SL Updates Child Avatar Policy

[Bartholomew Gallacher]

No, it wouldn't. There is no reason for any of these new rules to be coming into effect. The only reason you keep harping about a ban on child avatars is because that is what you want. There was nothing wrong with the system in place. Our community did a good job of policing its own and we don't need any advice or comments from people like you.

Look, personally I don't care about child avatars in Second Life at all - it doesn't matter to me if they would be still in the game for the next 10+ years, or would be gone in 3 months. It's of no relevance to me. Relevant for me only is that Second Life is still there for a long time; LL has axed as lot of things in the past, like banks, gambling, third party linden dollars exchanges, gachas and so on. Some steps, like the gacha past, I fully understood and supported, others not so much.

What you don't seem to understand is that LL as company is at a point where they cannot afford to do nothing due to public pressure, so doing nothing was never on the table right from the beginning. They could have introduced a total ban, or restrictions - and they went with restrictions. Which is really a change to the past.

 

[Cristiano]

Look, personally I don't care about child avatars in Second Life at all - it doesn't matter to me if they would be still in the game for the next 10+ years, or would be gone in 3 months. It's of no relevance to me. Relevant for me only is that Second Life is still there for a long time; LL has axed as lot of things in the past, like banks, gambling, third party linden dollars exchanges, gachas and so on. Some steps, like the gacha past, I fully understood and supported, others not so much.

What you don't seem to understand is that LL as company is at a point where they cannot afford to do nothing due to public pressure, so doing nothing was never on the table right from the beginning. They could have introduced a total ban, or restrictions - and they went with restrictions. Which is really a change to the past.

I agree with most of this. However, the event that prompted this was accusations against employees. It feels like that was swept under the rug, and end users were the ones who were punished.

 

[Monica Dream]

I agree with most of this. However, the event that prompted this was accusations against employees. It feels like that was swept under the rug, and end users were the ones who were punished.

...and used as a distraction from Lab misbehavior.

 

[Noodles]

I'm confused as to how this policy is being applied. This is really far too simplistic a statement to provide much clarity, certainly not enough to substantiate your comment about it being a deal-breaker.

For instance, is this skin requirement retroactive for all existing child avatar skins on the grid? Or is it a new requirement going forward? Are they expecting users to completely delete old inventory, or for creators to replace textures to update all products?

There are so many different ways that this policy could be implemented, much less policed, that it's meaningless so far.

With BOM, it almost feels like an easier way would be for the mesh body avatars themselves have a "non BOM" section for the underwear areas.

But that still would require everyone update their avatars.

If they are using a mesh body avatar.

Also, for the skins deal. How does it work for the top? Do "girls skins" need a baked in bra cover? What is to keep them from using a "boys skin"? Etc.

Also, it's not like a child avatar can't just use any skin they want.

I suppose in the end, it's just down to a judgement call by some enforcement arm.

 

[Wesleytron]

Regardless of the rule about about the non-removable built-in modestly layer, I think the main takeaway is the part about 'no nude child avatars'.

If you're wearing your own opaque modesty layer, removable or not, what are LL actually going to ban you for? How will they even know it's non-removable?

And what exactly is another user even reporting you for? Wearing the wrong kind of underpants?

HOWEVER, it's probably also important to make sure your avatar doesn't have any accentuated contours in the areas you're covering up. That might get you in trouble.

 

[Madi Perth]

What you don't seem to understand is that LL as company is at a point where they cannot afford to do nothing due to public pressure, so doing nothing was never on the table right from the beginning. They could have introduced a total ban, or restrictions - and they went with restrictions. Which is really a change to the past.

Fine, I concede your point. Again, I apologize for what I said.

 

[Madi Perth]

Well the hunting has begun. My self and at least one other that I know was attempted to be TP to an adult region by a random stranger.

Kidding right?

Looks like it was a bot. I would have been fine. I wasn't in adorable child mode. I was trying out a new body so they would have gotten a 7' Bronze awesome amazon wrapped in demo tape.

 

[Sid]

If you set G and M preferences ony in the viewer, it is impossible to tp to adult land IMHO. So you can't even land there by accident.
And for the rest it is like in RL: Don't accept anything from strangers.

And a bot will not know you are on a child avatar or not.

 

[Madi Perth]

yeah, already did that.

 

[Cristiano]

Addressing Your Concerns: Updates to Our Child Avatar Policy

Last week, we announced an update to our child avatar policy in Second Life, and since then, we've received numerous questions and requests for further details. We understand the importance of these updates to our community and encourage everyone to keep consulting the continuously updated Child ...

community.secondlife.com

 

[Beebo Brink]

For those who don't want to wade through successive layers of LL blandness to find the meat, here are direct links to specific policy updates:

Linden Lab Official:Clarification of policy disallowing ageplay - Second Life Wiki

Frequently asked questions about Second Life child avatars : Linden Lab (freshdesk.com)

 

[Imnotgoing Sideways]

2024 SL Governance meeting week #19: Child Avatar Policy

The following notes were taken from the Thursday, May 9th, 2024 Governance User Group (GUG) meeting. They form a summary of the items discussed, and are not intended to be a full transcript, and we…

modemworld.me

My takeaways from this:

• The ambiguity remains the same.
• Screenshots have been provided as to the coverage they expect with the baked in undies.
• Bake layers and alphas can be a viable solution for existing skins. (Meaning sellers have some leeway but should update as soon as possible.)
• *BoM counts as baked layers, in my point of view.
• Furry cubs, Anime, and petite avatars will probably remain an appeals chore.
• "We can tell if someone popped into a region then immediately left"

And, finally, I pity Kiera Linden. I can only imagine how flooded her IMs are going to be. =^-^=

 

[Noodles]

All of this feels so complicated. I also wonder if it will make any difference. I suppose at the very least, "awareness" will make some difference.

But it also feels really circumventable for anyone with malicious intent, and annoying to anyone not.

I am not sure, at the end of the day, what keeps these people from just going to a private sim, or even a private region, and wearing whatever avatar they want, and no one will know or be able to see because you can throw up ban lines to block others.

 

[Beebo Brink]

All of this feels so complicated.

Well, if you want simple, LL could just ban child avatars.

Instead, LL is doing their best to find a solution that allows child avatars to remain as an option for SL identity. Modesty layers on skin may or may not be an effective remedy to the problem of sexualized ageplay, but it's probably the least disruptive gesture of "we're doing something" that can be expected under the unfortunate circumstances.

 

[Soen Eber]

The take away I'm getting from what Linden Lab is saying, is that while they can't definitively define child pornography, they will know it when they see it.

 

[Noodles]

Well, if you want simple, LL could just ban child avatars.

Instead, LL is doing their best to find a solution that allows child avatars to remain as an option for SL identity. Modesty layers on skin may or may not be an effective remedy to the problem of sexualized ageplay, but it's probably the least disruptive gesture of "we're doing something" that can be expected under the unfortunate circumstances.

It almost feels like a better solution would be to just have non existent areas required instead of modesty layers. Like a permenant transparency.

 

[Imnotgoing Sideways]

It almost feels like a better solution would be to just have non existent areas required instead of modesty layers. Like a permenant transparency.

The Linden suggestion points out that both textures and alphas can be used for modesty options. Not sure what you mean by 'permanent transparency' but there's no such thing as permanence in SL. Anything can and will be circumvented.

 

[Noodles]

The Linden suggestion points out that both textures and alphas can be used for modesty options. Not sure what you mean by 'permanent transparency' but there's no such thing as permanence in SL. Anything can and will be circumvented.

I meant more for the body makers. Like Tweenster and Todledoo would make the Avatars and they would simply have no "crotch area". Just a non existent hole, like an alpha but actually built-in because there is no model to even render.

I suppose there are still ways around that with "illegal" add ones or using the old version.

And it would not really do anything about the chest area at all.

 

[GoblinCampFollower]

The take away I'm getting from what Linden Lab is saying, is that while they can't definitively define child pornography, they will know it when they see it.

I kind of agree but I do understand where LL is coming from. If they give explicit written criteria (which is hard enough to define) that sets them up for people to game the system. I believe them that they won't do anything as simplistic as just requiring certain avatar heights or breast sizes but this is legitimately a hard thing to define on paper.

 

[Innula Zenovka]

The take away I'm getting from what Linden Lab is saying, is that while they can't definitively define child pornography, they will know it when they see it.

The relevant legislation in the UK relating to prohibited non-photographic images of children, Section 62 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009, defines the type of images it prohibits thus:

Possession of prohibited images of children
(1)It is an offence for a person to be in possession of a prohibited image of a child.

(2)A prohibited image is an image which—

(a)is pornographic,

(b)falls within subsection (6), and

(c)is grossly offensive, disgusting or otherwise of an obscene character.

(3)An image is “pornographic” if it is of such a nature that it must reasonably be assumed to have been produced solely or principally for the purpose of sexual arousal.

(4)Where (as found in the person's possession) an image forms part of a series of images, the question whether the image is of such a nature as is mentioned in subsection (3) is to be determined by reference to—

(a)the image itself, and

(b)(if the series of images is such as to be capable of providing a context for the image) the context in which it occurs in the series of images.

(5)So, for example, where—

(a)an image forms an integral part of a narrative constituted by a series of images, and

(b)having regard to those images as a whole, they are not of such a nature that they must reasonably be assumed to have been produced solely or principally for the purpose of sexual arousal,

the image may, by virtue of being part of that narrative, be found not to be pornographic, even though it might have been found to be pornographic if taken by itself.

(6)An image falls within this subsection if it—

(a)is an image which focuses solely or principally on a child's genitals or anal region, or

(b)portrays any of the acts mentioned in subsection (7).

(7)Those acts are—

(a)the performance by a person of an act of intercourse or oral sex with or in the presence of a child;

(b)an act of masturbation by, of, involving or in the presence of a child;

(c)an act which involves penetration of the vagina or anus of a child with a part of a person's body or with anything else;

(d)an act of penetration, in the presence of a child, of the vagina or anus of a person with a part of a person's body or with anything else;

(e)the performance by a child of an act of intercourse or oral sex with an animal (whether dead or alive or imaginary);

(f)the performance by a person of an act of intercourse or oral sex with an animal (whether dead or alive or imaginary) in the presence of a child.

(8)For the purposes of subsection (7), penetration is a continuing act from entry to withdrawal.

What do you think would be added to Linden Lab Official:Clarification of policy disallowing ageplay by adding a similar definition?

Linden Lab is committed to the safety of children and has zero tolerance towards any material that features or promotes child sexual exploitation. The sexualization/sexual exploitation of children is strictly prohibited. This includes but is not limited to the following:

• Visual depictions of a child or child avatar engaging in sexually explicit or sexually suggestive acts.
• Sharing fantasies about or promoting engagement in child sexual exploitation.
• Sexualized commentaries about or directed at child-presenting avatars and/or any individual that identifies as a child.
• Links to third-party sites that host child sexual exploitation material.
• Expressing a desire to obtain materials that feature child sexual exploitation.
• Recruiting, advertising or expressing an interest in a sex act involving a child, or in harboring and/or transporting a child for sexual purposes.
• Sending sexually explicit media to a child or child-presenting avatar.
• Engaging or trying to engage a child or child-presenting avatar in a sexually explicit conversation.
• Trying to obtain sexually explicit media from a child or child-presenting avatar, or trying to engage a child or child-presenting avatar in sexual activity through blackmail or other incentives.
• Identifying alleged victims of childhood sexual exploitation by name or image.
• Promoting or normalizing sexual attraction to minors as a form of identity or sexual orientation.