Request for a Clear and Consistent Definition of “Sensitive Content”

Dear SeaArt Team,

I am writing this message not out of hostility, but out of genuine concern for the current state of your platform and its creative ecosystem.

Over the past weeks, many users — myself included — have encountered repeated content blocks, flags, and visibility restrictions applied to works that contain no nudity, no sexual content, no graphic violence, and no hate speech. These actions are consistently justified under the vague category of “sensitive content”, yet no clear definition of this term has been provided.

At this point, I would like to formally request a precise, argumented, and publicly available definition of what SeaArt considers “sensitive content.”

1. What exactly makes content “sensitive”?

Sensitivity is not an absolute concept. It varies widely between:

cultures,

regions,

religious traditions,

political systems,

and personal worldviews.

Without a transparent definition, the term becomes arbitrary and impossible for creators to navigate. What objective criteria are being applied?

2. Why does style matter more than content?

It has become evident that identical themes and subjects are treated differently depending on visual style:

Skeletons, demons, ghosts, and other classic fantasy or mythological figures are frequently blocked in realistic or cinematic styles,

yet are often fully permitted when rendered in anime or stylized digital art.

This raises a critical question: Is the issue the subject itself — or merely its emotional impact when presented more convincingly?

If realism alone is treated as “sensitive,” this effectively bans entire artistic traditions, including classical fantasy illustration, dark fantasy, gothic art, and cinematic storytelling.

3. Is emotional depth now considered a violation?

If “sensitive content” refers to a work’s ability to evoke emotions beyond comfort, cuteness, or superficial positivity, then this represents a fundamental rejection of art as a medium.

Art has always explored:

fear,

loss,

conflict,

ambiguity,

moral tension.

A platform that allows only harmless, decorative imagery is not protecting users — it is reducing art to aesthetic noise.

4. Why are fictional themes treated as real-world threats?

Works involving:

fictional politics,

invented religions,

imaginary wars,

sci-fi or fantasy worlds with no real-world references,

are being flagged as sensitive, even when they do not depict real political figures, real religious institutions, or real conflicts.

Why are purely fictional narratives treated as if they were real-world propaganda?

This approach makes meaningful science fiction and fantasy storytelling effectively impossible.

5. The current system discourages creators

The lack of clarity has created an environment where creators are afraid to experiment, afraid to tell stories, and afraid to invest time and effort into projects that may be arbitrarily blocked.

This does not lead to a safer platform. It leads to:

creative paralysis,

mass self-censorship,

and the departure of serious artists.

I respectfully ask SeaArt to:

Publish a clear, detailed definition of “sensitive content,”

Explain why visual style affects moderation decisions more than actual content,

Clarify whether emotional, philosophical, or dark themes are still allowed when fully fictional and non-graphic.

Without such transparency, it is impossible for creators to understand the rules they are expected to follow.

Sincerely, A concerned creator and long-term user