Jump to content

Is SL's adult content the next to go ?


You are about to reply to a thread that has been inactive for 95 days.

Please take a moment to consider if this thread is worth bumping.

Recommended Posts

12 minutes ago, Angelina Sinclair said:

SL is limiting its own growth by the limits of its technology.

If it could handle 100+ players doing combat without lagging to hell then SL would be booming in other ways.

But since the tech had such issues the only thing that can grow without being effected is the sex stuff in SL

You can't even have a Fair event like Collabor88 without immense lag. 

So sex content is not holding back SL, it is SL holding itself back. Sex content is just keeping it alive.

 

 

SL is limited by technology itself. You are essentially playing the game on a cloud. Its nearly completely web based (if not completely?). If you could somehow preload sims, their content and avatars and they were stored on your hard drive instead of constantly needing to be downloaded and redownloaded it would run similar to how most games run. SL could certainly do a better job of streamlining things like say having every (enter brand name) mesh body to be the same object so that way you have 25 players with a copy of the same object instead of 25 individual objects. But this would risk creative content being data mined more so than it already is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Bitterthorn said:

... and it was never profitable in the first place.

Uh, what? This is from Bloomberg Business less than a month ago. They are wildly profitable, but are seeking investment from folks who do not want to be associated with porn. OF wants to be more mainstream, and less porn-centric.

OnlyFans handled more than US$2 billion in sales last year. Since the site takes a 20 per cent fee, that means it had over US$400 million in revenue.

The startup, which is profitable, is working with an adviser to solicit interest from investors, said one of the people, who asked not to be identified because the discussions are private. 

OF is also banning only explicit sexual content, not all sexual content or nudity, whatever they are going to define that as. I will assume that we are all adults here so that would, in my mind, mean anything penetrative. 

Edited by Katherine Heartsong
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Katherine Heartsong said:

Uh, what? This is from Bloomberg Business less than a month ago. They are wildly profitable, but are seeking investment from folks who do not want to be associated with porn. OF wants to be more mainstream, and less porn-centric.

OnlyFans handled more than US$2 billion in sales last year. Since the site takes a 20 per cent fee, that means it had over US$400 million in revenue.

The startup, which is profitable, is working with an adviser to solicit interest from investors, said one of the people, who asked not to be identified because the discussions are private. 

OF is also banning only explicit sexual content, not all sexual content or nudity, whatever they are going to define that as. I will assume that we are all adults here so that would, in my mind, mean anything penetrative. 

You might be right-- redacted my post. The inside source article I had read appears to have been redacted which told a very different story about how much of their funds was being drained into fees and their need for investment.

Nonetheless not being able to find investors makes their long term business look fragile at best. It may not even reflect the business model working, but if several investors say 'no' others tend to get cold feet.

I'm curious how they will draw their lines on what's explicit though. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Bitterthorn said:

Nonetheless not being able to find investors makes their long term business look fragile at best. It may not even reflect the business model working, but if several investors say 'no' others tend to get cold feet.

Why would it not work the same for S/L then? The new owners might be rich but at the end of the day, I would suspect their goal would be to make S/L worth more if even for no other reason then their own satisfaction. I rather doubt it would look good on them to have S/L worth less than what they paid for it nevermind the headaches if the legal framework turns S/L's seedy reputation into a legal quagmire.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Coffee Pancake said:

Ah yes, the treasured institutionally transphobic bastion of impartiality that enabled and covered up for Jimmy Saville.

I'm sure their anonymous source called Christof isn't actually Nick Kristof .. no, it couldn't be. 

https://newrepublic.com/article/160488/nick-kristof-holy-war-pornhub

 

 

You'll forgive me if I've missed an important part of the story, but you seem to be suggesting that the BBC's anonymous informant, whom they call "Christof" and say is, or was, a moderator with OnlyFans who provided them with a copy of the moderators' manual which they've seen and to which they refer, is nothing of the sort, but is, in fact, a New York Times journalist called Nicholas Kristof, based on...  well, what, other than the apparent similarity of their names and that neither of them seem much to like OnlyFans?

And what's the role the BBC in all this?   Presumably, according to this theory, they must be in on this deception practiced by Nicholas Kristof the journalist, as must be their legal team, who wouldn't let a gross and libellous fabrication pass otherwise.

Of the face of it, that looks like Kraken-level crackpot conspiracism, which isn't normally like you so I suspect there's something I'm not seeing.   At least I hope there is.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, Coffee Pancake said:

Facebooks metaverse has avatars entirely missing everything below the waist line. ROBLOX and others have strong moderation policies.

Only Fans is banning adult content October 1st 2021 to satisfy demands from banking and credit processing partners. 

Obviously, the suggestion that SL wouldn't be silly enough to try is no longer valid, Only Fans are a much bigger business than SL and they just told Tumblr to hold their beer and went for it.

 

Should we be worried ?

 

I find it really totally creepy that the Facebook avatars have no legs. How can you have avatars with no legs? Let alone bits. I understand it is for work conferences. But no legs?!

A dev related to this told me on Twitter that it is very hard to make legs that don't look "janky". I send him videos of people ballet dancing and doing very amazing moves in SL. He said sure, in a world where you run the avatar from a mouse. But the Facebook world apparently involves VR Googles for $300 that also apparently sense the motions of your hands and feet. And for THAT it is very hard to code for making them look natural.

But yes, LL will come for adult content, sure. Zindra was the first move, attempting to isolate it. That sort of worked but not completely. They actually have very good control of the adult content, in my view, so that if I do not want to look at it -- and I don't -- I can adjust my settings. Others who do can put "A" on their profile, their search, etc. And move to Zindra or be discreet in M. In G they will be abuse reported by their enemies.

Will LL's desire to make a product that can do office meetings like Facebook make it scrub the adult content?

Yes, because we saw already that they needlessly scrubbed gatcha without any legal action anywhere in the world -- there is no law or application, they just applied it pre-emptively themselves, based on their reading of the situation. It's their call, it's their game, and always has been. The "Your World, Your Imagination" stuff was retired years ago.

Will we see the same jittery, pre-emptive move against adult? or breedables? Or anything? Sure. And then maybe people like you will stop being so high and mighty over content creators you think are lesser than you are.

A credit card company will not come calling to SL unless they have actual RL children on their platform and in theory and generally in practice they don't. Only Fans isn't merely "adult content". It's soliciting prostitution in RL. So in that sense Only Fans may be more vulnerable to credit card companies than SL which generally does not tie to RL in that way.

There's something to be said for having an intact, even "walled garden" virtual world that isn't so hyper "interoperable" that you lose control of it. Like LL did with the viewer by open sourcing it. That may change, too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, Quistess Alpha said:

As always, I think it's important to have the rule of law, court cases, judicial rulings, etc. And we do not have that here. We have PayPal making a policy. But it is not yet a policy applied to SL. PayPal did not inform the Lindens it will no longer enable payments to or from PayPal from secondlife.com. LL could in theory challenge this in a court of law and win, based on invoking the idea of "virtuality" and the First Amendment and other legal defenses that have invoked in many cases about adult content having intrinsic artistic value. LL could justifiably send its lawyers to explain that the entire world and all its works is an art project. And it is. And that's fine. Will they do that, when so far we saw them jump pre-emptively on gatcha? No.

Say, I know one very active and obnoxious former SL avatar who has burned through positions as counsel to PayPal, Apple and Facebook and now has his own VC-funded start-up consulting to the big guys, and perhaps we have him to thank for this, although in a big company like PayPal, of course it would take many layers of bureaucracy.

Now that I have read this PayPal policy with SL in mind -- I read it before quickly but didn't think of its ramifications -- I think I personally have to cease all payments to and from SL on PayPal. That's unpleasant! Why? Because I need PayPal for my real life work, for friends and family, and I am not sacrificing my PayPal account over SL.

 And truly, a problem, because how else can you cash out from SL? I believe you can request that LL send you a check, but that takes ages. But maybe we will have to all adjust to that reality now. If you make a living in SL and relied on PayPal cashouts you will need to find a new platform, or at least plan for one given that LL itself may help enforce PayPal's ruling, or PayPal may aggressively move against LL, and they will not feel they have to defend themselves, much less us, if they see themselves having a future of office meetings, PG TV tie-ins, and government prototyping and such.

Edited by Prokofy Neva
  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, Bitterthorn said:

You might be right-- redacted my post. The inside source article I had read appears to have been redacted which told a very different story about how much of their funds was being drained into fees and their need for investment.

Nonetheless not being able to find investors makes their long term business look fragile at best. It may not even reflect the business model working, but if several investors say 'no' others tend to get cold feet.

I'm curious how they will draw their lines on what's explicit though. 

No, I believe you're correct. They may be profitable, but they seem to be on their way to taking the stock public. From my understanding, major investors tend to not invest in...well you know.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

SL works socially because landowners have power on their own land.  As a result, SL doesn't have to have a big "moderation" operation. SL's Governance department is tiny, maybe six people. Roblox and Facebook have tens of thousands of "moderators". It's their biggest labor cost.

That's the real argument against trying to forbid sex. The enforcement is expensive.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You think with 2 billion in sales and 400 million in profits they just coast on that cash and try to make it better.

Or you know make an entirely new product with that money and promote it on their OF content and through media.

Vs you know, following the way of tumblr lol.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, animats said:

SL works socially because landowners have power on their own land.  As a result, SL doesn't have to have a big "moderation" operation. SL's Governance department is tiny, maybe six people. Roblox and Facebook have tens of thousands of "moderators". It's their biggest labor cost.

That's the real argument against trying to forbid sex. The enforcement is expensive.

Watch them.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Coffee Pancake said:

Well, to be fair to the BBC (and that takes some doing from one who gave up the tv licence), I want to respond.

The first article describes an interview in which a comment offensive to many was made (including me), and the speaker was challenged by the interviewer.

The second article, as far as I can tell, is a largely factual reporting of a leaked document, and which I read as broadly supportive of LGBT rights.  The objection is in respect of a quotation from a human rights activist who is putting another point of view, in one paragraph.  I suspect she was dragged in by someone in the office who knew they had to ask for another opinion and remembered her name from somewhere.

I can't read the third article as it is formatted badly for people with older eyes, and for anyone who doesn't enjoy full-width paragraphs.

Given the 'wokeness' of the BBC these days (and for some time now) I really do think any actual phobia belongs with a minority, or, if it is present, deserves better examples than these as proof.

It is worth bearing in mind that the BBC is supposed to present a balance of viewpoints, though it does appear not to represent adequately views which are not shared by the liberal upper-middle class.

I do realise I am now way off-topic, so I probably shouldn't continue.

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

When gambling was banned back in 2007, many thought SL would perish. When you're deeply entrenched within a community, it's easy to feel like you're the majority. You either may or not be. 

Plenty of users don't have sex in game. Plenty do and role play without avatar involvement. 

I think we'll be fine.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Sam1 Bellisserian said:

Nope, not starting my weekend arguing with this one again. *goes off to have sex while I still can*

Happy Humping!!!     :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, Muffinstuff said:

When gambling was banned back in 2007, many thought SL would perish. When you're deeply entrenched within a community, it's easy to feel like you're the majority. You either may or not be. 

Plenty of users don't have sex in game. Plenty do and role play without avatar involvement. 

I think we'll be fine.

Well, Paster Niemoller had something to say about this.

I don't make gatchas and mainly give them away, yet I could understand the terrible impact this could have on the economy.

I don't take part in adult activity, I prefer the G rating, and actually most of my customers are not "adult" either. But I still can grasp how this could affect the economy.

I don't compare anything to gambling because a) there, we had a very, very clear cut law from a RL entity called "The United States of America" that has a liberal democratic system for elections, a Congress, an independent judiciary, the Supreme Court, etc. So that when this law emerged, and no one could successfully challenge it, I could be sure it was a real law in the real world that even virtual things had to obey.

And gambling was not something utterly permeating the world like gatchas or adult activity. There's simply no comparison. I lived through this era. I know. Most people did not gamble, as this was indeed gambling from which you mostly got nothing back, not even a commons dress in a colour you didn't want. Etc. It was more confined as an activity. To be sure, gambling propped up the "high interest savings accounts," but then, no one should ever put money into a prim, unless they get a thing back in their inventory from it.

Gatcha was different because there was no actual law or judicial interpretation of a law or state prosecutor anywhere acting against LL as such, or SL residents. It was pre-emptive.

Now we have a very big mover -- Pay Pal -- which has already made its billions on people's adult content for decades, and is big enough to move the market and the world. It is not the US government that made that law; in fact, using existing laws on pornography *and the successful defenses against it*, you will be able to challenge this vague PayPal action -- which again, is not law. But you have to have lawyers and make the arguments.

LL may feel they are too small and lacking in resources to make the arguments -- should the policy be used against them -- and they will likely act pre-emptively.

"I think we will be fine" is a bubble you cannot be in any more. If LL will not show spine, then users need to band together to pre-emptively pre-empt the pre-empt, so to speak, before the hammer falls.

I personally have no dog in this hunt, limited bandwidth, and have ceased all payments to and from PayPal from SL. I think it's the only prudent thing to do when your RL income from other jobs requires PayPal to survive. No sense in losing it over SL.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, Muffinstuff said:

When gambling was banned back in 2007, many thought SL would perish. When you're deeply entrenched within a community, it's easy to feel like you're the majority. You either may or not be. 

Plenty of users don't have sex in game. Plenty do and role play without avatar involvement. 

I think we'll be fine.

Well, kinda. Remember, the Lab banned gambling only under extreme duress, not as a decision to placate investors or to tidy up the brand image. That was due to real regulatory restrictions in a bunch of places from which SL allowed users and wanted to continue to allow logins to the main grid from those jurisdictions. Hence, they segregated-off a bunch of content and required it to conform to some whitewash restrictions to placate some other regulators.

That all happened very near the peak of SL's popularity. The gambling ban had some effect on the SL economy—more than I think it could survive now in its diminished state—mitigated by transmogrifying SL gambling into "skill gaming" (and hey, even now, who is that new VP of Engineering?).

So it's very possible "we'll be fine" if they do the same with Adult regions, imposing some bogus regulations to placate those objecting to sexual content.

But the real reason I think "we'll be fine" is that this time it doesn't seem to be a problem of direct governmental regulation, but rather it's Mastercard and the banks trying not to get caught openly processing payments for child pr0n and underage prostitution. I can imagine the Lab being (even?) more visible in enforcing existing bans against anything like such content, incurring literally zero effect on revenue and very minimal expense.

Maybe they'll have to go further, but even worst case, the Lab has been pretty adept at creating loopholes for near-gambling and more recently, near-gacha.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

if SL does end up removing sexual content, there would be a huge dive towards a rock bottom for the virtual world as we know. 

with how things have been going without notice from either simple things like gachas being banned in SL to OnlyFans removing sexual content completely starting on Oct. 1, 2021--i would not be surprised.

i feel like the community of SL would not be happy with this decision if they do end up removing sexual content. it brings in plenty of revenue for people who choose to work on SL and those who choose to run sexual-based sims. 

even though it's not my thing, i would hate to see people gone from SL if this happens. just my two cents.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Angelina Sinclair said:

SL is limiting its own growth by the limits of its technology.

If it could handle 100+ players doing combat without lagging to hell then SL would be booming in other ways.

But since the tech had such issues the only thing that can grow without being effected is the sex stuff in SL

You can't even have a Fair event like Collabor88 without immense lag. 

So sex content is not holding back SL, it is SL holding itself back. Sex content is just keeping it alive.

 

 

No game can handle 100+ people in combat ... Well not ones I play. Take COD some days I struggle to even move. Pc hardware has a big part in this, as well as where in the world you are. Ping/latency, sighs my forever headache living way down south  :) 

Is sex content keeping SL alive? erm part of it maybe but as a whole I doubt. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are about to reply to a thread that has been inactive for 95 days.

Please take a moment to consider if this thread is worth bumping.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...