"What happens if I don’t flag my restricted content?"

While I too lament the potential loss of freedoms associated with this move, I think it has more to do with the litigious society our service provider has to survive in, than our service provider.

If faced with similar high consequences, rare though they may be, I'd probably make the same moves they did. Not that I'd want to, of course.

All I can say is, get out there and vote.

Second point - while I agree that the grid has lost much of its mass appeal by the shunning of popular internet vices, I wouldn't agree that it's unviable.

I see phases. Much like the early home movie and the early internet markets were dominated by 'vice' usage, those merely presaged multibillion dollar industries that are as PG (or G) as Disney, by and large.

We really are living on a frontier, but it's getting settled rapidly. The wildcat goldstrike towns, saloons and cathouses have had their day.

I hope we took enough pictures, for we shan't be this way again for a long long time.

You know, it struck me earlier today that if I am going to bear the legal responsibility for keeping kids out of my content, why should I really be bothering to pay tier to SL?

What I wish for is a day when there is a common client, and we can host our own sims as we like. It would be self limiting, because we'd be paying for our own hardware, and our own traffic. In the end, though, we'd be responsible for what we do, abiding by the law we have democratic input on in our own nations, and not have to worry about a TOS change that erases our efforts.

I wish if SL is going to take this "We're a common carrier and not responsible for what people do" point of view, they'd take it a step further and let people do anything they like. Then if the FBI wants to bust a SL casino, they can just get the sim owner's info and do so.

That would suck for people who want to do things illegal, but for the rest of us who don't want to be treated like pornographers and hucksters, we'd not have anything to worry about very much. I'd much rather see the TOS say "Hey, do whatever you want, but when the police come and kick your door in, don't come crying to us".



Like... um, what? Oh, I know, Ebay, Amazon, the "Mall" Internet. What in terms of entertainment? YouTube, MySpace, etc., spend untold amounts of time trying to keep adult material off their networks, and the result? Competitors who make it a selling point that they allow adult material, and a lot of headache with people who still refuse to change their ways.

I think it will be the same here. People bring sexuality with them wherever they go, ESPECIALLY in social contexts on the Internet. Ridding SL of unregulated sex is like ridding IRC or USENET of it. Don't hold your breath. If you do succeed, prepare for the mass exodus to something new.

Protect them? What are you talking about? These are kids willingly -- obstinately and determinedly -- jumping into the fire. Let 'em go, it'll make good YouTube afterwards.

But let's be more frank about what we're really trying to protect them from, and whether this measure is effectively going to dissuade unwanted predators any more than unwanted minors.


Actually, they can't claim common carrier if they're passing polices to police it, but that's where the IDV policy gets murky -- they're becoming more emphatic in it, but they aren't quite saying whether they're handling enforcement arbitrarily or simply becoming more vigilant whistleblowers for laws that exist outside their 'Mature' and 'Restricted' tags.


Of course, recent legislation has passed that holds the adult responsible for their conduct with a child in online interaction, even if they didn't know it was a child, same as ignorance of age doesn't work against statutory rape charges. I don't think this has been challenged in court, but given that this online interaction is sight-unseen and voice-unheard, and plenty of legal adults act pretty immature, not excluding those who write our federal laws, I'm skeptical that these charges are indefensible. Costly, but not indefensible.

Which legislation is this?

I can not beleive you are somehow supposed to know someone isnt 18 when they claim they are over 18 online.

You cant even see them, read body language, etc.

Of course a HUGE demographic is missed in SL with reguards to this statement.

The reason G rated stuff is so hugely sucessful for companies like Disney is Kids and the Parents of those Kids.

PG to a lesser extent but still owes much of its market sucess to being safe for most ages.

When I posted this I thought there was an important distinction, but really there isn't with regard to the definition of 'common carrier'. If they're monitoring and policing, they don't get common carrier immunities, they are responsible for what they fail to police. If they are soliciting reports from internal or external sources, they are taking responsibility for monitoring, and they have to accept responsibility for what they fail to monitor. Hell of a losing game either way, after the many users in many years that they've told, "Create what you want!" so much that they couldn't possibly keep track of it all.

Eh, you're asking me to cite sources for free? You know how legislatures like to word things, it's going to take half a day to find it in findlaw database...

I can tell you know that it's bundled into a recent set of laws that also holds website operators and owners for exposing adult content to minors, even if they were mislead by the child's age. And that hasn't been tested in court, either, but LL appears to be running scared rather than taking a stand. And they wouldn't have to do either of those if they fell back on 'common carrier' immunities rather than invalidating them.

For which country? the US?

Anyone else having this issue on the website? I am on a mac. Won't load for Firefox or Safari.

Seems to be working for me. What part won't load?

(On a PC using IE)

One thing that I think should be said ebfore these threads are locked...


Age verification isnt really voluntary in all cases ..

With the bar set so low as to include "R movie" type content ..

A great many people in Second Life, regualiry participate in R movie activities on a daily or weekly basis.

They are either going to have to verify, give up some of their current activities, or break the rules.

Since the regular online sex life of people playing house is definitely included now .. this means huge numbers of SL'rs will be affected and will basically give up what they like or else verify.

With this level of "optional" being offered to people, I think it stands to reason someone better triple and quadruptle check on Integrity, and make sure they have some Integrity.

Integrity's security is questionable, from what i have read of them. That's enough for me to shy away from verification by the means available to me in Europe (Driver's licence or Passport).

However, from what i have heard, i wont be asked to verify, as the word I heard is that current users will be grandfathered. Only new users coming in from the commencement of verification will be 'checked' by Integrity (and i use the inverted commas on 'checked' because if they are checking against information they already are purported to hold, that doesnt count for europeans either).

If this changes, then for me its 'break the rules and hope for the best'. I have a skybox at 700 metres, with a security system that warns and ejects anyone 'inadvertently' straying into it. If someone 'inadvertently' cams in to see me and my Significant Other doing what we do in private, sue me.

I hope Robin Linden remembers her words at the Town Hall where she said that what people do behind closed doors on Mature land is not going to be a matter for account closure (paraphrased). If this, like so many other statements, changes with the wind direction, I guess he and i will go back to IRC where we came from. So long and thanks for all the fish, etc. Until its decided, we will just wait and see.

imogen

I expect that there will be quite a few people who choose to opt out like this because the alternatives of (1) verifying or (2) leaving SL completely are both unattractive, and perhaps the enforcement risk will be low in some cases (eg 700m skyboxes). For those of use who prefer lower altitudes I guess we're wide open.

Yes, in the US. A little after the 'Keeping Second Life Sane Together' blog, I spoke with an NCSF representative on the phone who told me how 'draconian' (her word) the online child protection laws have become. I was convinced to back out of my support for ageplay, since I've never allowed it in my own neighborhood anyway, it would've cost me the battle I was really trying to fight.

Yahoo

Pepsi banner ad in a room which should NOT have been allowed to exist. Vile.

Yahoo closes all user created rooms.

Parallel?

Sadly, yes.

Where did you hear this? I have not read one thing from LL that suggested current users will be grandfathered based on current verification status.

Most beds etc can be locked to owner only or group only.

Other poseballs can be protected from being used.

Security (sad that it is needed in the first place) can be set to immediately eject without warning. That was always seen as unfriendly but I have no qualms that not only is my skybox home on land set strictly to a few avatars (NONE of whom would be shocked by the contents), the security is brutal too.

Of course personally I think it's time to up groups available. Maybe that is the incentive for being premium, more groups, half of mine are used up on project groups.

I doubt it will be an issue for private residences.

Still you can't be too careful. A few weeks ago I added someone to one of my groups, a cheerful pleasant and articulate person with a reasonably normal avatar.

Two days later my neighbour told me she'd ejected that person - as a nine year old looking naked child avatar along with some guy - out of her bed.

I was mortified. She AR'd her, I AR'd her, ejected her from my group and banned her.

Okay I beleive such laws might exist. However I dont see how they pass a sanity check.

I dont see how someone who only knows a person as a name, a claimed adult age and a 3d cartoon character image can be held more responsible for a child's online activities - than the custodial parent would be.

Another question, with such a law does the fact the child verified as an adult do any more than the child having clicked "I am 18" ? As far as responsibilty goes?

Much agreement Desmond. Sadly, in places.

Thing is

While Id love to visit an online Disneyland once in a while.

I wouldnt want to "live" there. (in the online sense)

If I draw a parallel to the gambling issue, it's that LL have tried their best within all reasonable expectation to prevent misuse by minors. The emphasis on reasonable.

Basically in my workplace this happens.

Parent contacts us and says that their child has fraudlently created an account and spent their money.

We can honestly say that verification IS in place (and that includes Aristotle or Experian checks at the time of registration) and our advice is that they take proceedings against their child.

Harsh? Yes ... but then again the onus for a child not gaining their details to register with is with them, not us.

How that translates here I don't know. I know how I personally would apply it but I am not in even the slightest bit qualified to speculate what SHOULD be done.

Patience?

What's this Patience you speak of, Mr Laval?

A friend of mine phoned LL to ask, and was told this.

Yes yes ,i know, speak to one Linden, hear one thing, speak to another, hear something different. But what do YOU think?

imogen

I'll live there if I can follow Mickey Mouse round poking him with sticks and saying "You're RUBBISH! What exactly is the point of YOU?"

Then it would be ok.

I think that is a SENSIBLE idea and I hope to high heaven that it is true.

I think that if we were going to be grandfathered in they wouldnt be having conseriege Resisdents testing the verification system.