Love Zhaoying Posted June 10 Share Posted June 10 31 minutes ago, BilliJo Aldrin said: 1 hour ago, Arielle Popstar said: The way it is now from the sounds of it is that you don't eve have to appear underage but just have to sexually chat that you are. Yes it's the words themselves that are now forbidden, not the avatar. False. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Love Zhaoying Posted June 10 Share Posted June 10 36 minutes ago, Fauve Aeon said: ‘potential loss of income’? RolePlay for L$. Shocking, innit? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eowyn Southmoor Posted June 10 Share Posted June 10 1 hour ago, Persephone Emerald said: LL doesn't want to lose a bunch of regular, non-trouble-making customers over this. Well that explains why a certain few posters are so worried about this 1 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Love Zhaoying Posted June 10 Share Posted June 10 (edited) Reflecting on our resident psychologist's earlier statements on "conservative consciousness", I can see how the outrage and entitlement could lead one to that connection. Edited June 10 by Love Zhaoying Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arielle Popstar Posted June 10 Share Posted June 10 13 minutes ago, Love Zhaoying said: RolePlay for L$. Shocking, innit? Almost as bad as shilling for L$. Shocking as that may be. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arielle Popstar Posted June 10 Share Posted June 10 52 minutes ago, Istelathis said: Ultimately Arielle, I don't think we are going to see a mass ban hammer fall upon the denizens of SL, I imagine it is going to take quite a lot to ping you using automated services, and your typical roleplay where you are simply calling your lover daddy or baby is not going to even register on the system. I wouldn't sweat it too much, I doubt you or anyone else here actually is breaking the TOS. That's assuming it hasn't already. I haven't heard of anyone being sent detention and re-education camps yet like they were promising. Certainly there have been some ap'ers ferreted out by now. Where did they go? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arielle Popstar Posted June 10 Share Posted June 10 57 minutes ago, BilliJo Aldrin said: Yes its the words themselves that are now forbidden, not the avatar. So forget about protecting the children, that is long gone as any sort of justification. I could log my alt in and engage with another semi transparent rotating sphere, but the second we did AP, we would both be banned, even though no one would ever know, except the all seeing AI. I guess it is not the potential for SL ap graphics making out on the world wide web that is the only concern. Neither so much a concern about graphics seen on IOS mobile screens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arielle Popstar Posted June 10 Share Posted June 10 26 minutes ago, Eowyn Southmoor said: Well that explains why a certain few posters are so worried about this I thought it strange too that people keep arguing BilliJo and I over LL taking the fun out of SL. Coming up to 40 pages of people still trying to deny it happening! 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Innula Zenovka Posted June 10 Share Posted June 10 1 hour ago, BilliJo Aldrin said: So forget about protecting the children, that is long gone as any sort of justification. I don't think that's ever been the justification, since children aren't allowed in SL other than in very particular circumstances. If you listened to Brad Oberwager (Oberwolf) at the recent round table discussion he stressed his main concern was protecting SL from the likely reaction of banks, PayPal and other financial institutions if a sufficiently large scandal blew up around people using SL as a place to RP virtual child sexual abuse. They would, he fears, simply drop support for SL, since they'd think this didn't seem to be the sort of thing they want to be associated with. Starts around 23:40 Do you think his concerns are misguided? 2 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BilliJo Aldrin Posted June 10 Author Share Posted June 10 (edited) 8 minutes ago, Innula Zenovka said: I don't think that's ever been the justification, since children aren't allowed in SL other than in very particular circumstances. If you listened to Brad Oberwager (Oberwolf) at the recent round table discussion he stressed his main concern was protecting SL from the likely reaction of banks, PayPal and other financial institutions if a sufficiently large scandal blew up around people using SL as a place to RP virtual child sexual abuse. They would, he fears, simply drop support for SL, since they'd think this didn't seem to be the sort of thing they want to be associated with. Starts around 23:40 Do you think his concerns are misguided? I never meant real children, I meant pretend children, run by real adults I think if it meant continuing the money stream, we would all be wearing modesty patches and ALL sex would be banned, of course that would kill SL in 24 hours anyway, so I guess the platform is doomed either way. Whores gotta do what the client demands Edited June 10 by BilliJo Aldrin added a line for clarity 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rowan Amore Posted June 10 Share Posted June 10 13 minutes ago, BilliJo Aldrin said: I never meant real children, I meant pretend children, run by real adults I think if it meant continuing the money stream, we would all be wearing modesty patches and ALL sex would be banned, of course that would kill SL in 24 hours anyway, so I guess the platform is doomed either way. Whores gotta do what the client demands Sex isn't against the law. Online porn is big business. Banks and PayPal know this which is why many sites use MC, Visa and PayPal for their adult online services. What those porn sites don't allow is CP. LL doesn't want or need to get rid of sex for the financial institutions but it does have to do ALL that it can to prevent any type of CP, be it graphical or text based, from appearing on their platform. The adult side of SL is prohibited by phone apps, not PayPal. CP is prohibited by law. 7 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Katherine Heartsong Posted June 10 Share Posted June 10 (edited) 30 minutes ago, Innula Zenovka said: If you listened to Brad Oberwager (Oberwolf) at the recent round table discussion he stressed his main concern was protecting SL from the likely reaction of banks, PayPal and other financial institutions if a sufficiently large scandal blew up around people using SL as a place to RP virtual child sexual abuse. They would, he fears, simply drop support for SL, since they'd think this didn't seem to be the sort of thing they want to be associated with. This has been exactly my point all along. The minute the payment gateways and major credit cards dropped LL over their perceived concerns about the dark underbelly of virtual CSAM and age role playing shenanigans that may or may not be happening here (to a very tiny degree if so), is the minute this place shutters. No money flowing in is not a good thing. And if you think a company like VISA that transacts $12,300,000,000,000 (that's trillions) in a year and earns between 2.75% and 4% of each transaction is concerned with the drop in the bucket LL is against trillions, well, what more can I say. Brad is acting wisely, out of an abundance of caution, because he and the other C-levels know exactly what VISA et al can and would do. PS. Thank you @Rowan Amore. Exactly that. Edited June 10 by Katherine Heartsong 2 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Love Zhaoying Posted June 10 Share Posted June 10 1 hour ago, Eowyn Southmoor said: 2 hours ago, Persephone Emerald said: LL doesn't want to lose a bunch of regular, non-trouble-making customers over this. Well that explains why a certain few posters are so worried about this The "vocal minority". 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luna Bliss Posted June 10 Share Posted June 10 7 hours ago, Sammy Huntsman said: 7 hours ago, Luna Bliss said: I can list plenty of sources/studies. You can also look this up yourself and decide. Well when you make statements such as that, it is on you to prove it. Not me. Can you cite the studies that say I must prove any of my statements? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luna Bliss Posted June 10 Share Posted June 10 1 hour ago, Love Zhaoying said: 2 hours ago, Fauve Aeon said: ‘potential loss of income’? RolePlay for L$. Shocking, innit? What were they role playing to earn this money? I can certainly understand feeling the fun has been taken out of SL if one's income drops significantly...so perhaps Arielle is correct in her assertion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luna Bliss Posted June 10 Share Posted June 10 7 hours ago, Arielle Popstar said: One can be conservatively minded without voting Conservative. Going by the stats this is true. Though this situation is in the minority. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Persephone Emerald Posted June 10 Share Posted June 10 2 hours ago, Arielle Popstar said: That's assuming it hasn't already. I haven't heard of anyone being sent detention and re-education camps yet like they were promising. Certainly there have been some ap'ers ferreted out by now. Where did they go? I find it interesting how the statement that Governance would prefer to educate people about the new TOS rules rather than ban them outright has now become "detention and re-education camps" in your mind. 🤔 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
junkurosu Posted June 10 Share Posted June 10 i think im just curious to what fun is gone at this point...now its just bantering about if LL should, um, *checks notes* make sure people arent doing things against their terms of service that they agreed to? 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fauve Aeon Posted June 10 Share Posted June 10 20 minutes ago, Persephone Emerald said: I find it interesting how the statement that Governance would prefer to educate people about the new TOS rules rather than ban them outright has now become "detention and re-education camps" in your mind. 🤔 I really think much of this is just pot-stirring and limit testing here at this point. I’m hoping for something akin to some sort of ‘final ruling’ to affirm the current policies and everyone can adjust as needed and move on. I know that good policies evolve according to need, but they also often ‘stick fast’ between updates so focus can move to other matters 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zalificent Corvinus Posted June 10 Share Posted June 10 Just now, junkurosu said: i think im just curious to what fun is gone at this point Apparently, the complaint is that we can no longer enjoy the "fun" of dressing up as "Just 15 barely illegal pole-dancing tip-jar hookers" and going cruising for "generous daddies" at venues such as "teen skanks for old incels", without fear that LL's Secret Police will perve our IM's and send us to detention camps to be "re-educated" to NOT use the "f**k f**k no" conspiracy bunker web bowser, by EVIL "leftist SJW enemies of FreeDumb!". Allegedly. 2 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fauve Aeon Posted June 10 Share Posted June 10 No but tell us what you REALLY think, @Zalificent Corvinus I think you pulled a punch or two there. Are the detention uniforms cute though? Asking for a friend… 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luna Bliss Posted June 10 Share Posted June 10 We really do need an unemployment agency in SL -- this is getting to be a real problem. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whisperwind Snowpaw Posted June 10 Share Posted June 10 2 hours ago, Innula Zenovka said: If you listened to Brad Oberwager (Oberwolf) at the recent round table discussion he stressed his main concern was protecting SL from the likely reaction of banks, PayPal and other financial institutions YEES, thank you. People are worked up about the wrong issue. Honestly. Over the last years, more and more companies are adhering to compliance standards that demand that the companies they have business with also DO adhere to the same compliance standards, and this issue is paramount in the financial circles. I mean, it's not like Visa or Mastercard are actively doing something to actively rescue children or stop underage labor (go read about the cocoa production on Ivory Coast, for one example) but they have to put it into paper and make it look good. They forced the hand on a pletora of sites already (check the yahoo-verizon acquisitions for example, like tumblr and flickr, then sold to Automattic and SmugMug respectively, both sites that the kinky community has had problems with), discord had to adapt, the whole world is having to adapt, and this social-tectonic shifts will keep happening for the next few decades as societies decide how much is too much, what exactly is freedom of speech, what is okay and whatnot. Can we say this is about civil liberties? Well, of course it is, but THIS (the ToS) is not the civil liberties case, this is not even 0.001% of the whole picture. For example, will LL ever use AI to sort through chat logs? They don't have any choice in the long run. EA will be doing it, and Roblox, and Riot, and Blizzard, and Tecent, every and all companies will, how do you explain on your financial report that you're still paying humans? It's about share price, and EBTIDA. The world is larger than most people think. It's a non-linear complex problem with no obvious solution. You wanna rant that you can't call your boyfriend Daddy? Me too! (not that I ... have one... not the point). But then at least let's make the rant count: any idea that allows people to say whatever they want and still can't be used to fabricate a problem when taken out of context, we are all ears. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpiritSparrow Skydancer Posted June 10 Share Posted June 10 3 hours ago, BilliJo Aldrin said: I never meant real children, I meant pretend children, run by real adults I think if it meant continuing the money stream, we would all be wearing modesty patches and ALL sex would be banned, of course that would kill SL in 24 hours anyway, so I guess the platform is doomed either way. Whores gotta do what the client demands So, there are a lot of people who do not use SL for sex. And that you believe that is all SL is good for and without it SL would fall is interesting. 🤔 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zalificent Corvinus Posted June 10 Share Posted June 10 8 minutes ago, SpiritSparrow Skydancer said: So, there are a lot of people who do not use SL for sex. And that you believe that is all SL is good for and without it SL would fall is interesting. What is more interesting is when somebody says something that is plain unvarnished truth, like "A car won't run without an engine", and people complain that "cars are not just about engines", as if that actually MEANT something important, or in anyway negated the original statement that "a car won't run without an engine". 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Facebook
Instagram
Twitter
YouTube
Flickr
Recommended Posts