Found on a random avatar's profile:

1. Slaves are not human beings

Even if a human being is kidnapped and forced into sexual or servile slavery overseas, they are still human beings. So that's wrong.

2. Slaves have NO rights !!!!!

This is also wrong. Even if someone signs one of those "full revocation contracts" from the web site that tattoos bar codes on the backs of submissive individuals' necks, they still are legal entities to sign such a document, they are legal entities after, and that document can be challenged in a court of law, so even signing their names to it do not revoke those rights.

3. Slaves are commodities that can be bought and sold, & they have no choice who they serve

Also not true, for the BDSM community, and also for the slavers that operate currently--they may sell an individual, but they are still human beings. Every person has a choice on whom they serve, even if trafficked in a criminal operation, even if that choice is "or death".

4. A slave’s body is not her own. It is the property of her owner and has no say in how its modified

And this is also complete nonsense. What community are you dealing with, where these are your ideals, or your perceptions of BDSM??

5. A slave’s reality and truth are determined by her owner

Nope.

6. A slave can be punished for no reason at all

Anyone can be punished for any reason at all, people are cruel. But if you're talking BDSM operations, again, you seem to think of submissives as having depersoned themselves, and of their having no personal identities beyond that point.

7. A slave should always have a collar on her neck

Not every slave is collared. Not every submissive is collared.

8. A slave’s collar is her heart and they cherish it with their entire being

This varies, person to person.

9. Slaves seek discomfort and wear it like a badge of honor

Some slaves, certainly not all.

10. Slaves should always be shackled or be ready to be bound at all times

Really? Says who?

11. A slave is required to be in top physical shape, hair, and skin

It may be required by some, but people are people. Some people put on or take off weight easier than others. Some people who are genuinely submissive (or dominant) are born with disabilities, and thus can never be in "top physical shape". It varies.

12. Slaves always obey their owner

Again, it depends on that particular relationship. Sometime disobedience is part of the game. Sometimes the rules are clear, sometimes the rules are not. There is no "always" in anything involving humans for the most part.

13. Slaves will always submit at the whim of their owner

See above.

14. Slaves only care about the pleasure of their owner and not their own and never complain

And again, no, because people are people. A hardcore, 24/7, "Chain me to a wall Master" slave will still get caught up in things and find enjoyment in their lives. No one is completely, 100%, focused on another person to the exclusion of all else 24/7. It's not possible.

And wow, just wow. Way to present BDSM in the worst possible light ever.

I'd add to that that even in the days where slavery was common, at least in the United States, many of these precepts were untrue even then. And that was when said slavery was in practical use, and not as an interchangeable term for a specific practice. Conditions were terrifying for slaves, many died, or received injuries for no reason other than their 'masters' had had a bad day. They certainly never accepted being slaves, or valued their collars (if they wore them). Many of them did not obey the orders given, because they were human beings with human emotions, not robots.

Just such a tragic take on the topic.

In the meantime, this happened just a few moments ago:

[22:46] Ixxxxxxxx Rxxxxxxx: 12 BEAUTIFUL TEXTURES MM 5/25 [SLUrl to texture store]
[22:46] dxxxxxxxx Rxxxxxxx: that slurl didn't go through properly, and if it's not a [group] board you're calling, you can't call it in here
[22:46] oxxxx Rxxxxxxx: if it doesnt hit the goal then no one wins it resets at midnight
[22:47] dxxxxxxxx Rxxxxxxx: [Ixxxx] that's not even close to a proper slurl.
[22:47] Ixxxxxxxx Rxxxxxxx: [she typed out the SLUrl again]
[22:47] Ixxxxxxxx Rxxxxxxx: THAT ONE
[22:47] dxxxxxxxx Rxxxxxxx: [Ixxxx], is that a [group] board?
[22:48] Ixxxxxxxx Rxxxxxxx: i dont know, its a mm

Well, that's a dumb answer. What are you, new? (Actually, based on later revelations, she's very dumb, so that question's answered.)

[22:48] oxxxx Rxxxxxxx: if thats not a [group] board you can NOT post it in here :)
[22:48] Ixxxxxxxx Rxxxxxxx: ok
[22:48] Ixxxxxxxx Rxxxxxxx: nvm then
[22:48] oxxxx Rxxxxxxx: happy holidays everyone :)
[22:48] dxxxxxxxx Rxxxxxxx: You can only call a board in here if it's got [this store's] set on it.
[22:49] Emilly Orr: There are other groups you can join, [Ixxxx], to call boards from anywhere.
[22:50] mxxxxxxxxxx Rxxxxxxx: [Mod gives out the SLUrl for the group's store]
[22:51] mxxxxxxxxxx Rxxxxxxx: emilly is correct
[22:52] dxxxxxxxx Rxxxxxxx: [Ixxxx], if it's full perm stuff yoiu can call it in Midnight Mania for Creators, and Creative Horde.
[22:52] Ixxxxxxxx Rxxxxxxx: WICH ONE WMILLY

WHY ARE YOU SCREAMING? Seriously, that's not necessary.

[22:52] Emilly Orr: Which one do you want? There's tons.
[22:52] Ixxxxxxxx Rxxxxxxx: i want one forMM

Yeah, I get that, but seriously, there are hundreds of them.

[22:52] dxxxxxxxx Rxxxxxxx: If it's not full perm stuff, do a search for midnight mania spam and join a couiple of those
[22:53] Emilly Orr: The two [Jxxxxx] mentioned, there's SL Frees and Offers, there's a few Lucky Chair/Lucky board groups that allow MM boards to be called.
[22:53] dxxxxxxxx Rxxxxxxx: those groups i just entioned are for full perm midnight manias
[22:53] mxxxxxxxxxx Rxxxxxxx: creators work hard for thier stores is why most dont like other stores adverts in them
[22:53] dxxxxxxxx Rxxxxxxx: SL Frees and Offers is not worth it
[22:54] dxxxxxxxx Rxxxxxxx: if it's not full perm stuff, do a search for 'midnight mania spam' in groups, and join some of them.
[22:55] Emilly Orr: It's not for everyone, I just mentioned it because I know about it. But search is good, too. 'Midnight Mania' in SL search will turn up some, 'lucky chair', 'lucky fortune', 'lucky board' turns up more, or read through the titles of freebie groups, you may find one you like.
[22:56] Ixxxxxxxx Rxxxxxxx: i dont have any lol
[22:57] Emilly Orr: You don't have any what?
[22:57] Ixxxxxxxx Rxxxxxxx: nop

"Nop" is not an answer.

[22:58] Ixxxxxxxx Rxxxxxxx: any group for lucky boards
[22:59] Ixxxxxxxx Rxxxxxxx: or MM
[22:59] Emilly Orr: Well, there you go! Ways to look! You might even find one or two in your local language.
[23:00] Ixxxxxxxx Rxxxxxxx: sure
[23:02] Emilly Orr smiles

I thought that was where it would end, but then I got this IM:

[23:11] Second Life: [attempts to port me to wherever it is with the MM board]
[23:14] Emilly Orr: Tied up at present, but thank you!
[23:14] Ixxxxxxxx Rxxxxxxx: cum help

You misspelled "come", there.

[23:14] Emilly Orr: Would if I could
[23:14] Ixxxxxxxx Rxxxxxxx: haha
[23:14] Ixxxxxxxx Rxxxxxxx: ur mean
[23:15] Emilly Orr: Not mean, just can't move. There are ropes.
[23:16] Ixxxxxxxx Rxxxxxxx: lol
[23:16] Ixxxxxxxx Rxxxxxxx: do u need help i have scissors
[23:16] Ixxxxxxxx Rxxxxxxx: then u can help me back

Lady, no. Busy. "Tied up" is not a joke in this sense, and I do not want to go,, and I am not going to go, so stop asking. Sheesh.

And the saga would have ended here, but...not half an hour later, this happened in the group's chat:

[23:38] Ixxxxxxxx Rxxxxxxx: 18/25 MM board TEXTURES! [the SAME board she linked before]
[00:03] dxxxxxxxx Rxxxxxxx: [Ixxxx]. If that's not a [group] board you cannot post it in here.
[00:18] Ixxxxxxxx Rxxxxxxx: [dxxxxxxxx] take a trip to the moon and dont come back

I contacted a mod at that point, explained the situation, and her too-dim-to-learn butt got kicked from the group. Her own fault, too. I explained what had happened--because of course on top of everything else, it caused some distraction locally--in a handful of sentences, and then finished with this:

[00:54] Emilly Orr: And that's when I tapped two mods in the group and asked them to look into it.
[00:54] Emilly Orr: She got bounced, and bitched at one of the mods until he blocked her, the other one was AFK, and just got back to me and asked for both incidents, and I copied them out to her.

And that, hopefully, really IS that, and my gods, why don't some people learn?

[10:35] Txxx Rxxxxxxx (god): LALALALA

Handy life tip: if you have to specify you're a god...you're not one.

Also, unless you're specifically playing an idiot god, might be a good idea to upgrade the level of pronouncements from "LALALALA". Just sayin'.

In other news, I got a card today from the creator behind Caverna Obscura, and I will honestly be shocked if more people don't follow her lead:

Greetings!

Maybe some of you have heard the news that Linden Labs will raise Marketplace fees to 10% on December 2. Here is the blogpost with the official announcement:

https://community.secondlife.com/blogs/entry/3016-the-return-of-last-names-and-changes-to-marketplace-events-premium/

It is a 100% raise from what we are paying now (5%) so many creators/merchants will be raising their prices on Marketplace by 10% come December 2.

Caverna Obscura will also raise MP prices by 10% on December 1 (for all mesh items and some of the older prim/sculpt items). The in-world prices for everything and MP prices on most older prim items will remain the same. Here are a few examples of the price difference:

an item that is 595L$ in-world will cost 660L$ on MP, or

an item that is 395L$ in-world will be 440L$ on MP,

just to give you a feel of what it all means. I encourage everybody to use MP for finding items you like, then going in-world stores and using your viewer’s Search Area tool to quickly locate the item you are looking for on the sim. If you can’t find something in-world please don’t hesitate to contact Elvina Ewing. Of course those who prefer the convenience of MP and will not mind the price increase can continue to buy on MP.

Now, for me personally, I am likely going to see how this plays out, and make the decision then on what to raise. My biggest seller on my tiny MP store is still my very, very vintage Sukkot kit, which desperately needs revision, and the only reason I charge for that at all is because I want to track who's bought it in case I do find a way to revise it. (There are, still, no Sukkot poses on Second Life. It's not that they're hard to do, just that a) I'm not an animator, and b), I'm not Jewish. Shouldn't someone more qualified be doing this?)

But that seems to be where things stand. It's either a cash grab on the Lindens' part, or they're trying to drive traffic back in-world, and honestly, not sure which.

To the rest of the blog post, bringing back last names is a great thing, and everyone's been asking for it for years now, but what's cheap and underhanded in that is, they're requiring people be premium members to make the change, and they're charging an additional fee on top of that. It's baffling.

From the article linked above:

THE RETURN OF LAST NAMES -- UPDATE and CONTEST

We heard you loud and clear.

That's difficult to believe.

Soon it will be possible to change the name of a Second Life account. This is one of our Residents’ most requested features and we’re working furiously to make it available by the end of January. Name Changes will be exclusively for Premium members at an additional fee.

But note, they're not mentioning what, precisely, will define that fee, nor whether the fee will be in Lindens (as most in-world transactions) or in actual real currency (as in in-world divorces).

Changing one or both of your First and Last Name will be available as a single transaction. Last Names will be picked from a list, which you can help us curate.

Yay?

What’s a last name you would choose for yourself? We’ll soon hold a contest seeking your contributions to the pool of last name options. From all of the suggestions, we’ll pick five, and those five lucky Residents will be able to change their names completely free of charge! You will not need to be Premium to participate or to win. The contest will run December 16 through January 15th, and participation details will be announced shortly.

How...lucky for those residents. I don't want to enter, because I'm pretty happy with my last name, but this all seems very strange. Especially that post-January, people who choose to pay $12 a month (which feels like a forced choice, because elsewise, they're stuck with Resident until the end of time) will gain the ability to pay more to change their names, which is something Linden Labs shouldn't have completely screwed up so badly in the first place. Great. It feels like they're asking us to pay for their mistake.

Treesicle's take on COPPA and the YouTube behavior that got us here.

See also Game Theory's contemplation of what happens after COPPA, Ian Corzine's first COPPA video, Ian Corzine's second COPPA video, what's wrong with the FTC's COPPA agreement with YouTube from Folding Ideas, Chadtronic's take on the whole mess (using the previously mentioned $40,000 fine figures, not the revised $42,500 fine figures), and ReviewTechUSA's opinion that COPPA won't be the problem, YouTube's dependency on the machine algorithm system (as usual) for detection will be.

Also have PKRussi's video on how COPPA potentially can affect YouTube animation, and animation channels.

This is taken from COPPA's FAQ page:

A GUIDE FOR BUSINESS AND PARENTS AND SMALL ENTITY COMPLIANCE GUIDE
(March 20, 2015: FAQ M.1, M.4, and M.5 revised. FAQ M.6 deleted)

D. WEBSITES AND ONLINE SERVICES DIRECTED TO CHILDREN
1. COPPA applies to websites or online services that are “directed to children.” What determines whether or not a website or online service is directed to children?
The amended Rule sets out a number of factors for determining whether a website or online service is directed to children. These include subject matter of the site or service, its visual content, the use of animated characters or child-oriented activities and incentives, music or other audio content, age of models, presence of child celebrities or celebrities who appeal to children, language or other characteristics of the website or online service, or whether advertising promoting or appearing on the website or online service is directed to children. The Rule also states that the Commission will consider competent and reliable empirical evidence regarding audience composition, as well as evidence regarding the intended audience of the site or service. See 16 C.F.R. § 312.2 (definition of “Web site or online service directed to children,” paragraph (1)).

As described in FAQ D.5 below, the amended Rule also considers a website or online service to be “directed to children” where it has actual knowledge that it is collecting personal information directly from users of another website or online service that is directed to children. See 16 C.F.R. § 312.2 (definition of “Web site or online service directed to children,” paragraph (2)).

Taken from Chadtronic's video linked above, I found this image:



I wish I could track down the specific pamphlet to which he refers (it seems to be titled "Protecting Children's Privacy under COPPA: A Survey on Compliance"), but in essence, this tells me that basically, any video from January 2020 that potentially uses any of these objects or styles:

• animated or that uses animated characters (either original art, or using known cartoon characters, video game characters, art from childrens' books, animation of children's toys, or animation of childrens' TV stars or themes from childrens' TV shows)
• uses video games at all, either playing or reviewing
• uses bright engaging colors
• uses "simple" language and/or short, colorful descriptions (that's 98% of the videos on YouTube right now)
• offers freebies or free games
• uses bold or fast-moving graphics
• uses or describes subject matter that is "appealing" to children (in other words, childrens' jokes or games, childrens' sports, any story considered to be 'for kids', anything featuring pets that might appeal to children, or anything that is primarily purchased for or consumed by children, like candy or sugared cereal)
• is a "how to" or "DIY" video for "child-centered" arts and crafts (or can be taken for same)
• features childrens' toys or items considered to be childrens' toys
• features a child celebrity (even if said child celebrity is over the age of 13, think JoJo Siwa, who's sixteen as of this writing, but started her YouTube career--with parental consent--much younger)
• features a celebrity of any age whose largest appeal is to a childrens' demographic (think Jake Paul, who is--at least legally--an adult, but whose demographic at personal appearances and concerts averages to about nine years old; he even admits the biggest sector of his fan base is under twelve)
• uses "slang" that children would resonate with (they give terrible examples in one of the publications, like "Dude" and "For sure")
• uses "child centered" sound effects (think cartoon sound effects for that one)
• features video participants under the age of 13
• offers contests geared towards a childrens' demographic
• asks questions, either in the video or below in the video's description, requesting personally identifying information from anyone under the age of 13
• anything within the video, or linked to the video, considered "child-based" or "child-directed" entertainment
• or pertains to anything the FTC as a ruling body would consider "child-directed"

could be considered "child-directed", and thus, if said video is NOT LABELED AS "child-directed", said video's creator could be liable for a fine of up to $42,500. (That's US. It's still high anywhere on the planet, though. 42K is not a small number.) So basically...if the new legislation is enacted with no changes to terminology or text, then there will no longer be any financial incentive for child-centered content creators to create anything, because BY creating a video, and uploading it, they will be uploading said video to:

• no advertising (because YouTube can no longer legally collect data and statistics from known child accounts, and rather than be responsible and deal with this rationally, and develop an age-gating system, and requiring every user of YouTube to register an account WITH YouTube, they're passing the legal responsibility for data collection down to the individual content creators)
• no comments (thus, no interaction with viewers)
• no ability to post user polls
• no ability for non-subscribers to find that video using YouTube search
• no notifications sent out TO subscribers that a new video has been uploaded
• that video will no longer be suggested or recommended to anyone

And why yes, all of this sounds dire. Which is why I'm bringing it up, on the off-chance I have readers who are also YouTube creators.

I'll keep on this, in the hopes that things change, but...it's not looking good, folks.

Hoo boy, I haven't seen something this jarring for quite some time. (And before you ask, no, she's spent far too long on the grid for this level of rookie mistake.)

I present: 2019's Worst Feet award.



Yes, I know, hooker platforms are hugely popular on SL. I'm not saying that. I personally think that particular style of shoe is unflattering, and I refuse to buy any that don't have VERY impressive design features. But as you can see, that's not really the problem. The skin tone is the problem. Did no one mention to her she's not black?

Maybe she's genuinely lost on this point--I was mainly focused on her feet, not the tragedy of the dress (which isn't great) and the fact that her hair was literally larger than her entire head twice over. But then I swung around to the rear, and I realized we had a bigger problem.



I am 98% sure these are vintage shoes, from that era in SL where people made shoes with prim feet in them. Why do I think this? Two reasons, and neither of them have to do with the skin tone that's so jarring. Point one: There was a certain curve to the foot, a very unnatural curve to the foot, that was only seen in really big play in the early days of sculpted feet. It can clearly be seen from the above shot; toes just don't bend like that, period.

But point two is worse: measure the feet. Her feet are the same length as her entire calves, and that's terrifying. That is cartoonish in the worst way. That is ludicrously oversized. Don't do this.

And learn how to use the skin-tinting HUD. Jesus.

My heart weeps for the future. Seen at the Fenix event:



Oh, this hurts. That is not Carmen Miranda's outfit, you dolts. This is Carmen Miranda's outfit:



This is Josephine Baker's outfit:



seen in her so-called Danse Sauvage attire. GET IT RIGHT.

This is going to be something I do not, as a rule, do--post a full transcript of someone else's video. But I think so many of the points are important, I really wanted to share this.

So to start, this is the spoken text from CreepShow Art's video, Why does everyone hate Vivziepop?

"Fine, I will talk about Hazbin Hotel and Vivziepop, but not because you told me to--actually, yeah, it's only because you guys told me to.

"Hey guys, it's Shannon, and I have been getting non-stop requests to talk about Hazbin Hotel, and Vivziepop, and just throw my thoughts out into the atmosphere. Which is fine, uh, that's what this channel is really for, me just haphazardly screaming my opinions into a void, and random people I don't know telling me that they agree, and I'm a queen, or that I'm a living trash heap that they despise. That's essentially what I do online.

This bit hit home hard for me. Because a lot of times this is exactly how I feel--I get passionate about things, I take several entries to fully explore and post them and get zero feedback. I post a toss-off "this is a weird avatar" thing, and I get people jumping on my head for being mean, or hating on whichever group they think that avatar blends in with, or in general being a baby-eating Satanist. (Yes, that's a quote. No, it's not from an SL comment. I have been called a baby-eating Satanist twice in RL. I remain baffled as to why.

"But there's only one heaping, ginormous issue with this: and that is the fact that I have no friggin' idea who the frig Vivziepop is, or was. (Actually, it's just 'is' because it's not like she's dead; I just don't know her, is what I'm saying.) I don't really know who she is, I don't know what she really does, I don't know anything about her, and I don't know her favorite color, and, like, all of that is basic information that I need to have to form a definite opinion on someone, and what they do and how they are.

"So basically, when I started getting requests to talk about her, when I started this journey that is this video, I was a blank [f**king} slate. And luckily for me, that did not last very long. You see, the internet has two, TWO, very large, differing opinions on Vivziepop. One, is that she is a crazy talented young artist, who's just trying to make her way in the world, and the other, is that she is the personification of a devil, she is a terrible, evil woman who will stop at NOTHING to destroy this world. Which is great, and awesome, and amazing, and completely and entirely unhelpful for me forming an opinion on her.

I agree. I'll note at this point that I had no idea who Vivziepop was, until I started doing idle Google searches whilst listening to Shannon speak. Turns out, about two years ago there was some underground buzz about a show featuring a hotel in Hell, and it looked quirky and fun and interesting, and then...well, TWO YEARS went by, everyone forgot! I didn't even know the pilot had finally launched until those side searches turned up. (The pilot aired on October 29th, by the way. So I likely wouldn't have noticed anyway because I was hip-deep in haunts then.)

"I also feel like that's the internet's opinion on everyone, by the way? Like, literally there is never anyone online tweeting about how they're neither here nor there for a person, that they think the person's fine, and it's okay. They're either full-on fan-camming that person, and saying stan Gerard Way for clear skin under-[f**king] tragedies, or they are posting three page long Twitter threads on every reason why this person is terrible, and anyone who likes them is terrible by default, and that they should DIE.

This. Oh, so very much this. It's actually been an ongoing trend for about the last five years--basic civility lessening, genial social discourse being replaced by screaming matches, the gradual, "they're on the other side so they're not like US, they're not HUMAN like we are!" thinking becoming ossified into steel-trap brains. But of late, it's become real obvious online, especially on Twitter, which has largely gone from cheery social interchange and international connection service, to toxic waste dump we have to put on the haz-mat gloves to venture into. And a lot of the reason for that is this obstinate, ossified mindset on every side. "This person is EVIL and BAD and kicks puppies out of orphanages, and thus is Satan and needs to die immediately, and if you support him at ALL you'll be next against the wall when the revolution comes." "This person is AMAZING and INCREDIBLE and made of good and win and thus has been touched by God and we are unworthy to touch her feet and if you say anything even SLIGHTLY out of bounds about her I will take a chainsaw to your face." It's too extreme. There's no middle ground left.

"It's like that thing where you go to Amazon and you're trying to buy a toaster so you can make--I almost explained to you what you would make in a toaster, but, like, toast, duh, you get it, my brains are fried, I'm sorry. But like, you want to buy a toaster on Amazon, and you go to the reviews, and there's one person who's like, 'FIVE stars, this toaster cured my depression, got me a husband, and I have sex with this toaster every night. Ten out of ten, fantastic lover, would recommend.' And then there's a one star review right under it, talking about how the toaster stole her husband, her kids are now calling the toaster Mom, and she hates the toaster. Ruined her life, would destroy if she could.

"Vivziepop is the toaster here. Vivziepop essentially is a little toaster strudel that everyone either fucking loves, or hates, and nobody is neutral, and I can't figure a diddly darn thing out. And I feel like honestly, that's just the internet, you see this kind of trend now, where if someone dislikes someone else, they are just the most problematic person in the world and they have, like, list upon list upon list on why this person should be canceled, and all it really amounts to is this person made a very human mistake a couple years ago. This person got angry, and did something that they probably now regret. It's like, great. And I'm not saying that no one online has ever done anything wrong, and no one online has ever [f**ked] up, and no one's allowed to not like people, that is not what I am saying. I know that people are flawed, and it's inevitable for something to happen to make other people not like them. I know that. Not everyone's gonna vibe on the same level with other people, and it's fine. That's a real thing. I've felt it before, you've [f**kin'] felt it before, you're lying if you haven't...We all just kind of wait around for a person we don't vibe with, or don't like, to give us a reason to not like them, and right when we do, we just kind of pounce on it, like cute little baby mice, eatin' [f**kin'] cheese. As they do.

The other thing I've noticed? A lot of people seem fairly stable, at least on the surface, and will come off as essentially rational sorts--until someone steps up and says a thing. And then it's chaos. Half will be in utter slavish support of X, half will be in utter frothing disregard of X, and the clashes have gotten violent. People have died. (Look up Heather Heyer. Or the innumerable incidents where swatting has resulted in injuries and deaths. The first was just because the yahoo behind the wheel wanted to hurt people more than he wanted to calm down, and the latter is generally because someone won an FPS game that person wanted to win. It's so...petty.)

"A great example of this, is take what happens with Sashly, literally every month or so. I am not a fan of Sashly, I don't know their content, I don't watch anything they've ever done. I wouldn't even say I know who they are. But I watch content of people who talk about her, and it's [f**king] WILD how people treat this literal child online. Like, there is a creator who is literally fourteen, who people want to call every name in the book, because she acts like a creator who is fourteen years old. She is FOURTEEN, and people are having post threads about why she is the worst person in the world, and I'm just sitting there like, that's a CHILD, guys!

"People often forget that pretty much until you were about twenty-five, your mind is in a constant state of flux, and you are constantly learning, and changing, and growing into yourself. People act like who are and what you posted when you were thirteen, fourteen, fifteen, like, that represents you for the entirety of your life. And that you're going to stand by it to the end of the world. And you aren't gonna be and act like a hormonal person who is being ravaged by puberty and how terrible that [sh*t] is. Literally, back when I was fourteen, I was writing a story, a full-on, thirty page story, about being in love with Gerard Way, and made up an entire life where me and Gerard were together, and yes, at some points, that story did get steamy. Now, some part of my very stupid teenage hormone-fueled brain knew that I shouldn't share that story with the world, because I would be made fun of until the cows come home, and also, you know, it's just embarrassing. I knew [if] people read that and were like, Shannon made that, it would be embarrassing for me. But I always feel like now, if I had made the mistake of uploading that to fanfiction.net, then that story would be used TODAY to expose me in some way. Like, my puberty fanfiction and fan art of me with an adult man (that I was in love with because I was a hormone addled teen going through puberty), that would be used to expose me as a [f**kin'] adult. Which is the STUPIDEST thing ever, like, some stupid thing I did when I was young is gonna be brought up as a reason to hate me now? Even though that story was written by a girl who just wanted to be liked by a guy with cute long hair?

Putting aside the fanfic angle--I think enough of us, me included, have written fanfic that we fully understand why it would be embarrassing to find, years later--let's just talk about the war between generations is heating up, too. I mean, there was always a divide, there always will be, but at this point, it's like literally screaming over a wall. "Okay boomer" versus "Millenials are lazy", and every generation in between.

"Even saying that, I feel like someone's gonna watch this video right now and be like, Shannon just admitted to making smut with a minor in it. Send! Her! To! The! Ranch! Like, I feel like that's gonna happen on this video. And you know what? Okay. The ranch has horses, I wanna pet a horse.

"People also have a tendency to overextend nowadays, when they talk negatively about people online, because where you would say before, oh, I don't like Viv because she made weird, not-safe-for-work art that made me uncomfortable when she was younger? Now you would say 'She clearly believes in bestiality and zoophilia, and she thinks that's all sanitary and good, and she DEFINITELY practices that in her real life, and if I see anyone talking about her positively in any way, shape or form, I'm gonna leave a [sh*tty] little Twitter reply saying that you support someone who would have sex with an animal', even though drawing that does not equate with that at all.

"After I got plenty of requests to make this video, I posted about this on Twitter, trying to get a real good feel, a little touch, about why people do not like her. Because I wanted to hear, straight from the horse's Twitter, why people rage against the machine that is Vivziepop. And most of the responses I got were fair, and neutral, and normal. And then the Fire Nation [f**kin'] attacked. And I got so many angry responses that I had to delete it. But I'm going to read you one of the more neutral ones explaining their side, and explaining why they don't like her. Back when she was nineteen, she made various images depicting pedophilic and zoophilic imagery. So let's start there. No, that is not the whole tweet, it's just part one, it's gonna take a while.

"First off, no, she didn't make any pedophilic imagery. She drew two characters, one of which was eighteen, the other of which was nineteen, meaning both characters were above the legal age of consent, and is in no way pedophilic. There's another drawing of an adult being creepy to a child character, but straight up, it seems like it was a dumb joke that she thought was funny at the time, and I know, look, that's exactly how she explained it. It was a dumb joke that she thought was funny. She doesn't think it's funny now. She regrets it. She apologized for it. If you're going to say that she is a pedophile, and hold her to a standard that a joke now makes it impossible to be a fan of hers, and a joke makes her that label, you better have the same energy when talking about Shane Dawson, or Tyler Oakley, or essentially all of 2007 YouTube creators, because they all were making those jokes.

Yeah, if animating furries is bestiality now, 60% of Second Life is going under.

"She also hired a known sexual abuser and accused abuser onto Hazbin Hotel. So, I don't know if this is supposed to be two separate people, or if she's saying that this person is both a known abuser, and an accused abuser, but those two kind of, you know, it doesn't work like that. But because there's only one person on the roster for the show that I know has been accused of abuse, I'm going to assume that that is what they meant. Which makes no sense, because she is stating in the same sentence that this person is also terrible, known, and there is proof of it, and everyone knows it, and it's a fact, and also that this person has only been accused of abuse. So which is it? Are you fighting that there's physical proof out there, that this person has done this? Are you saying he's only been accused of this?

"Actually, I know which one you're saying, seeing as there's only one person on the roster that's been accused of abuse, and there's no actual proof that it's happened, and it hasn't been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. And I've actually talked about this a lot in my time on YouTube, but just because someone was accused of doing something, just because someone stated that someone hurt them, that does not make it true. To say as much is to also say that no one has ever gone on the internet and lied, and that's incredibly short-sighted.

As she touches on below, I think it is incredibly important to validate victims' experiences, and to support them, but...as painful as it is to type...she's not wrong. Not all men are guilty, not all women are truthful, and if we believe in these monochromatic definitions, we lose a lot of depth in the eventual conversations.

"While it's really nice to say that you want to believe all victims, and you want to believe all women, that actually doesn't work in the real world. Because you are diminishing a woman's capacity to lie, and her agency to do so. You are actually saying women do not have the mental capacity to be dubious, and they do. Do we know if the person she hired (whose name I am NOT going to say, because I don't want to label him as an abuser, when I don't have any proof, other than accusations) is an abusive [pr*ck]? Conclusively, no, we don't. Do we know that he isn't one? No, we don't. But it's innocent until proven guilty, and because we can't say for sure, should we all collectively [sh*t] on someone who simply gave that person a job? No, we shouldn't. Let's continue.

"There have been several cases of her cyberbullying, and encouraging her fans and friends to bully others. Along with that, many see her to have a really rotten and immature attitude, especially when it comes to criticism, and the fact that she refuses any and all, and often paints any person who criticizes her as being haters, and on a few occasions, has gotten her fans and friends to harass people who try to give her critique and constructive criticism. Now, this, THIS is something I can actually understand. I am friends with a creator whose name is Miss Zi-Zi, who is a sincerely wonderful person, and a fantastic artist, and you should all go subscribe to her...She made videos critiquing Vivsie before, and in those videos, she of course made jokes, but she was incredibly insightful, and made a lot of constructive criticism. And when Vivsie saw it, she kind of snapped at her. Which is in her right to do, but it does come off as bratty and rude.

As Catu Draws pointed out in the comments to Shannon's video,

Say it with me. Criticism is NOT telling someone “I don’t like how you drew that.”
It’s “You could improve this drawing by doing...”

And they're absolutely right. But it does seem largely that Vivziepop, like Anne Rice before her, refuses any and all criticism at times. And maybe it's because it's being presented with the hostility of a thousand mongered rumors. I can't honestly tell. But it seems from what little I turned up, that even the most well-meaning phrasing gets kicked to the curb as fast as a "You suck, die" line.

"And I get it, when you are a creator, especially an art creator, you kind of set yourself up to be [sh*t] on by everyone, because they have eyes, and they want to tell you how terrible you are. So someone sees your art and decides they are going to tell you that is the worst thing that they've ever seen, and that you suck and everything you try to do. And it only gets worse the more popular you get. It can be frustrating because maybe they are talking about a piece that means a lot to you, and maybe you worked so [f**king] hard on it, you just wanted people to like it, and say that they like it. That [sh*t] is rough, and annoying, and sometimes you see it and you get a bit [b*tchy]. It happens. And people are fine for not liking her for that reason, because you have so much success, it comes off bratty if you [b*tch] at someone who simply criticized you. But this is the first real reason given for people not liking her that I think stands up. The first reason that actually works as an argument, versus everything else that was stated. And if I was given this argument only, as I was with various other comments, I wouldn't have made this video. If the majority of people who don't like Vivsie only commented on the fact that they find her to be a bit bratty and they don't like how she holds herself, then cool, awesome, great, we can vibe on that point.

"But don't lump in that she supports blackface, that she is racist, she is transphobic, she's made inappropriate art of minors, she supports men who abuse women, she's evil in every sense of the word--that to me doesn't fly. Because that's wildly, wildly overstepping. Now that, again, was not the only comment I got that painted Viv in a negative light. Oh, no no no no no no. That was probably one of the most well-written ones without telling me to kill myself, or that I'm supporting a child predator; that was one that, you know, didn't deliberately threaten my life in any sort of way, and I loved it. I love angry comments that make no sense, but literally me asking someone why they are hated, me asking about that, looking for clarity, that's enough to get someone to try to send [sh*t] on me. That's ridiculous. Oh, I literally just got one. Oh, my god, it's threatening, it's threatening my husband. Great. I would love to see you try to hurt my husband, you absolute moron. [F**king] Jesus Christ.

And by the same extension, if you find someone who's asked a question about why everyone is hating on X, don't answer them with death threats. That's severely uncool. And it makes you sound insane. Just answer them as politely as you can. They may GENUINELY not know what's up, and you could be the calm and rational voice they'll remember in years to come, who told the truth without threats, without condescension, without acid rancor.

Not exactly a case in point, but a sidewise corollary: dear friend of mine asked who PewDiePie was. And my jaw fell off. I knew my two choices in that moment were, are you stupid, everyone knows who PewDiePie is...and to answer him honestly with a brief series of comments. I chose the latter.

But I easily could have gone with the first. It is so, so very easy not to think before we speak. And yeah, it's also a pain to constantly monitor what emerges from our face holes, because sometimes talking is a lot like breathing and we forget we can actually control it.

"Well, let's continue, though, because as that comment did list a lot of reasons why people have issues with Vivsie, it didn't go over everything. There's also a thread on Twitter that talks about Viv and Hazbin Hotel, and comically censors the name, which is very strange to me. I don't know why you're doing that. And I was going to go through it point by point by point, but then a fantastic creator by the name of What the Cheick, I think is pronounced, I don't know, made a video the other week about it and it's fan-friggin-tastic. I have that video linked in the comments down below, and in the description down below, and I highly suggest you go check it out. But I did want to briefly touch upon the other claims that What the Cheick didn't go over in their video, and those are the claims that Hazbin Hotel is homophobic, racist and evil, because I've been seeing that quite a lot. I got a lot of comments saying that that's the case. Which is astounding, because there's literally two gay, female leads in a relationship, which was made clear at the beginning of the episode, and neither of them is putting up any sort of gay stereotype, and I just, I don't, I don't, I don't, I don't, guys, I just don't. If you haven't watched the show, it's about Charlie, the daughter of the devil, who is wanting to make a hotel that rehabilitates demons and sinners, because she is tired of angels coming down from heaven, and killing them every year. She wants to help the population of Hell be better, and earn their way into Heaven. And with the help of her girlfriend, Vaggie, I guess her name is, she sets upon doing it. So you have nice, well-meaning protagonist, who also likes to break out into song randomly, and has a really sunshiny disposition, despite the fact that she lives in literal Hell. That is a fun romp-a-roony of a cartoon, that has a great premise, and though I didn't really, like, I just think it's okay, I can see why people like it.

"And it's even more fun because in the world where this sunshiny protagonist is, in the world surrounding this girl, everyone's fucking terrible. Everyone else, except Vaggie I guess, because she seems like a genuinely pleasant and protective person, and is really cool, I don't know why she has an X on her eye, but whatever, she seems cool. So you have these two nice people, these two people you actually want to root for, in Hell, trying to make everyone who is bad and likes being bad better, that's [f**cking] great. But apparently, people didn't understand that it's set in Hell? And in order for a show like that to work, you have to make everyone in Hell be terrible people? Like apparently, that didn't cross anyone's mind, and they didn't realize that that would be a thing that would have to happen, because the moment that a character, someone who was set up to be a literal antagonist, who works as a news reporter in Hell, said that she doesn't touch the gays, everyone shit themselves. Everyone started screaming that that was homophobic, even though in my perception, that's, like, probably why she ended up in Hell? Like, it's not saying, look at this nice homophobic character, don't we love her? It's saying, look at this character who's in Hell, oh, she's homophobic? Makes sense, that's probably why she's in Hell.

I freely admit, I don't get this angle on the protests. Why do viewers expect demons to be good? Why do viewers expect Hell to be a pastoral nature reserve? It's like watching the show Lucifer and being shocked and horrified when he tempts someone. It's in the name.

"You know? Like, i-it's why she's an antagonist! I don't know how this joke went over peoples' [heads], and how they're interpreting it as, like, oh no, oh no, that's--she's a good character, and we sh--all are trying to root for her, right? And I, I'm, I don't, I don't, I don't know what got lost in the sauce, but boy, did it get lost. I, not kidding, I got a literal DM that Viv hates gay people because of this line, and I just, I just, I, I don't know what to do! I don't know how to explain what a joke is, better!

"There are also people commenting that Charlie's girlfriend Vaggie was a terrible person and is terrible representation because she was angry in the first episode? Even though, in my viewpoint, the show gave her a very good reason to be angry? And in that scene, at least to me, it doesn't show her in a negative light. Like, one character just ruined their chances of being taken seriously. He made them look terrible on live television, and instead of standing up for herself and what she believes in, Charlie just sat there and did nothing. So Vaggie stands up for her girlfriend. If anything, it shows her in a great light, and I related to that, because that's me.

Kind of me too, on both sides. I have trouble standing up for my own person a lot of the time, but come after someone I'm loyal to, and I go feral. Generally to everyone's detriment, including my own. But I get Vaggie's anger--she thinks Charlie's a bit of a soft touch, and she's insanely innocent considering who her father is, but she'll be damned again if anyone will hurt her and get away with it.

"Then, there's the character of Angel Dust, who is a gay porn star named after drugs, does drugs, and revels in violence. People are saying that he's bad gay representation because he's hyper-sexual, and also a demon. He acts like a demon.. He's hyper-sexual because he's a porn star. He's a bad person because he's in Hell and is a demon. Like, the show went out of its way to explain why this character acts that way, even though it didn't, it didn't have to, 'cause once again, literal demon. And literal Hell. And people are upset, and I'm, like, I don't know what you wanted from a literal demon in Hell, but if you wanted them to be a good person, I don't know why they would be in Hell! I just, I don't, I don't, I don't get it, I don't understand. It would make less sense if she wrote him as a nice, uwu, good boy, because he...is in...Hell. And therefore, his worst attributes, his worst tendencies, are going to be on full display. They're gonna be cranked up to eleven. She's not saying that all gay people are like this. She's literally having a gay couple be like the most nice representation on this show, this is nothing like that. I don't, I don't know, I feel like something got lost in the sauce, and people were like, this show about demons being in Hell is gonna have the best characters who are just uwu so good, and I'm, I'm confused, I'm confused at what people thought. Again, I think the show was just okay, I thought it was fine, I don't love it, I'm not worshipping the ground it walks on. But, like, those complaints just don't make any sense to me, and I'm...here. I don't know, whatever, let me know if you guys are going to be unsubscribing to me because this problematic hot take, that the show is just 'okay', Viv isn't a literal devil, and we should all just generally care less, a little bit, about everything, and maybe take a nap? That's my hot take--take a nap, before you tell me to kill myself again, guys.

I tend to agree about Angel Dust's character as well, namely because I've known people like that. Self-destructive to a fault, looking for the nearest exit with the shortest waiting line, zero concern for person or heart or mind that's in the way of that focused intensity towards oblivion...They're out there. They're usually broken, careless, and strangely charming, and it's a very bad combination. But Angel Dust, people should keep in mind, is not a representation of a gay man; he's the representation of a demon who happens to be gay. There's a HUUUGE difference between those two portrayals.

"Anyway, I hope you guys are having a genuinely nice day, I will see you in my next video. Good night."

And that's about it. I thought her words codified some thoughts in my own head that were refusing to cohere in any identifiable form for me. So there you go. Who the talk is about, in the end, really doesn't matter; what she says about how the internet as a whole treats that person--or any person who becomes even vaguely controversial--does. And as the internet in no small part is a reflection of the world we bring into it, it's also a reflection of how we are treating each other, on a daily basis. Just...step back. Take a breath. Think through what you want to say. Do you really want to say it to hurt the other person? Do you want to say it to hurt in that way?

Consider why you want to, before you do. Right or wrong won't matter ten years down the road from this argument, but your words, if they strike home and sink deep enough, will. So...treat them with respect, your words. Try to be conscious of what you say.

I'm trying to do the same. And we're all going to fail for a long time, working back from adversarial everything. But I think it's worth the struggle.

Now, I'm going to be dealing with the actual text of the changes as written below, but I'd like to point out a Council of Geeks video that takes on the topic, as well as Mutahar's look at it from the SomeOrdinaryGamers channel. There is deliberate bad language in the latter, so be aware, it may not be safe to play audibly at work.

Before I take on the changes, though, I do want to mention the text of another email I received:

Hi Emilly Orr,
Important changes that may impact your monetization and content discoverability are coming.

Starting today, all creators are required to tell us if their content is made for kids in order to comply with the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA) and/or other applicable laws. To help you comply, we are introducing a new audience setting in YouTube Studio.

Depending on the amount of made for kids content on your channel, you can set your audience at either the channel level or the video level. For those who are setting at the channel level, it is just one click.

So this is YouTube's supposedly "helpful" graph on who needs to pick what setting. My way was clear--as I'm planning (if I can EVER afford a good microphone!) to enter the realm of absolutely non-monetizeable horror narration--to pick NO kids' content whatsoever, but for other content creators, it's going to be something of a battle. Due to the provisions mentioned below, even clicking "partial" on this scale will likely remove monetization options for creators. There's no way to win.

These changes are required as part of a settlement with the US Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and NY Attorney General, and will help you comply with the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA) and/or other applicable laws.

So, what exactly is changing? Well, as the email goes on to say:

What is changing?
Starting today, all creators are required to mark their content as made for kids or not made for kids in YouTube Studio.

Starting in January: we will limit the data we collect on made for kids content to comply with the law. This means we will disable personalized ads on this content (which affects revenue for creators making content for kids), as well as certain features like comments, notifications and others. Note: You may see some small changes as we experiment and refine our systems over the next few months.

For a list of affected features, go here.

Those features pretty much go more into detail on the above, but it all boils down to this:

• If you own a YouTube channel, and it has even one video, or if you EVER intend to upload even ONE video, you now MUST BY LAW pick one of the three options--and you have to do that either once, for your full channel, or per video, for EVERY SINGLE VIDEO YOU UPLOAD.
• You HAVE to use the website's YouTube Studio to pick and set your settings. Want to do it by phone in the YouTube API? Tough. Want to stay in YouTube Classic? Sucks to be you. You HAVE to pick one of the settings, and you HAVE to set it in YouTube Studio.
• And if you think, hell, it's a big service, like they'll notice if I don't set the thing by January, this can't possibly matter...oh, you sweet summer child. YouTube won't kick hard alt-right synpathizers off their platform, but with the full weight of COPPA and the FTC's hammer hanging over you, you really don't want to swing and miss on this one.

So. This was the first email I received from YouTube:

We’re updating our Terms of Service (“Terms”) to improve readability and transparency. This update does not change the Google Privacy Policy, nor the way we collect and process your data.
We’ve provided a summary of key changes but here’s what you can expect:

• Terms that are clearer and easier to understand with useful links to help you navigate YouTube and better understand our policies.
• Expanded commitments to notify you about changes that may affect you, such as product updates or future changes to the Terms; and
• Better alignment between our Terms and how YouTube works today.

The new Terms will take effect on 10 December, 2019. Please make sure you read the updated Terms carefully. If you would like more information, you can find additional information in our Help Center.
If you allow your child to use YouTube Kids, then please note that you are agreeing to the new Terms on behalf of your child as well.

This was the first line in the email to YouTube creators that had people worried. In a strictly legal sense, the only way a child can legally enter into a contract situation is by parental permission, or emancipated permission. If the latter, that child is legally responsible for their own actions, due to the emancipation, or at the very least, their court-appointed guardian is responsible for their actions.

But, as very few children--and, I would hazard to guess, no children under 13, which is the cut-off age for full COPPA provisions--are emancipated, it falls on the parents. Which makes those parents culpable for any problems their child causes on YouTube. In some cases this may legally involve a federal fine--the amount $40,000 has been tossed around, but apart from Mutahar's video, I haven't found mention of that anywhere else--but any financial fine is an issue, and may well involve parents ceasing their child's viewership of YouTube as a precautionary measure.

You can always review your privacy settings and manage how your data is used by visiting your Google Account.
Thank you for being part of the YouTube community!

Yeah, right. So. This brings us to the terms.

I'm only going to cover the changes from their existing ToS. This is made a little more difficult because, in addition to adding provisions, YouTube has substantially changed the language of the entire document.

Who may use the Service?

Age Requirements
You must be at least 13 years old to use the Service. However, children of all ages may use YouTube Kids (where available) if enabled by a parent or legal guardian.

Permission by Parent or Guardian

If you are under 18, you represent that you have your parent or guardian’s permission to use the Service. Please have them read this Agreement with you.

If you are a parent or legal guardian of a user under the age of 18, by allowing your child to use the Service, you are subject to the terms of this Agreement and responsible for your child’s activity on the Service. You can find tools and resources to help you manage your family’s experience on YouTube in our Help Center and through Google’s Family Link.

So this part's fairly clear. They are now stating formally that while LEGALLY they are only permitted to allow individuals 13 and up to use the whole of the service, that the YouTube Kids section now authorizes 12 and below individuals to use that service--and that service alone. And, as mentioned above, parents are solely responsible for anything their children do in the YouTube Kids area, or any other section of YouTube.

Your Use of the Service

Content on the Service
The content on the Service includes videos, audio (for example music and other sounds), graphics, photos, text (such as comments and scripts), branding (including trade names, trademarks, service marks, or logos), interactive features, software, metrics, and other materials whether provided by you, YouTube or a third-party (collectively, "Content”).

Content is the responsibility of the person or entity that provides it to the Service. YouTube is under no obligation to host or serve Content. If you see any Content you believe does not comply with this Agreement, including by violating the Community Guidelines or the law, you can report it to us.

This was the second point of worry for people. Now, every company has the right to refuse service, that's sort of an everywhere law. But this was the first time YouTube has specifically stated they have no obligation to host or serve content at all. There's a much longer, more involved layout of how an individual can use YouTube; all that's been thrown out in the new terms for "We host what we want to host, deal".

Account Suspension and  Termination

Terminations by You
You may stop using the Service at any time. Follow these instructions to delete the Service from your Google Account, which involves closing your YouTube channel and removing your data. You also have the option to download a copy of your data first.

Terminations and Suspensions by YouTube for Cause

YouTube may suspend or terminate your access, your Google account, or your Google account’s access to all or part of the Service if (a) you materially or repeatedly breach this Agreement; (b) we are required to do so to comply with a legal requirement or a court order; or (c) we believe there has been conduct that creates (or could create) liability or harm to any user, other third party, YouTube or our Affiliates.

Terminations by YouTube for Service Changes

YouTube may terminate your access, or your Google account’s access to all or part of the Service if YouTube believes, in its sole discretion, that provision of the Service to you is no longer commercially viable.

This is another huge red flag, especially for users of YouTube. What, precisely, defines "no longer commercially viable"? If it's "does not raise income for YouTube", MILLIONS of user accounts--including my own--are on the chopping block. If it's "no longer monetizeable", that's another problem, because by YouTube's own previous terms, much of the LGBT community's video output, most news channels, all horror narration channels, nearly everyone covering true crime and urban legend stories, in addition to the great number of accounts that put together historical reference content for colleges concerning historical incidents of racism, bigotry, and genocide...well, all those are gone, too. So what exactly do they mean? Sanitized, kid-friendly content that never references drugs, alcohol, mishaps or mature language? But then we're backed into the corner of, if we only upload 100% safe-for-five-year-olds content, these videos cannot be monetized anyway save for the largest channels, and even they've seen a radical reduction of advertising on their content for over six months. So what does YouTube mean by "no longer commercially viable"?

Notice for Termination or Suspension

We will notify you with the reason for termination or suspension by YouTube unless we reasonably believe that to do so: (a) would violate the law or the direction of a legal enforcement authority, or would otherwise risk legal liability for YouTube or our Affiliates; (b) would compromise an investigation or the integrity or operation of the Service; or (c) would cause harm to any user, other third party, YouTube or our Affiliates. Where YouTube is terminating your access for Service changes, where reasonably possible, you will be provided with sufficient time to export your Content from the Service.

Effect of Account Suspension or Termination

If your Google account is terminated or your Google account’s access to the Service is restricted, you may continue using certain aspects of the Service (such as viewing only) without an account, and this Agreement will continue to apply to such use. If you believe your Google account has been terminated in error, you can appeal using this form.

By extension, this section has been completely revised. Formerly, the Terms of Service detailed specific reasons that a user's account could be terminated. This is both more specific, and more vague, in that they no longer lay out what needs to be done to kill someone's account, just vague considerations of general behavior. On the one hand, I understand, if someone specifically lays out that the first eight letters of the alphabet are taboo, users determined to get around the rules could take that as the rest of the alphabet being alloowed. With this version, it's more "We'll decide what's bad, but we'll tell you", without giving specific provisions as to what, exactly, YouTube qualifies as "bad".

The other part that has people largely getting hysterical is the "Terminations by YouTube for Service Changes" section. As the Council of Geeks video points out, while it can be taken on the surface as saying, if a user loses their YouTube account access, they will also lose all Google/Gmail service access, but I tend to agree that interpretation is imprecise, at best. I believe what they are saying is, if Jane Whimsoe is a YouTuber content provider, and Jane loses access to her YouTube account through misbehavior, that neither she on YouTube, nor she through use of Gmail or other Google account options, will be able to access YouTube as a content provider in any way.

But overall, what they've done with these changes is vague everything up. There are very few exacts in the new Terms of Service; just general unspecified terminology that things could be bad if we do something YouTube thinks isn't viable, saleable, or airable. Which conceivably could be...everything.

I guess, buckle up for December, folks, and let's see how bad it gets then.

(There may be some minor coding issues, and everything I do to fix it right now makes it worse, so I'm just publishing and I'll hopefully track down the glitch later on.)

That group is at it again:

[13:05] zxxx Mxxxx: well off for a soak in my tub with a glass of red ni ni all have a great one ☻

And this was ALL SHE SAID. That was IT. That one, single, solitary line, and on the face of it, it doesn't even specify alcohol, just the color of said beverage.

[13:06] Sxxx Sxxxxx: enjoy
[13:08] Sxxxxxxxxx Rxxxxxxxx: i crashed.... who won the question about # of stars in the universe

I guess to boost popularity, which means I'm assuming they're losing members, Mod D has taken to giving out random gachas for correct trivia question answers.

[13:08] Sxxxxxxxxx Rxxxxxxxx: ?
[13:09] Dxxxxxxxxxxx Rxxxxxxx: no one knows the correct answer
[13:10] Sxxxxxxxxx Rxxxxxxxx: 1 billion trillion?
[13:10] yxxxxxxxxx Rxxxxxxx: i know
[13:12] hxxxxxxxxx Rxxxxxxx: [Zxxx] won [12:50] Mxxx Zxxx: more than I can count
[13:12] Sxxxxxxxxx Rxxxxxxxx: i think [zxxx] won... i see in chat history that [dxxxxx] shouted her name before i crashed
[13:12] hxxxxxxxxx Rxxxxxxx: lol
[13:12] hxxxxxxxxx Rxxxxxxx: [Zxxx], don't forget no talk about alcohol, please.

We're all suddenly five and need to be protected from any hint of anything intoxicating, Adult, or mature in any way. Why?

In response to this, I got a private IM from someone:

[13:21] Wxxxxxxxxxx Vxxxx: I think [the group] rules are just made up on the spot whenever
[13:21] Emilly Orr: Me too
[13:21] Emilly Orr: And I know I shouldn't have said anything, but this one's just plain baffling
[13:21] Emilly Orr: [Dxxxxx] said yesterday it was because "PG rules" insist
[13:22] Emilly Orr: I read the ToS. Bars are part of PG lands in SL. She's high.
[13:22] Wxxxxxxxxxx Vxxxx: But they approve adult sims
[13:22] Wxxxxxxxxxx Vxxxx: if it suits her they allow adult
[13:22] Wxxxxxxxxxx Vxxxx: I posted a link proving I was right but she gives away to a friend too. No rules but whatever
[13:23] Emilly Orr: Right. If they're not within sight of a mall, other stores, seemingly ANY furnishings, or sell anything she doesn't approve of.

Why yes, I am still vastly irritated that all a good texture store in this group did was change sims and they were banned from being posted.

[13:23] Emilly Orr: Doesn't surprise me.
[13:23] Wxxxxxxxxxx Vxxxx: I really want to say something and get kicked out
[13:24] Emilly Orr: I'm on that edge. I don't want to get kicked out, but I'm really getting fed up.
[13:25] Wxxxxxxxxxx Vxxxx: Thats it I am doing it there arent many tonic freebies anyway
[13:25] Emilly Orr: True, most of the freebies and gifts are geared to Maitreya or Slink.

Believe me, I entirely understand the level of frustration. Because it really is getting ridiculous.

Then I noticed more conversation in the main group:

[13:21] hxxxxxxxxx Rxxxxxxx: The reasoning I have seen is it is not "PG" to talk about topics that teens underage cannot participate in. It really is that simple.

When I grabbed this chat section, this didn't stand out, but upon editing and rereading, this is a HUGE red flag. Now I really want to know to what standards of "underage" they're referring, because BY LAW one cannot have an account on SL unless one is provably over the age of sixteen. Moreover, I have recently learned there's an additional, not highly publicized setting wherein any account that started when the user was sixteen, that account is digitally blocked both from seeing Adult content as well as traveling to Adult sims.

With all that in mind, then, what definition of "teen" are they using? Eighteen? Legally considered adult for anything but drinking in the US. Sixteen? Legally considered adult in certain states for sexual interactions, considered legally adult for many other things in Japan and other nations. Thirteen? Then they're protecting a class of SL citizenry that lied to get those accounts, and moreover, should not be on SL in the first place.

[13:22] hxxxxxxxxx Rxxxxxxx: But I will mention it the next opportunity i get.

Of course you will.

[13:25] Wxxxxxxxxxx Vxxxx: How are there adult approved stores then if PG cant go there? I am so confused!
[13:27] Emilly Orr: Well, the ToS provisions for Second Life allow bars and clubs to be on Moderate land, which equates to PG, so...that's my confusion.

Because of course, I'm an idiot and had to comment.

[13:28]hxxxxxxxxx Rxxxxxxx: Best idea is to address the owners about some details. We do check the stores thoroughly to be approved or disapproved. I am not the rule maker, though. So I can't help you on this any further.

Which means all these changes are coming about because of Mod R, who's stepping in as group overlord since the group founders don't log into SL anymore. Got it.

[13:28] hxxxxxxxxx Rxxxxxxx: The rating PG in here does not relate to the M rating inworld.
[13:29] hxxxxxxxxx Rxxxxxxx: We are an island unto ourselves lol.

What? That makes zero sense. ZERO sense.

[13:30] Sxxx Sxxxxx: So rule is basically no substance talk of any kind, period ... ?
[13:30] bxxxxxxxxxxxx Rxxxxxxx: That would ban the dictionary ...

It really would. Also, I refuse to believe there is a single sixteen-year-old person anywhere in America that does not know alcohol exists. Maybe, maybe, if that sixteen-year-old is being raised in an Amish or Hutterite community, they may have no practical (or even theoretical) understanding of illegal intoxicants, but alcohol? Beer and wine are not forbidden even in strict religious communities. So again, who are they attempting to protect? It's certainly not anyone already in the group.

From Ms. W again:

[13:26] Wxxxxxxxxxx Vxxxx: There I did it
[13:28] Wxxxxxxxxxx Vxxxx: In other words she just said shes makign it up and takes no responsibility
[13:32] Emilly Orr: Yes and no. She said two things there. First, that hey, it's not HER, it's [Rxxx], she just does what [Rxxx] says, and second, it doesn't have any relation to the ToS.

Which is beyond frustrating.

And this from Ms. A, who IMed me later:

[13:29] axxxxxxxxxx Rxxxxxxx: The reasons is that the rules are made up depending on the mod's mood and the friends shops.
[13:32] Emilly Orr: Pretty much seems to be the case.
[13:32] axxxxxxxxxx Rxxxxxxx: and if you talk about it in public you are instantly banned
[13:33] Emilly Orr: Which is why I'm being very careful until I decide I'm done with the nonsense and can live without the group.

Honestly, I'm seriously thinking of collating all the commonly mentioned stores in this group, and then going to them and seeing what other groups they're in, because if I can get occasional group gifts from those groups instead, why am I dealing with the totalitarian dictator dolls of this group?

[13:34] axxxxxxxxxx Rxxxxxxx: The evolution of the group is very interesting from a sociopolitical study point of view.
[13:34] axxxxxxxxxx Rxxxxxxx: Today it is a totalitarian virtual terrorism dictatorship

As I mentioned, and there are likely more changes coming.

[13:35] Emilly Orr: I'm still wondering why. Not so much the evolution, all groups involved, but the whole bit the last two years of "We know what the rules are but we're not going to tell you because reasons"
[13:36] axxxxxxxxxx Rxxxxxxx: The reason is discrimination in favor of some shops and silencing their competitors
[13:39] Emilly Orr: Therein lies the question: what did Timeless's creator do to irk them so? She has the EXACT SAME store construction--her main with satellite stores of fashion and textures--that she had before the move. The ONLY change was from a Moderate to an Adult sim, and she made ABSOLUTELY sure she was not violating any provision for this group's Adult store policy. They kicked her out anyway.
[13:41] axxxxxxxxxx Rxxxxxxx: Because she did not contribute enough most probably
[13:41] axxxxxxxxxx Rxxxxxxx: or was not friendly enough with the owners.
[13:41] Emilly Orr rolls her eyes
[13:42] axxxxxxxxxx Rxxxxxxx: Scandalize is one the forbidden ones without any serious reason other than silencing this competitor
[13:43] Emilly Orr: I have a vague recollection of them being something Adult that was not approved
[13:44] axxxxxxxxxx Rxxxxxxx: This group was created because fab free was considered as too strict. But [the group in question] has turned over time much worse

She's not wrong.

[13:45] Emilly Orr: Yeah, FabFree is MUCH less strict by comparison now.

And more from the main group:

[13:31] hxxxxxxxxx Rxxxxxxx: What does that mean, [Sxxx]? What are you referring to, hon?
[13:32] Sxxx Sxxxxx: substance ie drugs, alcohol, adult nature etc
[13:32] hxxxxxxxxx Rxxxxxxx: O! Right, yes. Correct.
[13:33] Sxxx Sxxxxx: Sorry, substance is a UK thing (from the area I originate from) that refers to those topics
[13:33] hxxxxxxxxx Rxxxxxxx: I thought you meant depth of topic lol
[13:36] Wxxxxxxxxxx Vxxxx: I'm going to report anyone I see talk about those things even mods

Remember, this is the lass who's hit the point I'm nearing. My solution, when I finally get here, will likely be me simply leaving the group. Hers is to make enough trouble they kick her out.

[13:36] bxxxxxxxxxxxx Rxxxxxxx:
[13:37] Wxxxxxxxxxxx Vxxxx: And just fair that no adult place should be allowed and not another.

It's not. It's absolutely not. The rules are arbitrary, whimsical, valueless, and hidden. All four of these things are bad if a group is trying to get people to live by the rules.

[13:42] mxxxxxxxxxxxx Rxxxxxxx: *eyeballs chat*

Another mod of the group.

[13:42] cxxxxxxx Rxxxxxxx: why?

Does it matter? It's not like you'll care enough to change anything anyway.

I give up.

Next up (likely tomorrow): explaining the recent YouTube changes.

There is no way I'm getting out of this one without accusations of fat shaming, or difference shaming.

But.



The whole reason I do these things is not specifically to poke fun at other people. I am a very judgmental person by nature, I accept this. And I have been trying to work on it. I like to think I've gotten (a little) better, which is saying something considering where I started.

However.

At some point expansion renders the human form meaningless. From the rear? This lass is all bum and thighs. You can see arms; you can see what seems to be a very small back in comparison. It takes you several seconds, if not minutes, to realize her feet are visible, and they seem the size of Twinkies, if not smaller things. You CAN see breasts, though, and again, from the rear, which generally should be impossible, people.



And let me be VERY clear, here: She is not uncute in any way. Even with the censor bar in place, she is not uncute. This is not a case of a troll who came in, deliberately distorted an avatar shape, and ran around trying to hassle people because they're mentally five. She is not that. This is the look she wanted to have. Her profile makes that very clear.

But from the front? The distortion's actually worse. Again, there are feet--barely--but what she doesn't have when viewed from the front? ARMS. My gods, she barely has shoulders from the front. Torso? Forget about it. She's all breasts and hips and thighs.

She looks like someone's put a Bratz doll head on a Cabbage Patch kid. It's so disproportional. So many of her animations clipped through her everything.



In fact, have an abomination in comparison, because I had some free time:



That is exactly what she reminds me of. There's just too much inflation. Yes, it's a virtual world, yes, live your dreams, yes, be who you want in the skin you want that best expresses who you really are...but if that's who Ms. Overfilled is, well...I mean, enjoy throwing off all animations for the rest of your SL existence.

First, out of the blue on Twitch, since I've been watching the Desert Bus for Hope stream off and on this week, I got a DM:

fhsbdcadalma: hows the stream? i just logged into twitch since i have been gaming so much after my pal sent me [link redacted because it's either a harvester or a cheat, and either way I don't need that] i can now get any game for free. you should try it too before they shut their service down. on a notepad i have already 2 c0des for todays games :d i took my 5 minutes and a few tries before getting one that worked on the steam store lol. hf
emptydoll: Go away.

I mean, why me? Seriously. I don't stream on Twitch. Outside of Desert Bus I barely even watch Twitch. Outside of Twitter, and once Tumblr, I don't have an active presence on any social media platform, so...why me? And what does "hf" mean?

And you bet I'm leaving that username intact, even if it's likely a throwaway, so anyone who wishes to can block them in advance from spamming nonsense.

In the meantime, more rule-changing:

[14:02] sxxxxxxxxx Rxxxxxxx: been away from SL for a bit. Can anyone tell me why parts of my body and others are floating in the air?

This is the question I'm starting with, but it's not really relevant to the main point. Still, it seems to indicate the user hasn't been in SL since the adoption of mesh.

[14:03] Jxxxx Hxx: just wait a moment...it will fix itself

Generally, though sometimes, the disconnection is so intense, avatars will need to leave the sim, and port back in, or actually relog, to fix the visual glitching.

[14:03] kxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Rxxxxxxx: not going to touch that one
[14:03] nxxxxxxxxx Rxxxxxxx: Make me a double of whatever [Sxxx] is drinking or smoking pls

This is the important line. Keep this simple reference firmly in mind.

[14:03] kxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Rxxxxxxx: my smart mouth
[14:03] kxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Rxxxxxxx: lol yes
[14:10] hxxxxxxxxx Rxxxxxxx: [Nxxxx]??
[14:10] hxxxxxxxxx Rxxxxxxx: Wrong window??

And this level of "shock" felt manufactured.

[14:11] hxxxxxxxxx Rxxxxxxx: No alcohol or drug talk in [the group in question]. Period.

Again, keep in mind, THESE are the only rules stated in the group's description:

NOT ALLOWED in chat:

• Store ads/spam/self-promotion
• 3 lines MAX posts
• MP and most outside links
• Drama/rudeness
• Criticizing stores/gifts
• Malls-Franchises
• Disco/Club/DJ ads
• Breedables
• Rental/sale
• Most Adult sims/items
• Gambling
• Pay MM/LBs/gifts
• RP: OOC only
• NO blog links
• AO with adult anim
• Vehicles

What, in any of that, says "no discussion of drugs or alcohol"?

[14:17] lxxxxxxxx Rxxxxxxx: because by not talking about a problem it will vanish?
[14:18] mxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Rxxxxxxx: no, because these are the rules here.

Where? Show me where. Where in those rules listed for the group does it say that?

[14:21] lxxxxxxxx Rxxxxxxx: hm ok i was not in this chat for awhile maybe this is new?

This is VERY new.

[14:22] hxxxxxxxxx Rxxxxxxx: Not new at all. It is above PG talk.

Now you're just lying.

From the Knowledge Base:

General

A region designated General is not allowed to advertise or make available content or activity that is sexually explicit, violent, or depicts nudity. Sexually-oriented objects such as 'sex beds' or poseballs may not be located or sold in General regions.

General regions are areas where you should feel free to say and do things that you would be comfortable saying and doing in front of your grandmother or a grade school class. Institutions such as universities, conference organizers, and real world businesses may wish to designate their regions as General. Likewise their users (and others) may wish to employ Second Life's General search setting to focus and filter search results appropriately.

Some landowners and Residents desire a Second Life experience distinct from the activity that occurs in Moderate and Adult regions. Region owners who wish to host this sort of Second Life experience can (but need not) designate their regions as General.

If you are a region owner and you feel there is some ambiguity as to whether your content and activities are allowed in General regions, it's probably best to designate your region as Moderate.

General is generally treated as "G", for context.

Moderate

Second Life's Moderate designation accommodates most of the non-adult activities common in Second Life. Dance clubs, bars, stores and malls, galleries, music venues, beaches, parks, and other spaces for socializing, creating, and learning all support a Moderate designation so long as they do not host publicly promoted adult activities or content and do not use adult search tags. Groups, events and classifieds that relate to this broad range of activities and themes generally should also be designated as Moderate.

Residents in these spaces should therefore expect to see a variety of themes and content. Stores that sell a range of content that includes some 'sexy' clothing or objects can generally reside in Moderate rather than Adult regions. Dance clubs that feature 'burlesque' acts can also generally reside in Moderate regions as long as they don't promote sexual conduct, for instance through pose balls (whether in 'backrooms' or more visible spaces). However if any of these businesses uses adult-oriented search tags, the region may be categorized as Adult and blocked from appearing in non-Adult search.

Moderate is generally considered PG. Let me repeat a phrase used above, because it's vaguely important: "Dance clubs, bars, stores and malls, galleries, music venues, beaches, parks, and other spaces for socializing, creating, and learning" is the phrase I'm thinking of. What have I bolded in that phrase? PLACES WHERE ALCOHOL and (much less often) DRUGS can easily be found. So...what in a "PG" (remember, Moderate is treated as PG) tells the mods of this group--or at least this one, increasingly deluded mod of this group--that even extraordinarily vague references to alcohol would not fly under a PG setting?

[14:23] hxxxxxxxxx Rxxxxxxx: If you want to talk about drugs and alcohol, there are lots of other groups where you can do that.
[14:23] hxxxxxxxxx Rxxxxxxx: It is not welcome here.

According to you.

[14:23] sxxxxxxxxx Rxxxxxxx: I just wanted to know why my avi and others are not rendering properly
[14:24] sxxxxxxxxx Rxxxxxxx: thought it might have been the BoM, but I have the latest FS viewer
[14:24] hxxxxxxxxx Rxxxxxxx: It happens, [Sxxx], it just happens.
[14:24] Pxxxxx Sxxxxxxxx: most likely you havent updated and bake on mesh

Read what she said again. She's updated to the latest Firestorm viewer, which includes Bakes-on-Mesh quoting.

[14:32] sxxxxxxxxx Rxxxxxxx: My experience is... the busier the sim, the more lag, and the longer Avi's dresses and such will hover over their heads, regardless of Viewer version
[14:34] lxxxxxxxx Rxxxxxxx: busy places are "fake adult" for a minute until the clothes have rezzed on the avis
[14:36] Pxxxxxx Rxxxxxxx: Yup

Yep. Also very true.

But the important point still stands: I'm steadily getting irritated with this group. I don't want to leave it, because a lot of group gifts are given out, but I'm pretty much ignoring everything in chat unless it sounds like something instructive for the blog. I don't interact, I keep my head down, I don't want to get yelled at for not knowing yet another rule they invented on the spot for whatever reason they have to keep doing this, I just want to hear about the group offers and the Midnight Mania boards.

It's daunting.

No. This is a direct game rip from the second Alice game. Stop it.

For anyone who might be looking for free or discounted male skins, Ryan Schultz lists two offers on his blog that might still be available. Go see if they still are!

This one is yet another case of, "Is it Em, or are they really naked?" To wit:



I'd gone to the store in question on a hunt. They had an obscure hint, so I'd been there for a while before I finally decided, in total frustration, that maybe they meant something sparkling outside. So I cammed out, and saw...her.



And I won't lie, I got distracted. So there I am, standing motionless in the store. My "vision" via cam is focused outside on the snow. Watching her. Watching her not rez anything in.

No hair. No accessories. No shoes. No outfit. Nothing. Just...what looked for all the world like a bare system body in system lingerie. And not even all that much of that, as can be seen by the censoring.

And yet, her avatar listed things I could not see. Earrings. Necklace. Hair. Heels. Outfit. I was so confused. I actually had to look it up, because it really seemed like there was no way she was in a mesh body. But apparently she was, the eBody Classic, to be specific. Baffling, but there it was.

Fifteen minutes of the two of us standing in place while I waited for anything, even one single thing, to rez in, before I gave up on seeing anything magically appear on her, and the hunt item I was searching for, and left. Just odd.

In the meantime, I ran into a cartoon avatar in Second Life. No, wait, hear me out, I'm not using the term as an insult.



This is Ms. G. From the hair to the heels, she's perfect, if we're talking animated characters. Her eyes (which, alas, censoring prevents me from showing you, but they are a very pretty intense green) are overlarge, her hairstyle is vintage, her legs are thin, her hands are tiny. But taken as a total package, it works.



She's very Daphne. Seriously, check it:



See? Or for a more 'lifelike' look, try Daphne Clamel, a pinup model from the 1960s. (Some of her images are NSFW, that one is SFW.)

However one interprets it, though, this is definitely a tightly planned look. She is the avatar she wants to be. This is the body she wants to live in. I admire people who commit totally to their representations.