Upcoming Changes for Adult Content: Answers to Questions

Ehehehe I find such arguments much better than the arguments of the Lindens because they have no. even not their own kilometers long "TAO" works for them.

So, if they joke us here around, is every opposite idea better than theirs. The idea to bend and fold customers like LL does, is reason enough to show them how wrong they are - and why not let them conter that themselfs? So far they had NO courage to conter anything wich was written from some thousand people here.

They do answer only a few technical questions, but not a single question or comment or analysis or critic, wich touches some human basics.

Oh and about zoning....

Some posts ago these weeks i gave evidences about much metropoles on globe, where all possible things existing wall on wall. There is nothing moved into the pampa. Not in Tokyo, not in Hamburg, not in Paris, or wich metropolitan area you want.

Even not in San Francisco....and the peeps of Frisco would throw every person from the GG-bridge wich would try to start such a arbitrialy forced mass exodus and war on eros + freedom of expression, especially in this city... - and where is the HQ of LL?... - right - exact there....

And how does quoting UN documents that do not apply help the discussion other than as personal amusement to you? Do you really think they should be wasting time commenting on such postings?



And yet adult oriented business such as bars, clubs, any movie theatre showing age restricted films has age restrictions that involve ID checks at the door. There is enough of an outcry over 3rd party ID age verification. Do you really think it would be more efficient and safer to have each business verifying age on its own?

Stop trying to equate this to RL people being forced to move. Virtual businesses in a world with no transporation costs, where distances are not factors being moved, and location references can be changed as database entries does not equate to similar moves in RL where people actually have to walk or drive to locations and to know where they are and how to get there.

What I'm saying is that the adult continent having the extra levels of verification should be appealing to adult content providers, indeed some of them have been asking for this. However due to the nature of Second Life some people are not keen on this, the adult continent should grow organically, not by force, if done right it will sell itself.

Linden Lab are taking a hammer to crack a nut here, it's a brutish approach to the issue.



Personally I worry more about kids being encouraged to come here, rather than discouraged to come here. This is not a good environment for kids. Those who lie about their age need to take some responsibility for their actions.

Why is it necessary to completely move all adult content to another geographic location? You could simply add a entity in your asset database tables to flag content and have the viewer use a control structure on whether or not to render the said adult content.

Major fucking mistake on your part for not realizing that.

I think we will have to agree to disagree on the screening. If it was easy to get it set up voluntarily, there would not be this issue, and one of the large objections seems to revolve around people worried about the ability to stay anonymous (which is a reasonable concern).

Once in place, it will likely grow organicly on its own, but getting it in place involves change and risk, and both of those are often resisted in any world, virtual or real.

As for encouraging kids to come here, I agree that should not happen and merging the grids should not happen.

As for kids who lie about their age, though, if they were considered responsible to make decisions to enter into this content or not, then there would not be an issue.. if they were responsible to make that decision they would likely be responsible enough to be considered adults.

The very reason this is an issue is that, right or wrong, society does not consider kids adults yet and feels they need protection, even sometimes from themselves. You can disagree with that all you like but good luck appealing to the law, or public opinion, or the UN or anywhere, really.

Which do you think is easier... flagging an entire region en mass or flagging individual assets? You think checking on an asset by asset basis would not create considerably more lag, rather than simply screening once on entry?

no mistake.

its all part of LL's plan.

this thread and the last one? all part of the plan.

you have no say, and they are not interested in you me or anyone else.

this is the only thing LL are interested in -$-.

they will wreck landowners and creators and our lives and they dont give a shit.

LL want their bat and ball back so you are gonna pay sucker.

look for other alternatives...

you know the worst thing?

LL are still selling sims to people who havnt got a clue this is going on.

and that is despicable.

Kindon has turned LL into a bunch of money grubbing mercenaries.

no, they've always been like this - well ever since I first came inworld almost 3 years ago. Ever since they tried to screw me out of 1000usd I stopped being a fan -and that was March 2007.

If I were to open an adult business I would absolutely want it to be on the adult continent, this place is going to get plenty of publicitiy.

However you're right about change and risk and this is where the problems lie. Moving your business can be costly, you lose picks, you lose search rankings you lose money.

Then there's the issue of private islands, if 5 private islands have 80% mature and 20% adult, they could come together and place all the adult content on one island in co-operation with each other but it's more likely they will evict the adult content, meaning there's going to be one island's worth of empty space between them which is a scenario for one of them going out of business.

These are the factors LL aren't considering, they are not listening to such concerns either.

The amusement is on the side of LL, not on mine. They are the entertainers here. Blondin has frequently his gigs. Woot, woot. They have fun to drive that thing how they like. And I have any right to applaud them in the way I like. And if it's only a tired, dying cynical ha ha h.. or in diogenes-style. I need no instructions how to do that. I also don't give instructions to you or anyone...

Plus: I saw never an ID check at any door of any etablissement. No one checks ID's where I live, travel and explore. They do look in the faces of visitors - if they do...mostly they are too busy while selling the tickets, or open the doors for a bunch of ppl.

I can go anonymous into any "dark" or shiny red hole of the society, no matter if its Vienna, my hometown, or Paris or whatever.

Only if one looks obviously very much younger as he/she is, they ask for a passport, to assure themselfs. Otherwise not. I was never asked between the 18 and 38 year of my life.

I think I can throw my ID in a trashcan, so much it is not asked in our cinemas, bars, and whatever...

If SL really is 18+, then we're all ADULTS already, and don't need our hands held. There's already adequate protections in place for not seeing things you don't want to... privacy screens, greeters, and the all important 'teleport' button.

I am adamantly opposed to anything that sequesters or ostracizes people for engaging in consentual adult activity, no matter how odd or offensive I might find the activity.

This is a reactionary, puritan move, centered only around the concept that 'sex is icky', no more, no less.

I agree that they should, and should be showing more concern for mitigating the costs and difficulties associated with the move. From Blondin's last post, they seem to be backsliding on that, and badly.

In reality it does vary from business to business, but I know for a fact that some businesses have been shut down here over not checking adequately, and that they do investigate periodicly (likely using young looking plain clothes detectives) to ensure that the businesses are checking.

Some businesses use it as a 'feature', even asking obvious adults their age (particularly adult women), thus flattering them by implying they look younger than they are.

Even so, they can at least look at you at the door and guess.. can't really do that online.

Hey, Ceera, why don't you point him to an appropriate JIRA entry, or open one up if you can't find a good one? That will be better than posting a question you'll have to re-post over and over again.

Apologies to you if my comment caused offence - my post was an expression of exasperation at this chestnut over kids in SL getting hammered over and over. LL have us right where they want us - arguing the toss over things we can’t change.

I won't dodge your question - no, I haven't made similar posts to your respondents, as you will surely be aware, but this is because you raised the under-age issue and have continued to voice it as if were the principal issue. It is not. Verification is an important topic and I acknowledge your right to be persistent and carry on as long as you like - but even if LL were to come clean and tell us whether they are really talking about age verification and not just account verification, I simply don't see the point of going over and over something that is not our responsibility, on which our opinion has not been sought and which in any case counts for nothing.

I'm neither for nor against tighter controls in this instance since LL shot itself in the foot long ago on that score. I'm also not against verification per se, but I am absolutely opposed to LL's shabby attempts at it so far. At the end of the day, they’ll do whatever they need to do to fulfil their corporate responsibilities and maximise their public image with no input from us.

As far as kids go, gate-keeping SL is LL’s responsibility, but in spite of anything a service provider might do, access and use of the Internet is first and foremost a parental responsibility. Yes, there are kids who don't have the advantage of a good level of supervision, but even they are probably at less risk surfing the net than hanging out on the street. I'm far more concerned about their exposure to real-life explicit and gratuitous violence than sex (especially pixel-sex).

Without wishing to sound callous or blase, there's far too much hysteria and a huge lack of perspective about children and the 'dangers' of the net. Children in the western world are safer and better protected at this point in time than during just about any other period in history. A small minority will have an unpleasant encounter as a result of using the net, but statistically, our kids are over a thousand times more likely to get seriously injured crossing the street or being passengers in our own cars.

I guess...

But it means that Linden Labs does not own the in-world content. They can't (for one example example) sell your content to ActiveWorlds or Blue Mars.

I'm not sure what you're getting at in the rest of your message, I didn't say anything about anonymity. I'm just pointing out that Linden Labs is not the only legal stakeholder in the Second Life service.

No, but they can shut the world itself down, in which case your ownership of the content becomes moot. You may own content, but that does not mean you cannot be restricted in its use. Of course you are a stakeholder, but you only have copyright over your creations, not rights to the actual medium you are using, just as a writer cannot force a publisher to publish their works, to publish their works unedited, or to publish anything at all.

The writer can prohibit the publisher from publishing their works edited, if the contract has not given the publisher editing rights, but that is a different thing. LL cannot force you to display your creations nor to put them up for sale. They can however limit what you are allowed to create in their world, and limit how it can be displayed, should you choose to display it.

At least that is how I understand it ...

So what you are saying is that even if there is a valid reason for such a move, it does not matter because it is not the reason being used, even though the end result would be desirable?

As for there being 'too much hysteria,' as I have tried to point out, similar content has been age restricted in RL for decades. My concern is that without such measures in place, there is a risk it will get legislated in place, and could easily be much more harsh than what is being implemented. This is especially true if people keep going on about it being impossible to screen all kids out.

And as for relative risk, you are likely right, but maybe you have not had to deal with conversations in which coworkers get mad at you for suggesting their kids could take a bus rather than get driven to school every day. Its all very well and good to say calmer heads should prevail, but in case they don't it is sometimes a good idea to throw the angry mob a bone or two to settle em down.

Yes, exactly! I think they SHOULD age verify at the door. That's what I've been SAYING...

Then we agree, lol It might be more screening than neccessary, but that is not neccessarily a bad thing, and it would mean no moving issues.

1) I'm saying that I'm worn out with going around in circles.
2) Where age restrictions have been in place, kids have always got around them (I was no exception). Since the advent of the Internet, not everything has been subject to such controls. Where it has, it has usually involved money changing hands, i.e. a membership fee or similar. LL decided to throw away that option and will not reinstate it.
3)Indeed I have had those very conversations, and I'm buggered if I'll throw anyone a bone to settle them down.

Uhm, ignoring the fact that those of us who have been around awhile are demanding that the Lindens "just take the fact we have credit cards and bank accounts with your service for years"... it's the fact that it's THAT, plus your acceptance of the TOS. Like, on the damned form you sign to join SL, you legally state that you are an adult, just like an adult website with a [Enter] [Leave] button before the content.

So legally, LL is covered, in reality. What they want is that, PLUS an additional level of identity verification. Granted, a credit card is extremely fallible, but the Linden position is, the form + something fallible is still 0.0001% better than just the form. Asking for your members to have payment details included doesn't, in any way, increase the liability of those payment services. All liability is shared between LL on the service level, oh, and you, by the way, since you accept liability for your actions when you signed the TOS.

And quite frankly, how the hell is your suggestion above going to help? You're upset at Linden labs, so we need a letter writing campaign to shut down payment services? It's a bit of a childish response...heh, maybe we should be doing more to check if the people in here are adults.

1) I'm saying that I'm worn out with going around in circles.

2) Wherever and whenever age restrictions have been in place, legislated or not, kids have always got around them (I was no exception). Internet content providers have not always been subject to such controls, but where control has been self-imposed it has usually involved money changing hands, i.e. a membership fee or similar. Invariably, the payment has also been accepted as adequate proof of age. LL decided to throw away that option in 2006 and refuses to reinstate it.

3) Indeed I have, and do, but in the face of irrationality, I'm damned if I'll throw anyone the bone of compromise just so that I can have a peaceful life!

LMFAO I want sum of what your on!!
Censorship? not likely I may not agree with this dession but its hardly censorship Deffination of Censorship=(Censorship is the suppression of speech or deletion of communicative material which may be considered objectionable, harmful or sensitive, as determined by a censor.) They are simply requiring validation to view adult orentated mattiral thats hardly censorship. Discrimination? deffination of discrimination= (Discrimination toward or against a person or group is the treatment or consideration based on class or category rather than individual merit. It is usually associated with prejudice. It can be behavior promoting a certain group (e.g. affirmative action), or it can be negative behavior directed against a certain group). Now while this more closely applies i dont think it fits this sitsuation. LL is simply Trying to seperate the Redlight district from the more faimly orented district,

But now back to my post. Its Bad enough LL is attempting to do this to use but to have a member of our comunity make it harder and back stab those of us that truely need the income is a dirty and shelfish thing to do. Shelfish people like you is what got us into this mess, saying its my right to put up any build i want damned be my neighors. instead of trying to come to a reasonible solution that works for everyone. we should all bow to you. thats the reason LL has had to take steps like this. No i dont like it but it is somthing im going to have to model my buisness around.

As far as anyone going bankrupt over this. OMG Get a grip on reality. yes alot of people will get hit in the pocketbook. but they will adabt or move on. they might not make as much as before ( and I am one of those people like i said im not happy about this) But I unlike you isnt tricking to twist the knife in my nieghbors back that LL stuck in it.