[Lindens Statements from Governance Meeting]

1 hour ago, Coffee Pancake said:

[14:19] Keira Linden: We are also in the process now of evaluating several different products and systems to help with proactive moderation.

No doubt going to be a neural network that scans uploaded textures and flags them for human review. Buckle up, everyone.

[Lindens Statements from Governance Meeting]

Just now, Persephone Emerald said:

Here's someone on MP already making modesty skins to meet the new TOS requirements.

Personally, I think child avatar skins should be gender-neutral, with underpants on the pelvis and without anatomical details on the chest, like a doll.

If skins were like that, it would be trivially easy for someone to make a tattoo layer that adds nipples and/or genitals to the skin. With modesty layers that don't match the skin tone, it will be more difficult (though not impossible.)

[Lindens Statements from Governance Meeting]

48 minutes ago, Arielle Popstar said:

I used to run my locally hosted Opensim grid on my home connection which back then was 1MB down and 600KB up. It was good enough for myself and 2 or 3 friends. Though I haven't checked how much it requires now, it is probably not a whole lot more with all the mesh.

I see, maybe it would work better than I thought then. OpenSim also has built-in resilience to legal action of any sort, since assets can just be carried from one grid to another without any effort.

[Lindens Statements from Governance Meeting]

11 hours ago, Alwin Alcott said:

You can try to find another platform of course, but i think you'll have to enter the darkweb soon. The governments are looking at nearly all adult presentations on the web, and enforcing more rules at the hostingcompanies.
There are no normies against you, it are the weirdo's forcing for actions by providers.
The green pastures at the other side of the fence will also be mowed.
The best interest for involved people is think about what's acceptable for them. Sim on a stick might be the best option for some.

That would be interesting to see. Second Life (and by extension OpenSim) wasn't really designed with low-bandwidth connections in mind. It would take some optimizations (such as peer to peer asset distribution, locally hosted regions, etc.) in order to make such a thing viable.

[Lindens Statements from Governance Meeting]

11 hours ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

And this kind of thing is an example of why I hate this word.

It should be possible to discuss all of this without boxing people up into obnoxious and condescending categories that posit some kind of stupidly mythical "culture war."

"Large cohort of individuals genetically predisposed to having a high disgust reflex" just isn't as catchy or concise, I guess. I didn't mean to offend.

[Lindens Statements from Governance Meeting]

At some point, whatever subcultures of people still using young-looking (child or otherwise) avatars on SL will have it in their best interests to leave for another platform due to the increasing amounts of corporate red tape regarding their lifestyle. The normies who don't like young-looking avatars will stay on SL, those who they don't like will leave for greener pastures, and neither will bother one another ever again. Not saying this is what I want or don't want, just that this is outcome is made inevitable due to the incentive structure LL is creating.

[Would you get a Neuralink implant so you could play SL hands-free?]

I don't want proprietary software with non-auditable source code touching my neurons, no thank you.

[So what changed in the Terms of Service?]

11 minutes ago, Codex Alpha said:

Do you really need an answer? Don't play dumb with me. I know you already know the answer. Now I sense a dog pile of nonsense coming on. I think much better of you to even ask such a thing.

It will be extremely easy for LL to tell what someone is actually wearing at the time of the report, since attachment data is preserved no matter if they are visible or not.

[So what changed in the Terms of Service?]

16 minutes ago, Kathlen Onyx said:

What they are preventing is the Child avatar from being able to turn it back on themselves. That's why Alphaing won't work. It must not be able to be removed.

The thing with all this though is that what is to stop them from just putting on a non compliant body at any time. I am pretty sure ***play doesn't happen in the open and if it's two or three people doing it they are behind closed doors.  Who would know but them and do you think they will be sending in AR reports on themselves?

Unless they make a specific account for adults that can't purchase child avatar things and a specific Child Avatar account that can't purchase adult things then it's very simple to get around the rules while appearing to comply in public.

I kind of see this as LL saying "welp, we did what we could to curtail the behavior. If they get caught not conforming then we have reason to ban"  BUT the thing is that they never will be caught and nothing will change.  It's just made it a lot of hassle for those that were already following the rules.

Yes, there is something bigger happening here and we just don't know what it is....yet.

In the past, certain objects (such as sim crashers) have been completely removed from the asset server. If LL is serious about this, that is what they will do with the older child bodies.

[So what changed in the Terms of Service?]

1 minute ago, Madi Melodious said:

Zooby seems for one.

Ah yes. Their stuff is gone now already, it seems.

[So what changed in the Terms of Service?]

Just now, Madi Melodious said:

Not with many skin creators quitting the platform or refusing to make new products for the child av community.   It's just not worth it.

Which ones have said they are quitting? Not doubting you, just curious as to which ones I should buy before their creators close their stores.

[So what changed in the Terms of Service?]

41 minutes ago, Vanity Fair said:

This is where we agree. In the current climate, a moral outrage/moral panic over sexualized *****/virtual pedophilia could finish Second Life off. 

This is why I have decided to convert my a ToddleeDoo Kid avatar into an adult woman.  Being a child in SL used to be fun. Now it feels so heavy, so political. You illustrated that when you reprimanded Luna Bliss in this very thread. Child avatars can’t even express their sadness about these changes (while agreeing with them) without getting attacked.

Everything has become a hothouse of rancorous, acrimonious, divisive debate, with little thought, feeling, or empathy for the content creators and child/teen role players who are most directly impacted by these changes. Express sorrow and you’re instantly branded a pedophile apologist. No wonder Coffee and Madi know of people who are packing up and leaving. 

I predict a very rocky road ahead for SL and LL over the next couple of months.

SL and any other virtual world will always have an uphill battle against the incentive structure that shapes its user demographics. Virtual worlds always attract those who want to act on desires that would get them executed or imprisoned in real life. It was like that back then, and it is like that now.

[So what changed in the Terms of Service?]

Just now, Madi Melodious said:

a freakin wall of text.  no thanks

 

tl;dr LL is bad at managing their company, and should walk back on the new rules so they don't cause more damage

[So what changed in the Terms of Service?]

Just now, Rowan Amore said:

None of the new rules prevent anyone from using the platform.  

They introduce legal ambiguity. See the last hundred pages to see why that is a problem.

[So what changed in the Terms of Service?]

7 minutes ago, frankyjake2333 said:

Good Evening.

While I’m not a lawyer I do have a good deal of knowledge working with the law.  I’m also not a second life player but I do have a close friend that is heavily involved in the platform.  She uses it as a form of therapy for a abusive childhood trauma through roleplaying.   I have just spent the last two nights watching her have an emotional break down on about this issue. 

I wanted to post some comments but was begged not too on her account.  So, I’ve created my own account to post a comment as an outside observer.  I’m sure what I’m about to post will ruffle more than a few feathers and the post itself will be taken down immediately.    If you are reading this, take a screenshot of it and post it everywhere; circulate it on reddit and in discord channels.

My first comment is to Linden Lab itself.  The motives behind the new Terms of Service are complete rubbish, keep that in mind as you read on.  You had a scare and found nothing wrong but decided to deprive thousands of users of the joy they have had over years and anger them.  How does this make good business sense?  

When your own internal investigation found nothing wrong the correct thing to do would have been to proceed with business as usual.  You found nothing wrong, but you go out of your way to break something that helps so many people.  That speaks very poorly of your management skills.

But let’s get to the meat of the post.  To the people that are suffering have you thought of legal action?  Just read the entire post before you rule it out.  

I’ve looked over the Linden Labs terms of service (tos).  They are not as bullet proof as they would have you believe.  To an outsider this seems to be a poorly run company trying to recover from a internal scandal and is doing it very poorly.   From my point of view there are two grounds for legal action not covered by the TOS.

The first case for legal action is on the grounds of emotional distress.  I’m sure many of you are already shaking your heads, but there are real grounds here.  I watched my friend break down over two days.   Her therapist is greatly concerned.  The family role playing was assisting in her recovery from trauma.  Now that has been removed as an option for no good reason.   From reading the forums there are others here that feel the same way.  

To Linden Lab, I would remind you of what state you are in.  One of the most liberal states in the country and place where civil law tends to lead to the plaintive in these cases.  If this was to go to trial and it could, one therapist addressing a jury about emotional injuries and what do you think the outcome would be?  
Second, I would also remind you of one of the cases in California, the OJ Simpson case.  In a criminal proceeding he was found not guilty but in a civil case he was.  That is because in California the requirements for finding faults are a lot lower.   Since this would be a civil case on emotional trauma you wouldn’t have your term of service to hide behind.   

Let’s look at the other grounds for legal action, and that would be Second Life as a source of income.   Second Life is unique in the way that you can generate a source of income off of the platform.  This is a good thing as it allows people that don’t have a place in the general workforce to have a productive and creative life.  When you deprive those of that opportunity through no fault of their own, but due to an internal scandal, that raises certain questions that could be legally challenging.   

Linden Lab is within their rights to remove someone from the platform that does violate the rules, and this could and does lead to a loss of income for that person.  The question arises when they change the rules and deprive someone of a source of income, which is what they are doing. 

When you change the rules and deprive someone of a source of income that they have become dependent on, well that could look very different in the eyes of the law.  Your terms of service give you some shield, but those terms of service become null and void if they violate the law.  The laws on income and the right to work in some states, California for one, are very clear.

Now for the standard disclaimer, I am not a lawyer so what I’m expressing is my own options.  But with that being said, if you are a victim of these new rules I would come together on platforms outside of Linden Labs control, reddit and Discord.   Talk it over.   If you live in California and have the means reach out to a legal consultant and show them this document.   Let them tell you if there is a case here.  I feel there are grounds on both reasons I have provided. 

To Linden Lab, if you are reading this, I would advise you to reconsider the new policies you have put in place.   There is no legitimate reason for you to do so.  You are causing a lot of stress and trauma for no reason and if it was to go to court there is a very good probability that you would lose the case.   I’ve looked over some of the legal cases proceeding that have affected your company over the years and you do not have a good track record of winning in court. 

You have created a unique environment that allows people with physical and emotional disabilities to thrive and gain some semblance of a normal life.   By removing this from them for no fault of their own that does indeed make you liable.   According to your own site, and the law, a income source above a certain level require you to report the income proceeding to government sources for tax reasons.   This makes income from Second Life a legitimate source.

There are several civil organizations out there that might take issue with depriving people with disabilities of that source of income through no fault of their own.

My not so legal advice to Linden Lab would be to walk back the new rules, for reevaluation, then quietly forget about them.   At least consult the parts of the community you are doing most harm too and try to work with them instead of just using a hammer to beat them in to submission.  

As an outside observer, I don’t see this as a battle you can win without causing undue harm.  
 

quoting this person so people who missed it can see it

[So what changed in the Terms of Service?]

27 minutes ago, Daniel Regenbogen said:

And my critical mind would like to hear a real reason for that. I prefer to question rules that in my eyes make no sense at all.

Just let them do their thing. The only thing holding up SL at this point is the network effect. At some point, platform en*****tification (yes, real term  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/En*****tification) becomes so bad that it will nullify any advantages that the network effect supports.

[So what changed in the Terms of Service?]

8 minutes ago, Monika Skydancer said:

And I'm gonna guess that someone would be opening themselves up to a ban. I mean seriously, child avis ain't allowed to be nude. That's pretty clear. You try to get round the modesty patches, you're trying to be nude. It's obvs a violation.

Of course. But actually enforcing this would be difficult, as it would require automated scanning of all textures uploaded to SL, and the cost that this would incur. Those who limit their use of such textures to non-public areas would be able to evade enforcement easily.

[So what changed in the Terms of Service?]

9 minutes ago, Vivienne Schell said:

The rule is perfectly clear. Modesty patches on child avi must be baked on skin and must  be mot removable. And done.

She is saying that someone could make a tattoo layer that negates the modesty part. This is trivially easy for people experienced with skin creation.

[So what changed in the Terms of Service?]

48 minutes ago, brodiac90 said:

The rules go further and require content creators to update child avatars so that the new modesty layer is locked in to the body itself. It cannot be transparent, cannot be the same colour as skin but most importantly MUST NEVER BE ABLE TO BE REMOVED. 

Child avis must be using an updated body from June 30 or will be banned. It's not as simple as put on some undies. I already wear BOM ones.... 

Hence the forced arbitration terms. LL doesn't want to let the people who they took stuff from file any class action lawsuits. Other companies like Roku have done the same thing when they are about to make anti-user decisions.

[So what changed in the Terms of Service?]

4 minutes ago, Leslie Trihey said:

Your just embarrassing yourself at this point. 😅

Don't bother debating this person, nothing will be gained.

 

3 minutes ago, Phil Deakins said:

Sorry. I'm not intentionally trivialising anything. It's just that I don't see how any child avatar can't comply with the new rules right now. It seems to me that simply not being naked covers it all.

Read the new requirements closely. People like him are now required to wear a skin that has odd-colored blotches on the groin area, and to replace any of his clothing if it has a genital bump. This could mean anywhere between $10 and $1000 in real money gets flushed down the drain because of a TOS change.

[So what changed in the Terms of Service?]

1 minute ago, Leslie Trihey said:

Again, you are aware we are talking about AVATARS, correct?

Don't bother debating, just pull your L$ out of your account and wait for the storm to pass.

[So what changed in the Terms of Service?]

2 hours ago, BilliJo Aldrin said:

I still say this is all because thune bought tilia

Reminder that you should probably withdraw any L$ you have as soon as possible, or at least keep a minimal amount in your account to pay for stuff.

 

 

[So what changed in the Terms of Service?]

11 minutes ago, Qie Niangao said:

I'm a bit worried about the flood of ARs, not so much that it will affect many innocent child avatars (I doubt it will) but because the Governance budget is going to eat into Development, advertising, etc., just when those could otherwise benefit the platform's future.

It might help if, in addition to explaining the whole elaborate AR appeals process (useful) they also issued a reminder that falsified ARs have consequences for the reporting account. Not to discourage people from reporting true violations they found personally offensive, but ARs as instruments of inter-resident conflict really can't be tolerated.

(I've given up on making the argument many pages ago, but I still feel the Lab has unrealistic expectations about the effect of whitewashing the naughty bits of child avatar skins. It may have some benefit as a communications device, "Don't touch the smooth parts or Sister Agnes will take a ruler to your evil little fingers", but it's not going to make Governance's job all that much easier.)

 

Oh I am all for them spending all their time on reports. I would love for them to throw all their development resources aside and end up banning a ton of genuinely innocent users because Karen the safety addict got triggered. Anything that kills off LL's network effect advantage is good in my book.

[So what changed in the Terms of Service?]

1 minute ago, Leslie Trihey said:

These are supposed to look child like? 🤔

To 8 foot karens and their steroid-filled male enablers, yes.

[So what changed in the Terms of Service?]

3 minutes ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

Yes, but what I hope we do NOT get into is a sort of "shoot 'em all, and let God sort it out" mentality.

I do worry there is going to be, for at least the first little while, an absolute firestorm of ARs.

Of course there will be. A ton of collateral damage will happen. If enough people lose their $2000 + accounts over this, it will take another chunk out of LL's already damaged reputation.