So what changed in the Terms of Service?

[Love Zhaoying]

6 minutes ago, Kathlen Onyx said:

47 minutes ago, BilliJo Aldrin said:

nope, ALL profiles must be rated G, because everyone can see everyones profile. I’d post a link to the TOS, but I’m on my phone and don’t know how 😂

Well then, 3/4 of the SL community is violating the TOS.

What kind of smut are people PUTTING in their profiles?!?

Preferences for sexual position?

Prices for different "services"?

RL nude pics?

Unlike "AR'ing" leading to "banning", all LL would need to do for that kind of violation is just blank out the user's profile with a warning, and send an email.

Comparing "profile content" with "child roleplay including [redacted]" is a false comparison.

Not every "AR-able" offense is a "ban-able" offense. (Tired of saying that, but it's still true.)

 

[ErwinVonVlotho]

Just now, Kathlen Onyx said:

Who do you think buys the land from the land barons?

Yes, exactly.

[Kathlen Onyx]

6 minutes ago, Indy Melody said:

Early in this thread, someone mentioned they had a child avatar created by someone that is no longer active in SL. People have also been concerned about LL removing such items from their inventory. What if LL created a child avatar that meets their new requirements and then when they remove a non-conforming child avatar from users inventory, they replace it with their own LL created child conforming avatar?

I only laughed at this because you are suggesting that they actually make an avatar to replace the ones they take away when they can't even put a simple picture up of what the modesty panel should look like?

Good luck with that.

[Love Zhaoying]

1 minute ago, Flower Caerndow said:

3 minutes ago, Love Zhaoying said:

Not easily defined in today's society, depending on where you live.

If you bothered to look at the links you would see that in the US federal law says that child pornography is obscene.

It's not that I would not "bother", it's that you could have provided some context as to what we would expect to find, and not just links.  Did you? Otherwise, why would anyone go read what was at the links? 

🙂

 

[Alwin Alcott]

1 minute ago, Indy Melody said:

Not really, I am sure they already have computer coding that can search all inventory in the inventory data base that can search for a UUID code of a specific item. All they would have to do is add a code that if UUID item is found then replace that item with new UUID code item

they did that already in a long last past. IP replacements were more usual in those times as now.

[Kathlen Onyx]

1 minute ago, Love Zhaoying said:

What kind of smut are people PUTTING in their profiles?!?

Preferences for sexual position?

Prices for different "services"?

RL nude pics?

Unlike "AR'ing" leading to "banning", all LL would need to do for that kind of violation is just blank out the user's profile with a warning, and send an email.

Comparing "profile content" with "child roleplay including [redacted]" is a false comparison.

Not every "AR-able" offense is a "ban-able" offense. (Tired of saying that, but it's still true.)

 

Yes to all of the above. You must never read anyone's profile.

[Love Zhaoying]

2 minutes ago, Kathlen Onyx said:

I only laughed at this because you are suggesting that they actually make an avatar to replace the ones they take away when they can't even put a simple picture up of what the modesty panel should look like?

Good luck with that.

They'd probably look about like Kupras. IJS.

Edited May 8 by Love Zhaoying
Removed apostraphe

[Zalificent Corvinus]

32 minutes ago, Madi Melodious said:

It is?  Funny.  I just logged in without an issue.  Let me check my email.  Nope, no memo.   Our groups are still active, and I see a dozen of my friends online.   I don't know where you got your information but I would re-evaluate my source.

Your anti child rants were amusing a few hundred pages ago.  Now it's just sad.   Ether get more material or give it rest already.

[Flower Caerndow]

Apparently people are far more interested in debating off-topic issues than thinking about the legalities of child pornography on SL.

 

[Kathlen Onyx]

4 minutes ago, Flower Caerndow said:

If you bothered to look at the links you would see that in the US federal law says that child pornography is obscene.

And gives more details than I thought should be included here.

Only if it depicts real children. I already posted a link  that states it is not against the law however, I did say I thought it was going to be soon. Right now it's classified under free speech.

[Indy Melody]

Part of my reason for suggesting the replacing that would be that if someone has been away from SL for many years as a child avatar and decides to return, they might not be fully aware of this new change and would log in and find old child avatar is gone but they have one they can use.

[Sid Nagy]

41 minutes ago, Aya Sweetheart said:

The discussion is about SL profiles... nothing to do with forum profiles.

EDIT: (ok I see the link better now.. but its not the TOS... have to just find the exact rule)

Read the ToS then.

[Kathlen Onyx]

2 minutes ago, Flower Caerndow said:

Apparently people are far more interested in debating off-topic issues than thinking about the legalities of child pornography on SL.

 

There is no such thing as child pornography on SL.

[ErwinVonVlotho]

19 minutes ago, Arielle Popstar said:

My contention is that individually we don't effect SL's bottom line.

Individually, no - but add up enough individuals and it starts to have an impact.

19 minutes ago, Arielle Popstar said:

If LL makes or saves money in the long term by getting rid of any Child avatars

I don't see any way they can make or save money by ejecting customers who spend money on the platform. What they might do is decide that the money made from child avatars doesn't compensate for the risk of screenshots of a misbehaving child avatar triggering a tabloid feeding frenzy. Obviously, attempts to oppose or circumvent reasonable restrictions on what child avatars can do make that more likely to happen.

Edited May 8 by ErwinVonVlotho

[Alwin Alcott]

Just now, Indy Melody said:

Part of my reason for suggesting the replacing that would be that if someone has been away from SL for many years as a child avatar and decides to return, they might not be fully aware of this new change and would log in and find old child avatar is gone but they have one they can use.

they would log in and first have to accept the new TOS... just accepting without reading wouldnt get them of the hook for not knowing.

Same as we got to this thread... by reading the TOS .

[Kathlen Onyx]

1 minute ago, Indy Melody said:

Part of my reason for suggesting the replacing that would be that if someone has been away from SL for many years as a child avatar and decides to return, they might not be fully aware of this new change and would log in and find old child avatar is gone but they have one they can use.

Hey, I think your idea is great don't get me wrong. I highly doubt LL will do it since they even said that what pass's as a child avi they are leaving up to the interpretation of the community.

[Love Zhaoying]

Just now, Alwin Alcott said:

they would log in and first have to accept the new TOS... just accepting without reading wouldnt get them of the hook for not knowing.

Or "not understanding", my point suggesting that "real children / teens" certainly couldn't comprehend / follow and wouldn't care anyway.

Luckily, this thread and the resulting clarified FAQ's will come to the rescue!

[Arielle Popstar]

9 minutes ago, Alwin Alcott said:

i prefer other content with more realistic views, shall i take your next ten dentist appointments? In the saved time you'll read those posts.

Ok keep your head in the sand and continue posting like you know what is going on.

[Zalificent Corvinus]

10 minutes ago, Indy Melody said:

Early in this thread, someone mentioned they had a child avatar created by someone that is no longer active in SL. People have also been concerned about LL removing such items from their inventory. What if LL created a child avatar that meets their new requirements and then when they remove a non-conforming child avatar from users inventory, they replace it with their own LL created child conforming avatar?

Yeah...

One of the poster basically is now wanting to destroy SL, because...

Back when, instead of buying VHS Clickbait, they paid over the odds for BetaMax Clickbait, then when the VHS Clickbait upgraded to DVD Clickbait, they said "BetaMax for the win!", then when DVVD Clickbaiit upgraded to BlueRay Clickbait, they said it again.

Now LL demand that BlueRay Clickbait be upgraded to Anti-Smut BlueRay Clickbait or else.

And they now realise that BetaMax Clickbait wlll not be made ToS compliant Anti-Smut BlueRay because it's creator was eaten by a sculpty cave bear during the last SL Ice Age.

I believe the expression is "They are scr*wed and they know it".

 

LL ToS clearly states they can scr*w any of us over, with our inventory, at any time, with NO compensation at all. That's one of the first things anyone should realise in SL, they pull the plug and its over, no payback.

 

[ErwinVonVlotho]

6 minutes ago, Kathlen Onyx said:

Only if it depicts real children. I already posted a link  that states it is not against the law however, I did say I thought it was going to be soon. Right now it's classified under free speech.

It is against the law in many other countries, though, and it's well known that the EU sees massive fines imposed on US tech companies as a useful source of extra income.

[Zalificent Corvinus]

7 minutes ago, Flower Caerndow said:

Apparently people are far more interested in debating off-topic issues than thinking about the legalities of child pornography on SL.

 

There's nothing to debate, it's illegal.

 

 

[Love Zhaoying]

4 minutes ago, Indy Melody said:

Part of my reason for suggesting the replacing that would be that if someone has been away from SL for many years as a child avatar and decides to return, they might not be fully aware of this new change and would log in and find old child avatar is gone but they have one they can use.

"Have one they can use" is relative:

- Would the replacement body be "wearing" some existing clothing based on an old outfit? Would that clothing fit the new body?  If not, would it "work" with any of the user's existing clothing at all?

- Would the replacement body be replaced in inventory complete with any "attachments" that were on the old body? Would those attachments work with the new body, or would it be a mess?

- Would the replacement body support the same Skins as the previous body (whether BOM or applier), and rez with those Skins - or would everyone with the replacement body have a default Skin?

- Would the replacement body work with any animations in the user's previous AO's, or just work for default animations?

 

[Kathlen Onyx]

1 minute ago, ErwinVonVlotho said:

It is against the law in many other countries, though, and it's well known that the EU sees massive fines imposed on US tech companies as a useful source of extra income.

Of course but she said it was illegal in the US.

[Love Zhaoying]

2 minutes ago, ErwinVonVlotho said:

8 minutes ago, Kathlen Onyx said:

Only if it depicts real children. I already posted a link  that states it is not against the law however, I did say I thought it was going to be soon. Right now it's classified under free speech.

It is against the law in many other countries, though, and it's well known that the EU sees massive fines imposed on US tech companies as a useful source of extra income.

I don't see how the TOS could contain definitions that only apply in some countries.

[Alwin Alcott]

2 minutes ago, Arielle Popstar said:

Ok keep your head in the sand and continue posting like you know what is going on.

it's all hearsay there is never public proof about why who and when.