Upcoming Changes for Adult Content: Answers to Questions

/me agrees. Like tv characters can inspire loyalty, sadness and what almost feels like RL bonding but - it isn't RL. If people begin to lose the distinction they should re-evaluate their attachment and boundary issues. While people may actually cry when a tv character "dies," if it sends them into a tailspin beyond the emotional response during momentary suspension of disbelief, it's time to take stock.



Alexander - imaginary things *inspire* passion (or myriad other reactions), but the things themselves are not real, or again, those viewing them should re-evaluate their thinking/reactions.



That's all they have to say in RL to see R rated movies, too. Hate to say. ('Supposed to' and actuality are rarely the same.)

The certain element is RL regulatory bodies that monitor internet activities.

Federal or private sector?

Shh!! There's No Such Agency in the fed that does that sorta thing.

Shh!! There is No Such Agency in the fed that does that sorta thing.

Actually, it's probably the IRS that we need to be more worried about..

But there are a few things there.. a Dolcett toaster is probably less real than a lot of other things that happen in SL. This is also the reason that South Park stays on the air... when you are sufficiently over the top, it is satire and less real.

It also takes time to develop a good reality sense. Not all adults achieve that. Kids are more likely to be still working that kind of thing out. In fact, that is one of the reasons legislation keeps coming up, not just the legitimate concern for kids but also overblown concern from reality challenged adults. Again, though, whether for the right reasons or the wrong reasons... a good level of protection or excessive, there is a strong lobby out there pushing legislation, and when protecting kids is involved legislators are more likely to err on the side of reducing the alleged danger. 'Porn outlawed' is much less controvertial for the majority than 'supreme court strikes down child protection laws.'

Keep in mind that I am in favour of such content remaining in place and have no problems with consenting adults partaking. I just feel that there is justification for age verification, both because of legitimate concerns for the safety of kids and because of the risk of legislation demanding it.

What is the arguement in favour of leaving it as easy as it is for kids to become involved in some of these sites? That it is just cartoon sex/rape/etc?

*If* they realize it is happening. If they are less mature (which the young usually are) they are less likely to realize there is a problem let alone find a solution to it. What part of 'not considered responsible' is hard to understand? Or do you feel all children should be treated as adults?



We live in different places, obviously.. here places have been shut down for failure to comply. They spot check periodicly. Likely it is using young looking adults undercover, but I have not heard of any license removals being overturned.

If you read my posts, you will see that I am in favor of keeping kids out of SL. This whole bloody mess began in June 2006 when LL invited kids into SL via anonymous accounts.

Er.. No.

The argument (mine anyway) is that they're not making it any safer for kids or making it more difficult for kids _who are already doing something they shouldn't be_ to keep doing it.

This is all just like the TSA making everybody take their shoes off as they go through the airport. Anybody who thinks about it for a minute realizes it doesn't make anybody any safer but it does give people a false sense of security and takes time/attention that the TSA could spend actually making people safer.

LL is starting an arms race. They're going to lose and we're going to pay.

By the way, this is not just about kids being potentially victimized by being the recipients.

Adults do not always understand that people often behave differently behind an avatar than in RL, and as such could get ideas that women are really more promiscuous than they really are, or that it might be fun to try some of these things in RL without being as careful about consent as is usually custom in SL.

There are some sims where there is a disclaimer on entry that past this point you have left requirements of consent at the door.

This is a very valid point some areas in SL to me are like South Park, I dont like south park I dont find it funny so as a mature adult I dont watch it. As i do not watch the show i can be neither offended or upset by anything is says or shows now can i? Same in SL as a mature and same ( ok some may doubt this) If i do happen to go somewhere and see something i do not like i leave, trust me its not hard just a simple click and im out of there. One example Im not into furries ( no offense) so its simple I dont go to sims set up for them now if when i am in other places and i meet a few if they talk to me i respond if not then they do their thing i do mine.
I am really at a loss as to why the need to move things we are all mature adults well we are suppose to be so if you dont like something leave.

That simply isn't true. The way you get around this, and I did it plenty when I was a teen, is to purchase a ticket into a PG or G film showing in the same theater and simply sneak into the R movie. I never got caught. My friends never got caught. I still see kids in R rated movies. They simply bend the rules. Those theaters are still very much in business.

I don't believe that is correct. It refers to simulated sex acts, but I'm pretty sure that refers to simulated sex acts between human actors or models, as the law states specifies the images are of "an actual human being".

"Simulated" does not appear to refer to CG, animation or artwork. What kind of record keeping do you have for a cartoon? Yeah, here's Stripperella's birth certificate.

It isn't relevant to SL.

The other law that has been brought up, the British Extreme Pornography law isn't relevant to SL, either.

Requiring ID is not harder than simply saying 'let me in please?' If that is the case, what is all the opposition to this about? I thought much of the opposition was about being unable to verify at all regardless of age, or about having to give up anonymity and more to the point, the assumption that most of those who have not age verified already either cannot or will not.

If it will be so easy for kids to get in, then why would it be so difficult for everyone else?

I trying very hard to figure you out. If you are an alt of Nany, you're going on my block list. If you are genuine then please spend some more time in SL. Really. I'm sincere. I'm not being sarcastic. Until you have spent time in SL, you are simply playing Philosophy 101.

Requiring id? How is payment-info-on-file having an id??


Huh? Are you saying that they should make it difficult for everybody to get in and hope that that ends up protecting some kids?


Yeah.. I'm not getting some of these arguments. Some seem to be strawmen or arguing for the sake of arguing.


edit: Hey, kids!! Why not go here instead? It's fun! https://www.cia.gov/kids-page/games/index.html

These guys

http://img1.ifilmpro.com/resize/image/stills/films/resize/istd/3047608.jpg

=)

Which "people"? Some people are unfortunately psychotic, but I'm unsure what the point is there.

It's the same argument (if I understood your argument correctly) that was made in favor of tv censorship; some people can't understand the difference and/or might want to go out and do the same things in RL.

People were psychotic long before the internet, or even television. Which movie had the line of dialogue: "movies didn't invent psychos - it just made them more creative"?



Aaahhh!

(...I love that movie.)

(PS the question/answer flow above was unintentional.)

Answer: Willingness to commit felonious fraud.

Which still doesn't address the other points you raised (which are not the complete list of objections in the threads, at any rate). Also I don't think your 3rd point reflects an "assumption" since many have said this themselves.

Are you trying to say that if I play Grand Theft Auto, I will suddenly feel the need to out and beat up prostitutes, shoot people up, and steal cars? If I Roleplay being kidnapped in a roleplay sim within SL that I will suddenly have a desire to be kidnapped in real life? Someone who is crazy just might. But they certainly don't need GTA or even SL to convince them to do those things in real life. They could simply listen to the voices in their own head.

Please spend some time in roleplay sims within SL that specifically state that you are consenting to whatever any other roleplayer desires to do to you, and then tell me if it was possible for them to do things to you without your consent.

To quote the actual act:

SEC. 502. OTHER RECORD KEEPING REQUIREMENTS.

(a) In General.--Section 2257 of title 18, United States Code, is
amended--
(1) in subsection (a), by inserting after ``videotape,'' the
following: ``digital image, digitally- or computer-manipulated
image of an actual human being, picture,''

Wouldn't an avatar deliberately designed to look like a specific celebrity (and they do exist) be a 'digital image, digitally or computer maniplated image of an actual human being? It may not be a particulary high quality image, but would it not fit that description?

And that is assuming that 'actual human being' applies to an actual specific human being rather than 'not an actual or ficticious non-human being'

The law is being challenged and for all I know that is the clause it is being challenged on and for all I know the act will be struck down regardless of the basis for the challenge.

In the meanwhile though can LL risk it not being struck down?

I freely admit to not being a lawyer, and do not have time to go ocer the act in detail, but the above seems to support the summaries I have read of the act.

I have not looked at the Brit act and make no claims about it either way, so it is a red herring here.

If it isn't a problem, don't make it a problem.

Frankly, how many adult website in the world do you ever see require age-verification?

If it isn't a problem in the real world with adult content, why is it a problem in SL that needed age-verification for adult content? Is SL really that hard-core extreme? Ask yourself the question. Are we living in the real world, or in the fantasyland?

What it created is a gold mine for data-mining your private information, and if that collected information falls in the wrong hand, it is a field day for the identity thieves. This is a disaster waiting to happen. No database is immune to leaks, either internally or externally by hackers.

If LL had been around in the computer software business long enough, I wonder if they ever remember the days where most software were copy-protected with those elaborate mechanisms?

Why did copy-protection mechanism disappeared from modern day software? Because the only person they make life difficult from using their software were the law-abiding paying customers instead of the pirate crooks.

Had LL learned that history? Maybe they are not old enough to remember that

By the same token, frankly, who do you really think this age-verification makes life difficult? The law-abiding users.

If they were crooks who are into extreme hard-core activity, do you really think they are dumb enough to volunteer their private info to LL?

What this policy ends up is simply creating a huge black-market for stolen identity to use it solely for SL purpose.

No only will this not prevent what LL thought would curb, but create more victims of the stolen identity who innocently not aware of their private info ever use in an underground world, and be accused of engaging in perverted activities. The worst part of it is that is becomes undetectable to those innocent victims.

If the stolen identity were used to commit a credit card fraud, the victim may be informed that their identity was used unlawfully. At least, they have a chance to clear their name.

But when the stolen identity were used in SL, how would the innocent victim ever know that their integrity and dignity is being compromised?

If LL is worry about lawsuits, just think about the land mine time bomb that is going to blow up and back fire.

Would this proposed policy solve anything as intended? Think again!!!

If kids really wanted to get into SL, what is preventing them from using their parent's identity to age-verify them? Their parent's info is readily available in their own household, duh! Do you really think that kids don't know their own address they live in or that they don't have their utility bill in their house's mailbox? You got to be kidding me if LL is so naive.

Kids have their parent's credit card all the time, and at least, if they use their parent's credit card to buy something, their parents would know about it. But how would the parent know if the same information is not used in a purchase but for verification purpose in SL?

Ever wonder why age-verification is not used in the real world on the internet and why the COPA law failed? Because no one is stupid enough to fool themselves into believing that it worked as intended. Is LL really that naive?

Okay, you're mixing a few different things into one lined-up question, then rolling it at me. Also the insult wasn't necessary. (I think I understand 'not considered responsible' although I don't recall your saying it so I'm unsure why I'm suddenly presumed to lack understanding per my response to you? In fact my comment about teens being legally not liable for contracts and less harshly punished for/more likely to fake ID, seems to speak to that notion, yes?) And when did I even hint kids should be treated 'as adults' although that sentence on its own is so vague I can't disagree with it, either?

Mental illness doesn't discriminate; people of all ages might have it. Maturity is also not always chronological unfortunately. Adults can also exhibit bad judgment. But not being able to tell the difference between a virtual scenario and real life, as someone else said, connotes mental illness.

If you're saying the mores of SL can 'infect' children, I disagree; SL is a tiny part of a society which is much more pervasive and powerful. As to protecting what kids see - well that's why they are not supposed to be in SL in the first place and frankly why I am against mixing them into the general SL population, PG or no PG. The 'net is *not* as lock down-able as a brick and mortar area (TM Tegg) and can lend itself to a false sense of community/security. People really *don't* know each other. But can be drawn in all the same. It happens to adults it could absolutely happen to minors, too. I'm talking about gullibility here. That also is not age dependent. (I realise that's part of your argument also; that kids must be protected from this; I'm both more conservative and more liberal in response. I don't think they belong online at all but realise they are and will be in future. I think closed grids like within a campus are one thing but the world wide web is ludicrous for kids to be roaming around on, and SL is the www on a smaller scale. Same access same variability. As for the 'more liberal' I believe it's not right to take away everyone's freedoms because of a few who abuse it; I was schooled growing up that's called fascism - no I am not comparing LL to fascists, I have no idea of their reasons etc.)

But as to your argument (as I understand it) - you may as well argue that society itself has corrupted children. Better turn off their tv sets, take away their radios, their yahoo news headlines page, their - well all forms of communication with the world at large, as well as talking to other kids or adults in case they hear it from them. How many days go by without some news story about something awful? Couldn't kids just as easily mimic THOSE awful things they hear about constantly and which are literally the world they are immersed in (as opposed to a game within a computer they can unplug)?

Is your assertion as follows: that SL will so warp young minds that they will go and rape and murder - or, per your prior example, think that other humans have no right to say no at all? "Abandon consent all ye who enter here, because I saw it in a video game"? "Monkey see, monkey do"? "How do we keep 'em down on the farm once they've seen CARP?" (You've also missed the fact that proceeding past the rules and warning point - usually in huge letters - IS consent to play by those rules, ergo, is consent.)

And hasn't the same been said about Grand Theft Auto and before that about other video games and before that about rock and roll? I think that even teens, provided they are mentally healthy, have more impulse control than that. But some don't, true; but it is also true of some adults. And the 'net isn't to blame for it.



I've seen entire families using R rated movies as their babysitter. I've also seen kids get right into R rated movies alone, in packs or by themselves. Parents rely more and more upon technology to babysit their kids.

But I am grateful to you for your suggestion that LL's hands may be tied in this by a looming court ruling on animated child pornography - because at least it is finally a "why" that makes some sort of sense - fear. If only the changes addressed the issue (if that's truly the issue). I don't see how any of the changes will prevent animated child porn, since ageplayers (I'm talking about adults playing kids in SL and simulating sex with it) are adult in RL anyway and have already gotten around any roadblocks in the past. If it is meant to prevent access to kids, it doesn't stop that either. All it prevents is (maybe!) kids going to *businesses* in SL that offer such things. They could still be picked up in a PG club, brought to a private (SL) home and done whatever to or with. How does that protect them, then. And round in a circle it goes.

In other words what some are saying is - if kids are not protected EITHER way, why shake SL upside down and upset its existing user base.

No.

There is a lobby out there against GTA too.. so far they have not been successful though.

In GTA, the killing is not as interactive as it is here. You cannot have a conversation with your 'victim'.. well I suppose you can have a very one sided one.

But there are two things when talking about kids.. first of all in general they are more impressionable and less able to handle situations. If all kids could handle life maturely, then we would not have the concept of age limits on anything, nor even a distinction between child and adult.

Second, irrespective of kids abilty to handle situations, the majority of parents are more likely to assume the kids cannot handle them and need protecting than to assume otherwise. You can call them overprotective, irresponsible, any name you want, but there are a heck of a lot of them and they are vocal. Not sure where you work, but try bringing up this subject in an average work place, describe some of the adult sims in SL and then try to make the case that ID checks are a bad idea. Good luck with that.

The majority are not going to understand the existance of some of this stuff, let alone why an are you 18+ question is sufficient.