Cracking down, but what determines Allowable models?

GeorgeTDS · July 5, 2026, 12:11pm

@Gintoki You are fishing for answers that no one can give you. Everyone here has the same information that you do, and have been doing their best to answer your questions. You do yourself disservice arguing every answer just because it wasn’t the one you want.

The loop boils down to this: you don’t have to agree with MakerWorld’s choices, but if you want to continue to use their services you must accept them. This includes accepting that they will not provide an exhaustive list of which models they will reject and which ones they will not. If these terms are not that which you won’t accept you can simply upload models to another service.

Everyone who has been trying to talk to you in this forum are fellow creators and makers, not employees of Bambu Labs. Everyone has been trying to help you understand to the best of their abilities, but you don’t seem to appreciate that. Please don’t forget that these are your peers that you are getting frustrated with, not the ones who are making the decisions at a company.

Josh-3D · July 5, 2026, 12:48pm

I’d like to quote Bambu’s post too, to a very specific part. In response to these discussions about IDs and NSFW categories, and ways to manage NSFW content…

" Let’s be clear: MakerWorld doesn’t want or need this content to drive traffic."

There’s no point in it, talking as if there is some solution that Bambu is overlooking. They just don’t want NSFW content at all, they don’t want anime bowling balls falling out of bikinis, or middle fingers, or whatever.

hyiger · July 5, 2026, 1:13pm

Corporate website owned by Bambu Labs, so they get to make the rules. Everything else is moot. Couldn’t care less if they ban certain types of models. Example, anything deemed NSFW. As others have pointed out, there is Cults3D for that.

However, it will be helpful if they were clear upfront about what is and isn’t allowed. But whinging about why a particular model was taken down and losing an appeal is pointless. Just post it somewhere else then.

Cypherous · July 5, 2026, 1:19pm

Ok but your country isn’t ALL countries

Just because yours does have a system in place that doesn’t mean mine does or someone elses does

RetroSharky · July 5, 2026, 1:30pm

I explained that to you page after page until I got frustrated because you have a huge problem understanding English, so I tried using photos instead. I’ve never taken as much time to explain this to anyone else as I have to you.

Then you disappeared at some point, showed up here again, and unfortunately haven’t learned anything. You still think your bikini 3D model was removed because it was NSFW, which wasn’t the case.

The rule violation you were accused of: “pornographic” - real deal
Your response to MakerWorld, or rather, the substance of your appeal: “Others do it too!”

You don’t have a problem with NSFW - you simply have a problem with English.

…and to recognize the difference between an NSFW report and what Bambu is accusing you of: distributing actual the real deal pornographic.

If anyone wants to read up on how many times people have tried to explain this. People then began to wonder if he were even old enough yet.

DWdesigns · July 5, 2026, 1:37pm

To be more clear, it is not a total ban, but rather a gradient of actions, perhaps depending on how “grey” or “black” the model is. The NSFW category is not going away either.

Here’s in the announcement.

Depending on the severity of the violation, we may:
• Remove the content entirely,
• Pull it from all recommendation surfaces,
• Mark it as NSFW so it’s only visible to users who’ve opted in, or
• Limit its reach (reduced distribution).

Another factor is that MW tends to water down the enforcement. So it remains to be seen if this is another cycle of thunderous annoucement followed by only a few drops of rain.

However, this is the first time MW publicly commits to use manual power to enforce a rule while a stronger system is being developed. I guess these models, even if only a few slipping through, cause outsized damage to MW which wants to have the reputation of being a family friendly place.

I wish MW have the same determination on other areas such as requiring photo of the printed model as the cover image and actually reward sophisticated original models. So far there are annoucements but no meaningful action on these.

RetroSharky · July 5, 2026, 1:47pm

For everyone else, I’ll post the explanation again here to clarify the difference and context:

I’ll explain it now using examples and some photos - maybe that will make it easier to understand. However, I’m specifically using SFW photos. That should be sufficient to explain this:

The cover clearly does not show a real person. The 3D model, the images, the description - none of it is a “real human.” No problem, everything’s fine.

The cover shows real people. Therefore, it is no longer considered NSFW but rather pornographic, and it violates the rules (here, of course, is an SFW image just to illustrate the point). It doesn’t matter what the actual 3D model is.

It’s a 3D rendering. Technically, it’s allowed, but since it looks extremely realistic, it’s classified as a real human and is therefore considered pornographic. (As I said, here’s an SFW image to illustrate). It doesn’t matter what the actual 3D model is.

And now we come to something people overlook: links and descriptions! (Again, this is just an example - an SFW version.) It is classified as pornographic even if the text “is not a real person”, the link leads to real human beings, or the text describes the actions of real human beings.

What triggers pornographic flag, of course, is on another page, but it should now be clear that this has nothing to do with the actual 3D model itself, but rather with the reference to “real human.”

The system is triggered even when there is no interaction with the 3D object because the flag refers to “real human conntent”, not the actual 3D model.