>>2957I don't care, I just wanna necropost and express something I had on my mind about forming purely female online communities.
The most obvious approach seems to be the one described in
>>6070. And now that I think of it, having verified nonas on an anonymous board is not completely terrible. Especially now that 4chan requires you to verify an e-mail or wait for 15 minutes in order to minimize bot posts.
The methodology of verifying nonas is a problem, though. In the AI era it seems to be a disaster. Amateur AI verification tools mostly suck ass (look up Duolicious photo verification tool, it's useless) and it will essentially turn into a fight between AI verification tool and AI generation tools. And hand-verification would take a lot of human resource. Not to mention the bias that comes with it: afabs are a diverse kind and some genuinely have lower voices and sharper faces. In fact, I've seen a community where mods were hand verifying chat members by asking them to send a voice message and it was a tragedy: even mildly boyish voices or just voices of older women got a load of shit and had to undergo some mild interrogation and deanonimyze themselves even further by, e.g. sharing a video of themselves.
So, I can see this being implemented, but I see enough problems with this approach.
In fact,
>>6145 is probably right and the best option is actually keeping the conversation as female-centered as possible. I'll be honest with you, I'm not much TERFy and during my first visit to cc I was lowkey biased when I noticed it. But now that I think of it? Makes perfect sense and scares enough posters a female-oriented community wouldn't need. Moids just avoid anything having to do with radfem like plague and if they don't, they misunderstand the agenda so much their trolling attempts just look pathetic. Nor would they ever engage in conversations about bra-sizes or menstrual cups. Win-win?
