Why was wax_simulacra banned on CB?

[curacing]

See her user name, bongcat, 4.20 means (getting stoned) lol

 

[EspiKvlt]

I know what 4/20 means. Your sentence was still weird and confusing.

 

[thebongcat]

It must be fun Kat having a good 4.20 and get hot and heavy on cam, make a few 1000 tokens towards the big cum show finish!

Well... yes???

Lol

 

[darkside007]

th

Well that just bizarre that they insist you show your face, I know of 2 models who have never shown their faces, and Lana (wax) alway hid her face behind a mask, cold that get yout banned?...and with the amount of video theft and copying can you blame them.
I got a shock when I google my CB user name! I told a young female friend on CB about camvideos.me... she freaked out and has not been back on cam since.
Darkside007, hope you find another site and get your income back.
Craig.

hey thanks for your words
yes i am working on streamate now , its been 2 days n i am earning same as chaturbate,
For few days(no many days) i was in shock as chaturbate was only in my mind for 1 n half year, i have so many fans and followers der n i have never violated any rule.,,but i strongly believe they ban my room because of my content removal request. i send them 5000+ links of my videos n pics..customer support of chaturbate never take side of their own model,always so rude ..hope from shirley is also waste .coz of their ban attitude many users are taking advantage and making false report against model...(big loss for chaturbate in future if they continue to do same).
Thats the reason i move on ..
Now i am stable n happy n hope same for other model who had bad experience with chaturbate

 

[curacing]

That's great you are back in action, my friend on CB just started there also this week, it's so much more expensive per minute than CB but you don't get freeloader bugging you and asking for stuff they won't pay for...I'll swing by and say hello next I'm there.
Craig☺

 

[darkside007]

That's great you are back in action, my friend on CB just started there also this week, it's so much more expensive per minute than CB but you don't get freeloader bugging you and asking for stuff they won't pay for...I'll swing by and say hello next I'm there.
Craig☺

yeah i really back my account back but hope from shirley(punker barbie) is waste

 

[wax_simulacra]

oh, wow, I didn't even expect to stumble on this thread O_O
thank you for worrying about me, pretty strangers
well, if it's still actual, and interests anybody, here is the "reason" of my ban.

 

[AmberCutie]

oh, wow, I didn't even expect to stumble on this thread O_O
thank you for worrying about me, pretty strangers
well, if it's still actual, and interests anybody, here is the "reason" of my ban.

I think it's such a bullshit policy. They obtain your qualifying documents so that if some legal problem arose, they can prove you are of legal age. This is why there are records.

 

[EspiKvlt]

It isn't a crime to look under 18. This pisses me off so much.

 

[ExcellaExe]

I still looked under 18 when I was 25, which means I would've been banned on this policy. It's a good thing I don't cam on CB much, because this is bullshit.

 

[Puffin]

I think it's such a bullshit policy. They obtain your qualifying documents so that if some legal problem arose, they can prove you are of legal age. This is why there are records.

Prove of age is not the issue, @snowwolf87 explained why here.

 

[SMuser69]

Prove of age is not the issue, @snowwolf87 explained why here.

For those that still don't understand. Child porn law says even if YOU are of legal age with proof. Selling something off as child porn makes it child porn.

Even if I you looked 80 years old on camera if you film going out of your way to establish you are underage the resulting film/video will still be considered child porn regardless if no actual child participates. This how the law is written.

tl;dr Artificial child porn becomes child porn by law and so you commit a crime possessing or selling it.

 

[EspiKvlt]

For those that still don't understand. Child porn law says even if YOU are of legal age with proof. Selling something off as child porn makes it child porn.

Even if I you looked 80 years old on camera if you film going out of your way to establish you are underage the resulting film/video will still be considered child porn regardless if no actual child participates. This how the law is written.

tl;dr Artificial child porn becomes child porn by law and so you commit a crime possessing or selling it.

Ok, but these people usually aren't pretending to be underage? So that still doesn't make sense?

 

[SMuser69]

Ok, but these people usually aren't pretending to be underage? So that still doesn't make sense?

They don't have to. The member can imply the model is a child and that can legally establish the same relationship. That's why SM bans for saying the word Daddy. Any party of the session can create the situation that turns it into child porn. CB seems to take an extreme approach to this to limit it's liability.

What we DONT see is if CB is equally banning members for the same offense.

 

[snowwolf87]

For those that still don't understand. Child porn law says even if YOU are of legal age with proof. Selling something off as child porn makes it child porn.

Even if I you looked 80 years old on camera if you film going out of your way to establish you are underage the resulting film/video will still be considered child porn regardless if no actual child participates. This how the law is written.

tl;dr Artificial child porn becomes child porn by law and so you commit a crime possessing or selling it.

Just to complete the thought, as the law was written, all it takes is one person thinking it's child porn to make it so in the eyes of the law. It doesn't matter what age the participants are or what the maker intended. Since the 'complainers' on CB don't have the verifying docs, all that really matters is their opinion.

Yeah, the law sucks, but you can understand CB's actions.

 

[justjoinedtopost]

They don't have to. The member can imply the model is a child and that can legally establish the same relationship. That's why SM bans for saying the word Daddy. Any party of the session can create the situation that turns it into child porn. CB seems to take an extreme approach to this to limit it's liability.

What we DONT see is if CB is equally banning members for the same offense.

May not see it here. I do wonder how much it goes on that is never heard about. Not for being reported, but for because of whatever automated system they have going.

Just to complete the thought, as the law was written, all it takes is one person thinking it's child porn to make it so in the eyes of the law. It doesn't matter what age the participants are or what the maker intended. Since the 'complainers' on CB don't have the verifying docs, all that really matters is their opinion.

Yeah, the law sucks, but you can understand CB's actions.

The law may be a mess, but CB is fucked up too. If it was just CB deciding they needed to err on the side of caution every now and then? Fine. But that doesn't even come close to describing what all they got going on.

 

[snowwolf87]

The law may be a mess, but CB is fucked up too. If it was just CB deciding they needed to err on the side of caution every now and then? Fine. But that doesn't even come close to describing what all they got going on.

That may be true. Not having much experience with CB, I'm just going by what punker_barbie said about their process and what I found in the law.

 

[AmberCutie]

The law may be a mess, but CB is fucked up too. If it was just CB deciding they needed to err on the side of caution every now and then? Fine. But that doesn't even come close to describing what all they got going on.

This is my feeling on it. Other cam sites are doing just fine without the mass bannings without warning for this supposed reason, I think CB is being overly cautious or just not really giving 2 craps in the grand scheme of things. Keeping broadcasters on their site doesn't appear to be their top priority as we've seen with suspensions and bannings of some top earners who go on to make mega bucks on MFC.

 

[SMuser69]

This is my feeling on it. Other cam sites are doing just fine without the mass bannings without warning for this supposed reason, I think CB is being overly cautious or just not really giving 2 craps in the grand scheme of things. Keeping broadcasters on their site doesn't appear to be their top priority as we've seen with suspensions and bannings of some top earners who go on to make mega bucks on MFC.

I think the main issue is CB seem to only have "banning" as their primary default method to restrict an account. SM "locks" your account it's the same action but the word is much softer and less negative. You're more willing to contact and work out your account issue with SM because locking doesn't imply blame on the party.

If CB used any other language it would be less frustrating and headache for everyone involved. They could just "investigate" accounts and it would be 1000 times better and less doom and gloom. CB's language is accusational and confrontational. Confirming documentation shouldn't require "begging" messages to Punker.

 

[justjoinedtopost]

That may be true. Not having much experience with CB, I'm just going by what punker_barbie said about their process and what I found in the law.

I was sympathetic to what she said explaining their position, to a degree.

Not so much with their support emails that frustrate people to tears, or the cams in clear violation being allowed to broadcast well after being reported, or the fact that it apparently takes the better part of a year to decide that cams like @wax_simulacra are "too underage-ish".

 

[snowwolf87]

I was sympathetic to what she said explaining their position, to a degree.

Not so much with their support emails that frustrate people to tears, or the cams in clear violation being allowed to broadcast well after being reported, or the fact that it apparently takes the better part of a year to decide that cams like @wax_simulacra are "too underage-ish".

Yeah.

The year to decide thing could be that nobody complained for a year. Since they have her ID, they know she's old enough. Only when a complaint comes in do they act.

The other stuff is just a piss poor way to run a business.

 

[Guy]

For those that still don't understand. Child porn law says even if YOU are of legal age with proof. Selling something off as child porn makes it child porn.

Even if I you looked 80 years old on camera if you film going out of your way to establish you are underage the resulting film/video will still be considered child porn regardless if no actual child participates. This how the law is written.

tl;dr Artificial child porn becomes child porn by law and so you commit a crime possessing or selling it.

Incorrect. In 2002 the U.S supreme court ruled that in order for content to be
child pornography, it must show actual minors.
https://www.britannica.com/event/Ashcroft-v-Free-Speech-Coalition

 

[SMuser69]

Incorrect. In 2002 the U.S supreme court ruled that in order for content to be
child pornography, it must show actual minors.
https://www.britannica.com/event/Ashcroft-v-Free-Speech-Coalition

However camsites have to deal with global laws. Canada's law for example is written the same way but stands unchallenged (http://yourlaws.ca/criminal-code-canada/1631-definition-“child-pornography”). The US may be the largest customer demographic however camsites don't want to get shut out of other countries or the EU. On top of all that barring legal reasoning it may be a rule established by their payment processor. The payment processor can make any rule it wants to make.

 

[snowwolf87]

Incorrect. In 2002 the U.S supreme court ruled that in order for content to be
child pornography, it must show actual minors.
https://www.britannica.com/event/Ashcroft-v-Free-Speech-Coalition

Hmmm. Curiouser and curiouser.

The site:

https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/granule/USCODE-2010-title18/USCODE-2010-title18-partI-chap110-sec2257A

says that the law is in effect as of Jan. 2011.

It says basically the same thing as the article you referenced, but not exactly.

Closer reading of the .gov document shows updates were applied as late as 2008, so I have to assume that the .gov site is an accurate state of the law as it exists today.

But it clearly violates the Supreme Court ruling. Has this new law not been tested? Maybe somebody needs to be charged with depicting a minor and take it through the courts and that hasn't happened yet.

Curiouser and curiouser.

 

[Phoenix4987]

As long as a model isn't roleplaying in any underage..er..age play. Or having a display age of one that is a minor. Then I don't really see what the problem is. Oh well, not my camsite, not my money being lost.

 

[nzhere]

I know many asian girls that have had the same b.s email.

In one case the girl was online 12 hours a day for over 8 months until they decided on this excuse to remove her.

 

[uncoveredmanhole]

Just to complete the thought, as the law was written, all it takes is one person thinking it's child porn to make it so in the eyes of the law. It doesn't matter what age the participants are or what the maker intended. Since the 'complainers' on CB don't have the verifying docs, all that really matters is their opinion.

Yeah, the law sucks, but you can understand CB's actions.

this post looks like it was written by a 12 year old and it turns me on

Amber, be careful! the feds might be on their way!

 

[uncoveredmanhole]

The year to decide thing could be that nobody complained for a year. Since they have her ID, they know she's old enough. Only when a complaint comes in do they act.

should this model be banned? an hour later she was presenting like a normal adult again

Spoiler: screencap (non-nude)

Spoiler: outcome

this screencap was taken 10 days ago. I just re-checked on the room and it has now been banned.

 

[justjoinedtopost]

Jesus christ, if you gotta post caps like that, please spoiler them.

 

[uncoveredmanhole]

Jesus christ, if you gotta post caps like that, please spoiler them.

done, sorry (had to dig around to find the spoiler tag)