this post was submitted on 27 Feb 2024
39 points (100.0% liked)

Gaming

30553 readers
281 users here now

From video gaming to card games and stuff in between, if it's gaming you can probably discuss it here!

Please Note: Gaming memes are permitted to be posted on Meme Mondays, but will otherwise be removed in an effort to allow other discussions to take place.

See also Gaming's sister community Tabletop Gaming.

This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
gyrfalcon@beehaw.org
Whom@beehaw.org
The_Hunted_One@beehaw.org
alyaza@beehaw.org
TheRtRevKaiser@beehaw.org
chloyster@beehaw.org
remington@beehaw.org
39
Accusations leveled at Second Life staff paint a grim picture of child abuse content in their virtual world (web.archive.org)
submitted 8 months ago by PelicanPersuader@beehaw.org to c/gaming@beehaw.org
NSFW 16 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Strong Content Warning: This article discusses child abuse and contains blurred explicit images.

Second Life users are in a frenzy over this article, published on Sunday, which details how a key member of parent company Linden Lab was participating in virtual sex content containing child avatars. Patch Linden, AKA Eric Nix, his husband, and several other high level members of Linden Lab staff are accused of enabling child abuse content to flourish in their privately owned virtual residences, ignoring explicit content involving virtual children, and creating a deeply toxic working environment at the company.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Fal@yiffit.net 6 points 8 months ago

By the way, just because these are digital renderings does not mean that there is no harm. Seeing such content can still be harmful to past victims.

This is true of literally everyone and any one. Anyone can be victimized by anything and be traumatized by seeing it. That's not a reasonable argument to throw around accusations of child abuse.

They specifically called it “child abuse content”, not “child abuse”. This seems perfectly valid, no?

No, this is not valid. MAYBE if they added "fictional child abuse content" or something, but even that would be misleading. There's no child, so it can't be child abuse, and thus can't be child abuse content.