ErwinVonVlotho

Other than breaking the TOS, nothing is relevant. No, because it's still adults pretending to be children and having sex on Second Life, and LL do not want a scandal about that. Penalties will be given depending on how serious a threat the behaviour poses to the platform, not on how cute the RP was.

Of course they can roleplay being teenagers in love. They just can't roleplay being teenagers in bed - and nor should they.

I think we can take it as read that any avatar that appears to be under 18 is going to require modestly layers, whatever body they're using.

I was making the point that if I modify a spoon into a shank that's my fault, not the spoon manufacturer's - just like, if someone modifies an adult system avi into a non-compliant child one, that's their fault, not LL's. Either way the supplier of the product is not responsible if people modify it into something illegal.

I actually have a titanium spork. Hard to sharpen, but it does hold a wicked edge.

They're allowing child avatars - for now, until the whining and TOS-lawyering gets too irritating for them - but they're not actively supporting their creation.

Somehow I don't think SL are too worried about nude pics of Girl Next Door.

Just like The Big Spoon Company sold me a spoon that can be modified through a set range - and part of that range will allow me to make it into an improvised stabbing weapon. But it's still my fault, not theirs, if I choose to do that.

We all know exactly what they mean. Some of us just don't like it and think complaining will make them change their minds. They won't. Their priority is making sure that, if Daddy and Cutie Pie end up splashed all over the newspapers, they can plausibly say "We tried to stop them doing that."

It's not irrelevant at all. LL gave you an adult body. You chose to turn it into a non-compliant child one. That isn't LL's fault; it's yours. Look at it this way: I can go to a shop and buy a spoon. In fact I've bought lots of spoons; I keep them in a drawer in my kitchen, with knives and forks and other things, and take them out to eat food with. However I could also take one out, use my grinder to sharpen the handle, then embed it in someone's liver. There were no terms of service on the box of spoons telling me I'm not allowed to turn a spoon into a shank - but nevertheless, if I do so it is not in any way The Big Spoon Company's fault; it is entirely mine. Ditto modifying the default adult body into a non-compliant child one. If you choose to modify something legal into something illegal it's on you, not the supplier.

Aaargh. It doesn't matter what US laws say about textual pornography, because textual pornography doesn't lend itself to lurid newspaper articles.

Exactly. While LL clearly don't want to ban child avatars, the existence of child avatars has no advantages for them and one glaring disadvantage. It's a net negative for the platform. They have no reason to actively encourage, or even enable, people to make child avis. It's very much in their interests to make child avi users entirely responsible for creating their avi and making sure it's compliant. That way nobody can accuse LL of having helped them do whatever they end up splashed all over the tabloids for.

Yes - but, as delivered, it's still an adult. If someone wants to make it into a child it's up to them to make it comply with TOS. It is not up to Linden Labs to do it for them. When naked kid shots appear in the Daily Mail LL can just respond with a picture of the avi as an adult and say "This is what we gave them. It isn't our fault they deliberately modified it in violation of the rules we made them read when they signed up."

The base avatar doesn't need to have that ability. The base avatar is not a child. If anyone wants to pretend to be a child in SL it's entirely up to them to find a TOS-compliant avatar. LL is not obliged to help them do that.

It doesn't need to. It just needs to take all reasonable steps to make sure SL can't be used to generate images that, in many EU countries, are classed as child porn. This whole thing is about making sure that, if a tabloid does get its hands on images of virtual a**play, LL can point to obstacles it put in the way. That makes daddy's girl the bad guy, and LL the victim. The company is trying to reduce the risk of a public relations disaster, and that's why it doesn't give a tiny turd about any objections to the new TOS.

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.

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

Yes, exactly.

No. Accountancy is not economics.

You've never studied economics, have you?

And who gives them money for land? Users. They do not want to kick out customers unless they feel it's in their best interests to do so.

Of course they do; not acting on them all would be like juggling legal grenades with the pins pulled. But "acting on" does not mean banning the subject of the AR. Everyone who gets ARd is a customer. Banning them will lose money and SL is a business. They're not going to ban anyone on an unsupported AR alone. No, there really aren't that many at all. And, once again, LL are not looking for excuses to ban people. It is not in their interests to do that.

ANYONE is "open to being AR'd on simple suspicion alone". LL don't want to ban customers if they don't have to. SL is a business. I really don't think anyone is interested in "Is she 17 or 19?" edge cases, because they don't present any public relations hazard. We all know this is about child avis.

No it isn't. We all know what the problem is here; it's naked child avis. LL couldn't give a monkey's about pics of nudie pixels that look 20.

As I understand it, not using the modesty layers isn't going to be an option.