesterday and… why does an image board that's mostly filled with re-posts from other websites need to have a legally binding contract, much less one that disallows lawsuits?
^{(Who would even sue an image board other than a big company (i.e. Disney) or something?)}

I took a quick peek at a well-known, anime-focused "competitor" which also hosts explicit content, and I noticed a few things:

• They don't have any kind of pop-up ("you must be an adult" or "do you agree to these terms?") screen blocking immediate site access.
• Users aren't technically required to agree to anything upon entering the site, but it's more of an "implied consent" setup.
• ("If there are any terms or conditions in this privacy policy that you do not agree with, please discontinue your use of our Site and our Services.")
• Their legal pages are written in plain, straightforward English and are of what I consider reasonable length. (It's three times smaller than e621's.)
• To be fair, their privacy policy hasn't been updated since mid-2020 and their ToS since late-2022 — but maybe it doesn't need to be?

I guess I'm just a bit confused by all this new "red tape" and legalese. Is there actually a good reason for an image board like e621 to go full-on corporate with arbitration clauses and the like, or is this just legal overreach for its own sake?
—

Also, I've been meaning to ask: how will this ultimately impact branch sites and unofficial search frontends?

When I want to focus on a specific tag or set of tags, I tend to use one that's basic, mobile-friendly, and much easier to browse consecutive images on (and also has no "agreement" pop-up), so I'm wondering if that kind of access is covered (or restricted) by these new terms. Right now, it seems like there's been no impact, but I figured I'd ask.

Thank you.

suihtilcod said:
Also, I've been meaning to ask: how will this ultimately impact branch sites and unofficial search frontends?

When I want to focus on a specific tag or set of tags, I tend to use one that's basic, mobile-friendly, and much easier to browse consecutive images on (and also has no "agreement" pop-up), so I'm wondering if that kind of access is covered (or restricted) by these new terms. Right now, it seems like there's been no impact, but I figured I'd ask.

Thank you.

This was also one of the things I wondered about, a large portion of the userbase may only visit the site once in a blue moon or use some external application which with an api key that never expires only requires you to ever visit the site once

They will never see the notice yet they're still having these terms forced on them

An email about the updates would do wonders but I also fear about the forum response from the hundreds of thousands if not millions of users getting emailed, there are only a handfull of moderation staff and that many people descending on the site would be disastrous

I don't want to fearmonger or anything like this, but here's the reason why I'm personally worried about any rather big change a site does:
Sites operated without any problem until someone who was in charge of them forced any change on them. Either it was for censorship, a takeover that completely changed the site to worse, or a simply because the site had to vanish and needed to be slowly killed off.

Now, we had this rule change a while ago regarding what and what cannot be posted on this site, remember? Now we get rather... corporate written site rules that really reads suspicious at some parts. And now forced surveillance is on the horizon and slowly getting closer...

I know that in the end, the site is forced to do these changes and most likely can't do anything about it. I'm not pointing at any admin or mod interacting with the user's in here!

Let's just pray and hope the site can dodge everything that would make it... unusable so to say.

t24ttffrg said:
Let's just pray and hope the site can dodge everything that would make it... unusable so to say.

Save whatever you like here, update own archive regularly and hope site isn't going anywhere. Better be prepared than suddenly realise your favorite art is literally gone.

Edit: might want to configure ToS window behavior. Pops up when changing from wifi to data, after accepting shows "access to page forbidden" type of error and doesn't return to previosly opened page like this forum thread.

Edit2: read ToS again. Included links to "Code of conduct" and "privacy policy" are needed. Language in some places is overloaded with extra hyperspecific descriptions. Clearer reminder that user submitted content is not a part of site disallowed for redistribution is needed. Also questions as to how exactly underlying software is essentially prohibited from use despite it literally being free for use via GitHub repo (maybe say that users can't copy proprietary non-Github code?). Previous questions from this thread are valid as well.

donovan_dmc said:
a large portion of the userbase may only visit the site once in a blue moon or use some external application which with an api key that never expires only requires you to ever visit the site once

They are not. They are a vanishing minority.

You can't read the code of conduct or privacy policy without agreeing to the ToS. This seems like an oversight at best and a Catch-22 at worst.

t24ttffrg said:
The whole of Europe will be the next to force ID-Mass surveillance on it's people, which then means that this site won't be able to hide itself from it if it's big enough.
This is going to be the next shitshow: either block Europe, find ways to slip trough every time authorities threaten with actions, or go along with it.

The topic of ID Verification makes me want to fedpost. I'm not gonna, but boy do I want to.

am sorry but i haven't a CLUE what anybody here is talking about

has there been some change to the TOS that am not aware of?

and if yes, what is this change?

please just give me the TLDR thx

bogdanurs said:
am sorry but i haven't a CLUE what anybody here is talking about

has there been some change to the TOS that am not aware of?

and if yes, what is this change?

please just give me the TLDR thx

How did you bypass the ToS prompt? Thought everyone saw it.

notknow said:
How did you bypass the ToS prompt? Thought everyone saw it.

Likeliest candidate: They didn't, they just hit 3 buttons without looking

snpthecat said:
Likeliest candidate: They didn't, they just hit 3 buttons without looking

They probably sold their soul a few times... shame.

nxtangl said:
You can't read the code of conduct or privacy policy without agreeing to the ToS. This seems like an oversight at best and a Catch-22 at worst.

Agreed. My heart sank when I saw that prompt, expecting that we've been cracked down on, but I couldn't check what exactly was happening without agreeing.

...And the news notification is still just talking about AV1 encoding.

i did see it, but there was simply too much for me to actually read

since am not here to cause any trouble, i just agreed to the terms and moved on

but i would appreciate if somebody could plz give me the TLDR/short version lol

bogdanurs said:
i did see it, but there was simply too much for me to actually read

since am not here to cause any trouble, i just agreed to the terms and moved on

but i would appreciate if somebody could plz give me the TLDR/short version lol

TLDR: The ToS changes will not affect you (bogdanurs)

bogdanurs said:
am sorry but i haven't a CLUE what anybody here is talking about

has there been some change to the TOS that am not aware of?

bogdanurs said:
i did see it, but there was simply too much for me to actually read

since am not here to cause any trouble, i just agreed to the terms and moved on

Bruh.

Let the enshittification begin I guess. Can't even use a porn site without waiving our rights to some Big Corpo.

I'll just say, whatever mechanism is being used to keep track if someone has accepted it or not isn't very robust. I've had to "accept" it three times now.
Ideally it should be a database column of "lastTOSAcceptance" and compare that to the site's config of latest TOS revision.

A friend of mine has also had to accept it up to three times now too, so it isn't just me.

At any rate, exaggeration will get us nowhere, things are already scary enough without hyperbole.

Why we're so worried is because what's going on isn't clear. The new ToS is virtually impenetrable to the average reader, we don't know why it was added, we don't know what it will mean going forward. We do know who's calling the shots, but not whether they have our interests at heart. Whether Bad Dragon considers us an important part of their business that they're trying to protect, a millstone around their necks that they're preparing to drop if if the scrutiny towards us becomes too much of a threat to their continued existence, or both, that we're the proverbial arm that they're willing to chew off to escape a death trap gravely wounded but alive. We just don't know.

I have my suspicions about the reasons for the specific clauses people are worried about, but I'll abstain from saying them out of fear of contributing to the atmosphere growing conspiratorial.

purelyforablacklist said:
Let the enshittification begin I guess. Can't even use a porn site without waiving our rights to some Big Corpo.

I don't think the novelty sex toy company is "Big Corpo"...

chaser said:
I'll just say, whatever mechanism is being used to keep track if someone has accepted it or not isn't very robust. I've had to "accept" it three times now.
Ideally it should be a database column of "lastTOSAcceptance" and compare that to the site's config of latest TOS revision.

Lol, I thought they were different tos and they were just revising it again or smth

teresmixxg said:
Lol, I thought they were different tos and they were just revising it again or smth

If they are, they need to update the "Last revised" field at the top, because it says "Last Revised:October 2, 2025".

teresmixxg said:
Lol, I thought they were different tos and they were just revising it again or smth

chaser said:
If they are, they need to update the "Last revised" field at the top, because it says "Last Revised:October 2, 2025".

It hasn't been changed since the 6th, something else is wonky
https://e621.net/wiki_page_versions?search%5Bwiki_page_id%5D=1637

The version is set to 2 so presumably it has been bumped at some point, that seems to be manual

The tos_accepted cookie is double base64 encoded (remove the -- and everything after the decode that, the take what's in _rails.message and decode that)

lendrimujina said:
At any rate, exaggeration will get us nowhere, things are already scary enough without hyperbole.

Why we're so worried is because what's going on isn't clear. The new ToS is virtually impenetrable to the average reader, we don't know why it was added, we don't know what it will mean going forward. We do know who's calling the shots, but not whether they have our interests at heart. Whether Bad Dragon considers us an important part of their business that they're trying to protect, a millstone around their necks that they're preparing to drop if if the scrutiny towards us becomes too much of a threat to their continued existence, or both, that we're the proverbial arm that they're willing to chew off to escape a death trap gravely wounded but alive. We just don't know.

I have my suspicions about the reasons for the specific clauses people are worried about, but I'll abstain from saying them out of fear of contributing to the atmosphere growing conspiratorial.

They did say that this is allegedly (at least in part) based on advice from the Free Speech Coalition, and THEY probably have goals in line with ours. But I could also see Bad Dragon secretly viewing us as more of a liability than anything, which is a bit of a scary thought. Hopefully, Bad Dragon likes us. Everyone go buy a dildo

donovan_dmc said:
It hasn't been changed since the 6th, something else is wonky
https://e621.net/wiki_page_versions?search%5Bwiki_page_id%5D=1637

The version is set to 2 so presumably it has been bumped at some point, that seems to be manual

The tos_accepted cookie is double base64 encoded (remove the -- and everything after the decode that, the take what's in _rails.message and decode that)

Odd choice to put it as a cookie, but I guess it works.
Decoded the cookie and it reads {"_rails":{"message":"Mg==","exp":null,"pur":"cookie.tos_accepted"}} ("message" equalling to "2"), which *seems* correct, and it expires 2026-11-20T19:47:03.436Z which is well enough into the future.
Not quite sure why it keeps asking. If it does ask me again, I'll check if the cookie is still present. It should have been because my session cookie still existed?

The bigger question is this: How do we reverse the worldwide trend of governments limiting artistic expression?!

gamerfox said:
The bigger question is this: How do we reverse the worldwide trend of governments limiting artistic expression?!

so far, at least keep making protests, keep boycotting certain payement processors and making calls, and survive

and hope more drastic actions will not be needed

man, it used to be about the music

crocogator said:
They did say that this is allegedly (at least in part) based on advice from the Free Speech Coalition, and THEY probably have goals in line with ours. But I could also see Bad Dragon secretly viewing us as more of a liability than anything, which is a bit of a scary thought. Hopefully, Bad Dragon likes us. Everyone go buy a dildo

If Bad Dragon viewed you guys as a liability they would shut down the website, straight up.

I've said it before but we really need to cool it with all these conspiracies. We're not ubisoft and if I really wanted to increase our revenue, it would be far easier to jump over to exoclick or juicyads and flood you guys out with ads for camgirls and crappy AI girlfriends. Please just give us a chance here and understand that we're doing what we can to stick around and stay alive, not to try and steal your email and IP addresses for whatever nefarious purpose we might conjure up.

Edit: With that said I'm rolling out a few updates and clarifications to things that weren't too obvious sooner than later here.

eranormus said:
so far, at least keep making protests, keep boycotting certain payement processors and making calls, and survive

and hope more drastic actions will not be needed

That only works if they don't destroy the very communication methods we use to get people to do that. Now, I'm not an expert, but if I wanted to enforce worldwide censorship, the first thing I'd do is make it almost impossible for people to communicate that it's even happening. It feels like this is leading towards an era of witch hunts targeted at anti-censorship speech. Keep the masses distracted and ignorant, that sort of thing.

Hopefully I'm just paranoid and this will end in a year or two.

owo_sausage said:
That only works if they don't destroy the very communication methods we use to get people to do that. Now, I'm not an expert, but if I wanted to enforce worldwide censorship, the first thing I'd do is make it almost impossible for people to communicate that it's even happening. It feels like this is leading towards an era of witch hunts targeted at anti-censorship speech. Keep the masses distracted and ignorant, that sort of thing.

Hopefully I'm just paranoid and this will end in a year or two.

its kinda of hard to destroy the methods of comunication for that withouth also destroying the methods of comunication for everything else

hal_greaves said:
We're not ubisoft and if I really wanted to increase our revenue, it would be far easier to jump over to exoclick or juicyads and flood you guys out with ads for camgirls and crappy AI girlfriends. Please just give us a chance here and understand that we're doing what we can to stick around and stay alive, not to try and steal your email and IP addresses for whatever nefarious purpose we might conjure up.

Yeah, that does make sense. And the lack of obnoxious ads is much appreciated!

eranormus said:
its kinda of hard to destroy the methods of comunication for that withouth also destroying the methods of comunication for everything else

Plus, doing that would just be a flat out admission of guilt. At which point people wouldn't even need to organize, they'd just need to follow the angry mob.

Damn, who knew running a furry porn site would be this complicated? Just hope I can still come here to look at good smut when all is said and done.

They ask me for my ID then they can get fucked like CivitAI.

fast91 said:
Always an odd experience to be served with these "you consign all your rights to sue" in a country were that isn't just blatantly illegal, but also gets you laughed out of the room if you put it in.
I can kinda get it tho, with all those bounty laws red states have been putting out , and how litigious Americans are

Thing is though, despite all these TOS saying you wave your rights to sue, that is not what the case law says how it works. You just can't wave tort rights away should something happen. I do not understand why lawyers keep putting this clause in TOS, but I think it is put in more for the clients sound of mind than any legal authority.

fluffy_inferno said:
I do not understand why lawyers keep putting this clause in TOS, but I think it is put in more for the clients sound of mind than any legal authority.

To prevent frivolous lawsuits. Remember when Valve allowed actual court cases and would pay for both sides' lawyer fees? That got abused very quickly and Valve learned that pro-consumer (for what it's worth) stance is good but arbitrations exist for a reason.

hal_greaves said:
If Bad Dragon viewed you guys as a liability they would shut down the website, straight up.

I've said it before but we really need to cool it with all these conspiracies. We're not ubisoft and if I really wanted to increase our revenue, it would be far easier to jump over to exoclick or juicyads and flood you guys out with ads for camgirls and crappy AI girlfriends. Please just give us a chance here and understand that we're doing what we can to stick around and stay alive, not to try and steal your email and IP addresses for whatever nefarious purpose we might conjure up.

Edit: With that said I'm rolling out a few updates and clarifications to things that weren't too obvious sooner than later here.

I would not take it too personally my friend. The e6 forums tend to concentrate the angriest responses (see any site update thread). People don't come to these threads when they're happy.

That being said! There's notoriously little communication when it comes to site changes, and the new ToS really does look quite intimidating. I quoted your responses at the start so people see them right away, but I think a news update going over what's changed and why would be useful. So people don't have to come up with conspiracies

I mentioned this in the bug megathread but I'll mention it here too since active thread and relevant:

The TOS says 'you also agree to the privacy policy', but the privacy policy is inaccessible. When you click the link to view the privacy policy, it takes you back to another TOS agree screen. Can't make someone agree to a contract they have zero way to read before agreeing to it. Should probably consider having the 'legal' pages not generate the TOS page redirect.

Edit: A wise soul already opened an issue about it: https://github.com/e621ng/e621ng/issues/1416

arokha said:
I mentioned this in the bug megathread but I'll mention it here too since active thread and relevant:

yeah, this was mentioned a few times in the thread. but also...

fortunately, I think both of these really only apply to account holders, anyway. you can't really break or abide by the code of conduct if you are entirely unable to do any conduct, and you don't need to worry about your private info unless you've provided the site with private info.

I'm pretty sure courts in the US have just outright thrown out arbitration clauses that don't have opt-outs. This seems pretty unenforceable to me.

Disclaimer: I'm not a lawyer, nor do I speak for BD. Before acting on my words (or the words of anyone in this thread), you should talk to one.

anonymousfurry123 said:
I'm pretty sure courts in the US have just outright thrown out arbitration clauses that don't have opt-outs. This seems pretty unenforceable to me.

Firstly, this point has already been raised, but I'll answer it now.
In a few jurisdictions, ...yeah, they aren't (depending on context, of course). However, in the vast majority of jurisdictions, "take it or leave it" propositions still present you the option of leaving it; they don't view unnecessary leisure activities as a need, so just... not doing the thing is always an option if the terms of the agreement aren't agreeable to a party. Only in cases regarding essential services like medical care can that be grounds for voiding a contract.

So many clauses are straight out illegal if you serve the EU and you have to abide EU laws. Those parts are automatically nullified. I have a hunch some are even illegal in the USA. It already begins with coercing users into a new terms of use or locking them out of what they had with the previous one.

That there was no prior notice and no effort to contact users is just a small detail in comparison. (Very important: The company needs to make sure to inform the customer/user.)

anonymousfurry123 said:
I'm pretty sure courts in the US have just outright thrown out arbitration clauses that don't have opt-outs. This seems pretty unenforceable to me.

Indeed. Forced arbitration is a violation of the 7th amendment, and is essentially illegal.

E6 has fallen, billions must archive. Memes aside, I kinda figured some bullshit like this would happen eventually, considering that the whole world is Naruto running towards a dystopian shithole, I just want to be able to yiff (do people unironically say that?) after a long week. I know I’m probably overreacting but if this big of a change can happen, without warning, then what’s stopping this site from doing the stupid bullshit “AgE vErIfIcAtIoN” that essentially makes you dox yourself in order to use the site? I’ve been worried about this happening since they passed HB-2112, I’m just logging and sharing my thoughts. Sorry if this is all over the place and seems incoherent also I’m illiterate when it comes to legalese.

Edit: also ain’t forced arbitration what Disney did to that person who was trying to sue Disney because someone they cared about died at Disneyland and they said because they had a Disney+ subscription they couldn’t sue or whatever? Because that should be illegal as fuck

aspy_dragon said:
Edit: also ain’t forced arbitration what Disney did to that person who was trying to sue Disney because someone they cared about died at Disneyland and they said because they had a Disney+ subscription they couldn’t sue or whatever? Because that should be illegal as fuck

There was a strong chance that wouldn't have held up anyways

• The bereaved husband was suing as the executor of the victim's estate, not in their individual capacity, so him agreeing to the TOS doesn't matter
• Liability waivers usually don't protect from losses due to gross negligence
• The lack of reasonable connection between the services rendered that lead to the agreement & the event being sued over also diminishes its applicability.

That case (& many others) very understandably give arbitration a bad rep, but it's a perfectly valid means of legal conflict resolution with pros & cons against a standard court proceeding.

aspy_dragon said:
...if this big of a change can happen, without warning, then what’s stopping this site from doing the stupid bullshit “AgE vErIfIcAtIoN” that essentially makes you dox yourself in order to use the site?

Among other things, ideally? This. This is a tool to minimize liability, so we can't be held accountable for what other people use our services for, to protect us from frivolous lawsuits from malicious actors, to wield in court against arguments from prosecutors that we were wildly unprofessional & lackadaisical with concern to proper legal procedure.

takethelemonsback said:
Indeed. Forced arbitration is a violation of the 7th amendment, and is essentially illegal.

I really wish people would stop taking the plain text of a legal document & tossing all attached nuance out the window. Just like blackmail, defamation, & conspiracy to commit murder are 100% legal restrictions on your first amendment right to free speech, a contractual agreement to forced arbitration is (depending on context) a 100% legal exception to your right to a trial of your peers. There's a lot of jurisdictional caveats, but the general line that "forced arbitration is illegal because 7th amendment" is a wild oversimplification of the concepts at play to the point of inaccuracy.

aacafah said:
I really wish people would stop taking the plain text of a legal document & tossing all attached nuance out the window. Just like blackmail, defamation, & conspiracy to commit murder are 100% legal restrictions on your first amendment right to free speech, a contractual agreement to forced arbitration is (depending on context) a 100% legal exception to your right to a trial of your peers. There's a lot of jurisdictional caveats, but the general line that "forced arbitration is illegal because 7th amendment" is a wild oversimplification of the concepts at play to the point of inaccuracy.

Legal wordplay and aggressive bureaucracy cannot nullify rights. Rights are inalienable, and the constitution helps protect them. While the supreme court may have defined a very specific type of speech that is not protected by the first amendment, I have no doubt that once some legal precedent is set, forced arbitration will be tossed out - ruled unconstitutional. If forced arbitration is allowed, every single corporation will incorporate it into their ToS/EULAs and will effectively prevent all private citizens from holding corps accountable for egregious or illegal behavior. Corps would get away with everything - no one could pursue legal action. And we all know that government doesn't do a very good job holding corps accountable. This would be absolutely detrimental to society.

Since people are getting weird about the Arb Agreement - please remember we're not talking about DuPont Chemical here. This is a double-click TOS created by a sex toy company that owns an art platform... and that art platform provides a service that you use for *free*. You're not putting your home address and credit card on here (and if you are, you're using the site wrong). You're not ingesting forever chemicals (unless you are, but in that case, you have also discovered a very wrong but very interesting way to use this website).

Other companies like Pornhub are blocking Arizona ISPs. There were more drastic paths this website's owners could have taken due to politicians creating a threatening environment for our community. Please have some perspective.

is anyone else having to agree to the ToS again everytime you open the site? it's not a big problem but it is getting a bit annoying

I like how people were constantly doomposting that e6 is going offline with HB2112 and then complaining about how there isn't any plans for its long-term survival.
But then, once a potential safeguard was provided, people begin complaining again about how it alienates their rights and how BD is turning into Disney or some evil corporation out to fuck them over.
You know you can always just click on Decline, right?

I also want to reiterate what @Hal_Greaves already mentioned, this new ToS wasn't generated out of thin air or with evil intent.
It was advised by the FSC as a result of "modern political realities" in order for us to continue existing.

How do I opt out of forced abritration?

when are people thinking that they're even going to need to sue the furry art archive site anyway? like, in what situations would a normal user even find themself in where the forced arbitration would even apply?

dba_afish said:
when are people thinking that they're even going to need to sue the furry art archive site anyway? like, in what situations would a normal user even find themself in where the forced arbitration would even apply?

I don't think I will ever need to sue e621. I just don't want to have that right taken away from me to use the site. If other platforms like Discord can let me opt out of forced arbitration I don't see why e621/Bad Dragon can't.

memeplague7 said:
is anyone else having to agree to the ToS again everytime you open the site? it's not a big problem but it is getting a bit annoying

I'm having the same issue.
e621 is one of the very few 0.1% of sites I whitelist everything and allow all scripts and ads, so I figured nothing would impede my cookies from remembering that I agreed to the ToS.

thegreatwolfgang said:
I like how people were constantly doomposting that e6 is going offline with HB2112 and then complaining about how there isn't any plans for its long-term survival.
But then, once a potential safeguard was provided, people begin complaining again about how it alienates their rights and how BD is turning into Disney or some evil corporation out to fuck them over.
You know you can always just click on Decline, right?

I also want to reiterate what @Hal_Greaves already mentioned, this new ToS wasn't generated out of thin air or with evil intent.
It was advised by the FSC as a result of "modern political realities" in order for us to continue existing.

I'm old enough to remember how hard it was to find adult content while avoiding viruses before I discovered this site in 2010.
It's so much better than the alternatives, that it's still my #1 source, 15 years later.
I trust e621 to have their users best interests in mind while still being above board.

japanimater said:
I'm having the same issue.
e621 is one of the very few 0.1% of sites I whitelist everything and allow all scripts and ads, so I figured nothing would impede my cookies from remembering that I agreed to the ToS.

Are you using Opera by chance? It has troubles retaining memory of a cookie but not necessarily cookie itself. It'll log into websites on page refresh but before that tell you you've logged out.

furviewingaccount said:
It was put out on the second I think, but I got the big popup asking me to agree to it today. Looks like they got a real lawyer to write up this one. There's an arbitration clause so that's fun. I'd be interested to hear people's thoughts, especially if they're more fluent in legalese and can actually understand any of it. I've got no clue if there are actually any meaningful changes.

edit: From the BD staff member. Take with your preferred amount of salt:

Yeah, I seen it only about a dozenty million tines.

eightoflakes said:
I don't think I will ever need to sue e621. I just don't want to have that right taken away from me to use the site. If other platforms like Discord can let me opt out of forced arbitration I don't see why e621/Bad Dragon can't.

I think therein lies an issue with your viewpoint.

You are given this service entirely free from BD, with no expectations of helping its upkeep. As you said, you don't think you're going to sue e621 at all, and Hal has stated several times that, in short, BD was suggested these things via the FSC. On top of that, not only was this change made with the website's best interests in mind (I'm sure), but in the same regard, it helps folks like us who are more involved on the website.

Given the current political storm the world is in, the world isn't exactly a friendly place for services like e621. There's always going to be people who act in bad faith, or just want to see the site burn. The ToS protects the site, and in the same way, protects you from the repercussions of whatever the bad faith actor attempted to do.

snpthecat said:
TLDR: The ToS changes will not affect you (bogdanurs)

thx dude, i guess that's all i need to know :)

I try to avoid digging into site politics and such, but there are still a lot of questions and concerns that haven't been fully addressed right now. Understandably, some people are getting anxious, and even the Bad Dragon representative seems to be running out of patience. That suggests the communication around this situation could be handled a bit more clearly.

Firstly, it would help to clarify that this new set of policies was introduced at the request of Bad Dragon, the parent company. It should be made clear that Bad Dragon is very hands-off in how the site is actually operated. From what's been stated so far, this change appears to be primarily about protecting both the company and this site from potential future legal disputes, not about altering how the site itself runs.

Beyond that, here's what I think might help everyone feel more at ease:

• As has been stated, the Code of Conduct and Privacy Policy are being linked in a mandatory Terms of Use pop-up, but due to how the interception page works, clicking on them from the pop-up simply loops back to that same page. Considering the sensitivity of and interest in the material, and given that adherence to these policies is also mandatory as stated in the ToU, fixing this should really be of higher priority than "this will be addressed".
• I'm aware that this will require a new method of addressing "first logins" — one that doesn't block access to the entire site (as was the case with the original "Are you an adult?" pop-up, and now with this one.) Still, this should be addressed sooner rather than later if there's an insistence on keeping this new "three-click" login process.

10/26/2025 Edit: They fixed it. Users can view those pages without having to log in now. Thanks!

• It would really help to clarify what agreeing to the ToU actually means for users' legal rights. For example:
• U.S./Canada users: You can't sue; you must arbitrate.
• Everyone else: You can sue, but only through Arizona courts, and only within one year.

• Consider giving users a straightforward way to opt out of the arbitration clause if they wish — ideally without having to dig through dense legal text to find it.

• It would also be helpful to explain how these changes affect external frontends or archival/mirroring sites, if at all.

• Finally, make a global news post about it, being clear about this and other key points. This might draw some "unwanted attention" to the topic, but as it stands, people are currently being asked to agree to something new and intimidating largely without understanding why.

To repeat what I said earlier, the biggest thing here is reassuring users that the site's functionality isn't changing; that this update is mostly about legal compliance, not how people use e621 day to day. I know the site staff and the Bad Dragon emissary have already tried to make that clear, but restating it in plain terms might go a long way toward calming the community.

Thank you.