RendoasBabyfur is not equivalent to lolicon. That would be "cub porn". Babyfur is almost exactly just drawing furry toddlers, and has a lot of overlap with people into age regression, which then is not inherently sexual (but of course sometimes is, depending on who you're asking). What I saw in Lilstarlite's media tab on Bluesky, meaning art they themselves made, didn't at all resemble human children. I did see the aforementioned tampon-eating as mentioned in the OP, but no sexual assault occurring within that image, and, idk, it's gross and I don't like it, but are we saying that a drawing of a cartoon character eating used tampons is evidence of them harming children? Probably not. Similarly, the zoophilic art I could find (there is a lot of variation on what qualifies; I COULD explain it to the best of my ability but the term and its application is very contentious in the furry community right now, and neither of us would enjoy it), seemingly not produced by Lilstarlite themselves although they did share it, leaned much much bizarre and cartoonish to me.
I'm not disagreeing that on a personal level I, too, find these things unappealing and gross. But punishing people for crimes not committed, which is to say, punishing them for partaking in gross fiction, is unacceptable. The evidence here seems to be that OP went out of their way to look at the social media and likes of these people, and not that these people were sharing weird porn with minors. The "crime" being presented here for punishment is people being sexual deviants without involving unconsenting parties, and I think that's some conservative bullshit I can't get down with. Being a freak does not make you a danger to society, but conservative rhetoric sure would have you believe that queer people are pedophiles. Do you see what I'm saying?
leave the goon cave and lock in twin