Age verification enters Grid-wide beta

Guess I'm an arrogant redneck then.

I have read about it but truthfully I am not interested really in going to restricted places or feel need for myself to age verify but I hate idea that nude art now is going to be considered in same restrictions as porn.
From what I have read the system is terribly flawed.

It won't be FD. Nude art will be what it always was, nude art.
What will be flagged as "adult" content is graphic depictions of sex.
There's a clear difference I think.

Hmm maybe but wasn't there an issue with burning man about a statue?

I finally completed a little testing on an age-restricted Mainland parcel. The group Owners and Officers can enter the parcel whether or not they're age-verified. (I'm not sure what specific parcel permission is involved, but it's probably something in the Parcel Access category of Abilities.) A non-verified non-Officer member of the group cannot enter the parcel, as previously reported (somewhere). If the rejected avatar's viewer isn't the Release Candidate, they get a popup saying "NotAgeVerified is missing from alerts.xml".

(Sorry if this is either redundant or belongs somewhere else. I've completely lost track of which thread is for what, but this one's title seemed relevant.)

Yep, there was, but this is a different issue though.
For starters, the Burning Man event was in a PG sim AFAIK.
Also, LL have already suggested (by way of Micheal Linden in a governance meeting) they are t going to go around closing places down or warning people. Even their enforcing the policy seems uncertain at this point.
Both the flagging and potential reporting is entirely voluntary and resident-based.
Plus.. explicit sex is different from a static image of a nude, I'd say?

Yeah it was a friend he had little bit of situation with his statue of nude woman showering.
I was so honored he included one of my plant textures in the exhibit.
He end up having a display but I think somewhere else.

Re: the BurningLife statue. While most of BurningLife was Mature, there were some PG parcels. And the statue had nipples. Which apparently are Mature. Or were, before age-verification. Now maybe nipples are Restricted.

I think the nipples also have to be attached to a female breast. AFAIK, male avatars will still be permitted to be shirtless, maybe even on PG sims. Unless they're underage avatars. Or prim babies. Or something.

/me wanders off, having again befuddled himself completely.

/me is even more befuddled by Qie's befuddledness

Now someone get all those kids out of museums then, there's loads of naked people and nipples and everything on display. They might be 2000 year old Greek statues, but they are anatomically correct (if a bit on the small side in certain regions).

Really????? That's disgusting!

My Egyptologist mates and I once went on an excursion to Denmark, and in the museums we decided there must be a race of humans we agreed to call "small-donged Dorians" And there were KIDS PRESENT!

Now I'm inclined to agree, but lets take it a step further shall we...

do we let underage children drive cars? no
do we let underage children but alcohol? no
do we let underage children wander in porn shops? no
do we let underage children play with firearms? no
do we let underage children wander around bordellos? no
do we let underage children (insert something you need to be a minimum age to do)? NO

so why oh why do we let them wander around the internet w/o supervision, knowing there are things out there we don't want them to see?

forget that for a moment and consider this:
does everyone agree on what is suitable for their child? or for that matter other adults?

if I seel something you don't like, in my own little space that is easily avoided, why is it my responsability to monitor other people... if they didn't want to be there, they wouldn't, if you didn't want them there, you'd either prevent them, or teach them that it's wrong (regardless of whether it is or not)

then there's the whole concept of victimless crime to acknoledge, if there are no literal victims (someone harmed, & stock holders are people too... mostly), what is the cause for it being 'illegal'? the answer is: someone ELSES morals

so if Pat Q. Underage borrows their parent DL to get on a site, who was harmed? and who's to blame? if they lie on a form to get in, who was harmed? who's to blame?

Thanks


Lovely.... Ireland doesnt do postcodes

Indeed, nipples are mature to such an extent that livejournal banned breastfeeding mothers from having a breastfeeding picture as their default picture in case people got offended. Human nature is offensive and probably needs flagging as verified only.

If the age verification thing worked as intended, it would be a tool for those with a sense of responsibility to use, in terms of deciding whom to allow on their mature parcels.

If I decided to open up an erotic art gallery, I would like a feature that allowed me to reliably exclude persons who were not verified as adults.

Others may decide not to use such a feature for whatever reason. They may feel that the material on their land is not sufficiently mature to warrant banning those who are not age-verified (e.g., a decision that merely having a picture that showed someone's nipples was not a reason to ban potential minors). Others may decide that they don't care who accesses their mature material, that it's more important to get in as many people as possible to get as much traffic or Lindens or whatever as possible.

Simply because others may choose not to use this feature that way I would does not necessarily mean that I should not have access to the feature.

The age verification idea is a good idea overall. It allows me to be more comfortable with placing adult material in Second Life. Using it would be a decision I would make that others might not make, but I like the idea of having the option.

Of course, I think the age verification should work as intended. If it's unreasonably difficult for adults to be verified, or unreasonably easy for minors to circumvent, or it violates privacy laws, then it isn't useful. That however goes to the implementation of age verification, not the goal of age verification.

Interesting... I have not been anywhere near an Aristole/Integrity site, but there they were, 2 Aristole cookies.

The question is, why is aristole putting cookies on my machine if I havee not been to their site or attempted to verify? (Which i'm not going to do). Are they perhaps tracking the people who come to the forums?

from the Cookies:
Cookie #1:

Site: integrity.aristole.com
Name: 9354b4b670881132e51536bd7fa0774
Content: a99020e1abbebebe066166811d79f3
Host: integrity.aristole.com
Path: /
Send For: Any type of connection
Expires: Saturday, December 08, 2007 4:19:06 am

Cookie # 2:

Site: integrity.aristole.com
Name: mosvisitor
Content: 1
Host: integrity.aristole.com
Path: /content/view/113/145/
Send for: Any type of connection
Expires: At end of session

Sheesh.. Don't we have enough tin foil hats around here already without this??

Anybody who views this page or the previous page of this thread is going to get that. It's because Ciaran used img tags to post the link to http://integrity.aristotle.com/content/view/113/145/ .

You CAN'T have my tin foil hat! make your own!
/me holds it on his head with both hands.

The blame is 100% the parents - not SL, not society, not the government.

That said, the child may still possibly suffer harm depending upon what they get in to due to their lack of proper parenting. And society has taken on the job of trying to make up for this lack of parenting. Add to that mix a government that always wants too much control of our lives and a large set of lawyers that just want to get rich and we get the totally uncontrollable set of laws that we have - that end up provoking or forcing companies like SL to try and pretend they are dealing with it by doing this sort of age verification crap.

It won't work. The children that are not properly parented will still get to the sites they shouldn't be at. And society and government will continue the ridiculous circle of trying to prevent it. Until parents decide to truly be parents, no other efforts will ever work.

That's ok, Adz. I several of my own in different color foil to match my mood.

Question!! What does your profile look like when you have been age verified? Is it listed in there somewhere? Do they put your age in or does it just show that you have been verified?

It certainly won't have your age. According to the blog announcement, it's not *supposed* to show age-verification status either, but right now the RC client is showing something suspiciously like it's trying to say "Not age-verified" but gets cut off by the width of the text display field. On the other hand, it says that for everybody, including those who've successfully age-verified. But then, we're not sure avatar age-verification information is actually getting updated in-world anyway, so maybe the profile *is* revealing more than it's supposed to, but it just doesn't have the right information to reveal yet.

But note that Tomas is reporting cookies from aristole, not aristotle.

Maybe Aristole might be a bit more efficient and give Aristotle some competition ... JOKE!