Full Version: To all POs: New laws re emails to minors?
Get Paid Forum - Get Paid Discussion > Get Paid To Programs > General Discussion : Free GPT sites and related topics
My first instinct was to say use an age limit of 18 or over but I can see that this would not work in reality. Never heard to this before and it sounds crazy but the only way I can see round things is to have all emails sent to site inbox only unfortunately.
I agree with belladk, parents should be held responsible for their child's internet activities. But that sadly ain't gonna happen. People are getting lazier by the minute, and they'd rather blame anyone and everyone around them than themselves:
Food is too hot in a fast-food/restaurant and you burn yourself eating it? Blame them for not putting a "it's hot, so don't gulp it down in one go!" sign, instead of blaming yourself for not using common sense and eating slowly.
Children have access to porn sites on internet? Let's blame the porn sites for being found through google and other search engines, intstead of blaming ourselves for not restricting internet access for our kids and teaching them about the internet.
We receive tons of advertising (not spam. here I'm talking about sites that send you newsletters and such when you use your email addy and leave the "send newsletter" checkbox checked) by email? Lets blame the sites for sending the ads, instead of blaming ourselves for not taking the time to read what we are signing up for and wheter or not there are strings attached.
Our kids spend their time playing video games and surfing the Net? Let's blame the schools and teachers for not educating our children, instead of blaming ourselves for not spending time with our children and teaching them what they want to learn.
And the list could go on and on and on...
Yes, that and the fact that it would cost us 3cents per email addy to check!
(per addy that's in the database, i think)
-
Actually my site isn't that "standard", lol. It's totally search-free, and the ptp ads are only from members, not myself. And they are sent as normal email ads (not points or super low value).
By having the ads onsite, the person isn't asked to visit anything. He alone decides whether or not to login, check the inbox and visit the sites.
-
Yea, that wouldn't work at all, as we have no way of being sure the member is telling us the truth (they could even send us a scan of their mom's or dad's ID).
Also, I think there are quite a bunch of people under 18 who are in the PTR thing, and it wouldn't be fair to them.
-
Already 12 members replied to my admin email. Approx. 90% of them would be ok with the change. I'll keep you updated on the numbers. The way I see it though, it looks good
And for the small minority of members who really want their emails sent to their email addy, I am sure we can find a way to make it happen (set extra rules, ask them to have an email addy only THEY have access to, maybe even use a specific email provider,...)
Olivier
Food is too hot in a fast-food/restaurant and you burn yourself eating it? Blame them for not putting a "it's hot, so don't gulp it down in one go!" sign, instead of blaming yourself for not using common sense and eating slowly.
Children have access to porn sites on internet? Let's blame the porn sites for being found through google and other search engines, intstead of blaming ourselves for not restricting internet access for our kids and teaching them about the internet.
We receive tons of advertising (not spam. here I'm talking about sites that send you newsletters and such when you use your email addy and leave the "send newsletter" checkbox checked) by email? Lets blame the sites for sending the ads, instead of blaming ourselves for not taking the time to read what we are signing up for and wheter or not there are strings attached.
Our kids spend their time playing video games and surfing the Net? Let's blame the schools and teachers for not educating our children, instead of blaming ourselves for not spending time with our children and teaching them what they want to learn.
And the list could go on and on and on...
QUOTE
What really bothers me is, if every single state is going to have its own registry
Yes, that and the fact that it would cost us 3cents per email addy to check!
(per addy that's in the database, i think)
-
QUOTE
Only 100% safe ads will be sent to all members (I guess that actually, if your site is "standard", you mostly send PTP or/and Searches)
Actually my site isn't that "standard", lol. It's totally search-free, and the ptp ads are only from members, not myself. And they are sent as normal email ads (not points or super low value).
QUOTE
But I've the impression that as for Paypal, even if the emails are InboxOnSite only, your not safe at 100% becasue they can still "interprete" the law their way
No, I am quite sure that this really only apply to emails and other contact methods.By having the ads onsite, the person isn't asked to visit anything. He alone decides whether or not to login, check the inbox and visit the sites.
-
QUOTE
My first instinct was to say use an age limit of 18 or over but I can see that this would not work in reality.
Yea, that wouldn't work at all, as we have no way of being sure the member is telling us the truth (they could even send us a scan of their mom's or dad's ID).
Also, I think there are quite a bunch of people under 18 who are in the PTR thing, and it wouldn't be fair to them.
-
Already 12 members replied to my admin email. Approx. 90% of them would be ok with the change. I'll keep you updated on the numbers. The way I see it though, it looks good
And for the small minority of members who really want their emails sent to their email addy, I am sure we can find a way to make it happen (set extra rules, ask them to have an email addy only THEY have access to, maybe even use a specific email provider,...)
Olivier
Update on the email sent to my members
Current standings:
Would it be ok to have all accounts set to inbox only?
YES: 43
NO: 11
Which is pretty good, I think.
One recurring thought from the members is that if I went along and set all to inbox, I could send an automatic weekly email to remind members of the site.
I wouldn't need to put any link or ad in it, so even if the email addy is in the protected registry, I don't risk anything.
Like that members would not forget to come visit the site every now and then (and after a while, I am sure many will have gotten used to it).
Olivier
p.s. I update the numbers above every now and then..
Current standings:
Would it be ok to have all accounts set to inbox only?
YES: 43
NO: 11
Which is pretty good, I think.
One recurring thought from the members is that if I went along and set all to inbox, I could send an automatic weekly email to remind members of the site.
I wouldn't need to put any link or ad in it, so even if the email addy is in the protected registry, I don't risk anything.
Like that members would not forget to come visit the site every now and then (and after a while, I am sure many will have gotten used to it).
Olivier
p.s. I update the numbers above every now and then..
QUOTE(WAGP @ Jul 12 2005, 03:12 PM)
Update on the email sent to my members
Current standings:
Would it be ok to have all accounts set to inbox only?
YES: 21
NO: 5
Which is pretty good, I think.
One recurring thought from the members is that if I went along and set all to inbox, I could send an automatic weekly email to remind members of the site.
I wouldn't need to put any link or ad in it, so even if the email addy is in the protected registry, I don't risk anything.
Like that members would not forget to come visit the site every now and then (and after a while, I am sure many will have gotten used to it).
Olivier
[right][snapback]3709480[/snapback][/right]
Current standings:
Would it be ok to have all accounts set to inbox only?
YES: 21
NO: 5
Which is pretty good, I think.
One recurring thought from the members is that if I went along and set all to inbox, I could send an automatic weekly email to remind members of the site.
I wouldn't need to put any link or ad in it, so even if the email addy is in the protected registry, I don't risk anything.
Like that members would not forget to come visit the site every now and then (and after a while, I am sure many will have gotten used to it).
Olivier
[right][snapback]3709480[/snapback][/right]
If instead of a reminder you would send a Newsletter, it would look less "Hey guys, com'on and click on my site" ;-)
And for the "many will have gotten used to it", don"t hope too much lol, 5star admin is still receiving emails from people wondering why they never received any email
(have to said that 5star never sent any paid emails lol, only newsletter). But it means that people iterested in your site will login, blind email clickers will disappear, so a best quality traffic 
Just great 
Just another example of parents not wanting to take responsibility for raising their children,. I have 7 grandchildren and they all are on computers except the 9 month old, he just bangs on the keys. When they are on they are all supervised and only allowed to visit friendly (kid) sites. 2 of them have email but their Mom checks to see who it is from before allowing them to open . And they are not allowed to click on links in it without it being checked first .
There is no way to verify age of person on other end of emails. Noooor disallowing signups from particular states or countries wwithout going to Isp's and verifying the veeeracity of the info. Then we have everyone screaming about invasion of privacy.
Personally I think the whole thing is stupid, but would like to get on list and sue a few of these people that are sending me email. Box full of junk everyday and all because of imbedded cookies, and adware, dataminer the worst . Delete at least 44 of them everyday.
Have no problem with inbox mail, more likely to do ptc's when I'm there. So go for it.It really is no problem for me.
Thanks for a great site and a heads up on information. You're the best
socal1941
Just another example of parents not wanting to take responsibility for raising their children,. I have 7 grandchildren and they all are on computers except the 9 month old, he just bangs on the keys. When they are on they are all supervised and only allowed to visit friendly (kid) sites. 2 of them have email but their Mom checks to see who it is from before allowing them to open . And they are not allowed to click on links in it without it being checked first .
There is no way to verify age of person on other end of emails. Noooor disallowing signups from particular states or countries wwithout going to Isp's and verifying the veeeracity of the info. Then we have everyone screaming about invasion of privacy.
Personally I think the whole thing is stupid, but would like to get on list and sue a few of these people that are sending me email. Box full of junk everyday and all because of imbedded cookies, and adware, dataminer the worst . Delete at least 44 of them everyday.
Have no problem with inbox mail, more likely to do ptc's when I'm there. So go for it.It really is no problem for me.
Thanks for a great site and a heads up on information. You're the best
socal1941
As a retired teacher, I must say that this is the parents' responsibility. It is just another example of "kids running the family" instead of the parents. Parents always look to blame the teacher, coach, now wm for what should be placed right on their own hands. No matter what we do it is still up to the [B]parents[/B
]to be responsible for what their children are doing. I feel like I'm being punished for what someone elses kids are doing and the parents are getting of scott free.
I've got a question for these laws about child protection: I've been getting a lot of phone calls about various things in which the call is a recording...why aren't those banned? After all kids answer phones. Don't they?
Now I've vented.
jduffy
with parents who aren't in control of their kids
all this is just another reason the world is in such a violent state.
Come on parents stand up and be the parents in your home.
]to be responsible for what their children are doing. I feel like I'm being punished for what someone elses kids are doing and the parents are getting of scott free.
I've got a question for these laws about child protection: I've been getting a lot of phone calls about various things in which the call is a recording...why aren't those banned? After all kids answer phones. Don't they?
Now I've vented.
jduffy
with parents who aren't in control of their kids all this is just another reason the world is in such a violent state.
Come on parents stand up and be the parents in your home.
I trust my kids, my email is mine, theirs is theirs. And I know my kids wouldn't view such sites, but to have emails sent to inbox only would be okay with me, and if you could send a reminder every 10 days that I need to go through them if I haven't wouldn' hurt either.
The internet is getting bad, and I don't trust many people out there on businesses, etc..., but I love my PTR, and would be lost without it.
The internet is getting bad, and I don't trust many people out there on businesses, etc..., but I love my PTR, and would be lost without it.
I agree, it should be the parents responsibility and it should start at an early age.
I'll use my best friend as an example. She has been a single mom since her daughter was around 3. She has always had rules that she insisted be followed. Her daughter is now 12 and one of the most responsible young person I know (I'm her godmother, so I might be a little prejudiced here). I wish my own grandchildren were more like her.
Since my friend works all day, my godchild spends a lot of time with me, especially now that summer is here. She has her own computer in her room which she uses to play games and research for school projects & always asks her mother to check out any new site she wants to go to. Even if I, as her "2nd mother" as she calls me, tell her about a site that I think might interest her, the first words out of her mouth are to tell me to send the link to her mom so that she can check it out first.
If more parents took the time to teach children about responsibility and right from wrong, this whole world would be much better off.
Sorry for being so long-winded here
I'll use my best friend as an example. She has been a single mom since her daughter was around 3. She has always had rules that she insisted be followed. Her daughter is now 12 and one of the most responsible young person I know (I'm her godmother, so I might be a little prejudiced here). I wish my own grandchildren were more like her.
Since my friend works all day, my godchild spends a lot of time with me, especially now that summer is here. She has her own computer in her room which she uses to play games and research for school projects & always asks her mother to check out any new site she wants to go to. Even if I, as her "2nd mother" as she calls me, tell her about a site that I think might interest her, the first words out of her mouth are to tell me to send the link to her mom so that she can check it out first.
If more parents took the time to teach children about responsibility and right from wrong, this whole world would be much better off.
Sorry for being so long-winded here
We all agree that it should be the parents' responsibility to watch what their kids do on the internet. However up to now, 2 States have decided otherwise so we have to deal with it.
Olivier, I answered your email and I think your option of onsite inbox mails is excellent. This situation is probably a blessing in desguise as what you have outlined in your email is so very true... having the emails on site can be so beneficial to the program. Just from what I've experienced at 5StarPromotions and NoBannerZone, I know that for myself, I take the time to explore the site so much more since I have to go there anyway. Same with WAGP... ever since you added the pictures thingie, I find myself going there more often and because I'm there, I take the opportunity to explore and do PTCs and even venture out into the traffic exchange, forum and all your little extras at the site. It's all good
By the way, I do think that it's mostly the programs in the USA at risk though the others are also somewhat at risk. From what I know in the USA, even if you think you are in the clear because you aren't sending any emails that directly advertize the verbotten items, doesn't mean you aren't at risk since people tend to sue first and ask questions later hence you would still have to defend yourself which costs money.
Olivier, I answered your email and I think your option of onsite inbox mails is excellent. This situation is probably a blessing in desguise as what you have outlined in your email is so very true... having the emails on site can be so beneficial to the program. Just from what I've experienced at 5StarPromotions and NoBannerZone, I know that for myself, I take the time to explore the site so much more since I have to go there anyway. Same with WAGP... ever since you added the pictures thingie, I find myself going there more often and because I'm there, I take the opportunity to explore and do PTCs and even venture out into the traffic exchange, forum and all your little extras at the site. It's all good
By the way, I do think that it's mostly the programs in the USA at risk though the others are also somewhat at risk. From what I know in the USA, even if you think you are in the clear because you aren't sending any emails that directly advertize the verbotten items, doesn't mean you aren't at risk since people tend to sue first and ask questions later hence you would still have to defend yourself which costs money.
I felt that I needed to come back and make something clear...I am all for the proctection of our precious children. I myself was an abused child.
jduffy
jduffy
Reply from another email I received back. I have written her another email asking what happens when all states or other places start requiring a fee. The small fees she is mentioning would cost around $22.00 more added expense just for her state. The other state was requiring 3 cents per email. If a memberbase is 10,000 members I mean this is just luducris to expect we pay fees to each of these states to get their scrub lists.
Got a second email after I posted this:
QUOTE
Dear Suzanne,
Your email, for which I thank you, was forwarded to me today.
>> Most of these sites are small sites which do not make much profit once
>> members are paid so purchasing scrub lists montly on memberbases
>> could be a? real problem as far as another added expense to their now
>> limited? budgets.? Many of these programs are run by stay at home
>>moms themselves who are? trying to make a little extra money.
I can completely sympathize with their situation, and understand
completely!
>> My concern mostly is on the internet if we set up a verification
>> system we? still have no guranatee on if the verification of age, or the
>>person? signing up is of legal age. What is to stop a parent from filing
>>charges on a? site? if the site has stated no one under 16 and even if they
>>request proof? of age? ie a copy of a drivers licence or other proof of age
>>that the child? would? not falsify this information.
Nothing, because that really isn't what the law is directed to.? The
law is, in its basest form, about not sending email containing certain
content to any email address on that list.? Period.? Even if people
verify that they are over 18 and they really *are* over 18, that
doesn't mean that their email address isn't also on the state registry,
as they may have small children at home who access that same email
address.
That's why, unfortunately, the only really _safe_ way to comply is to
scrub your mailing list and make sure that those email addresses which
are on the registry are _not_ on your mailing list.
The one bright spot, or, less grey spot(?) is that usually smaller
businesses have smaller mailing lists... it costs $12.00 per month per
thousand email addresses to scrub against *both* state registries.?
And, if the businesses are small enough that they don't get very many
sign-ups to their mailing list per month, they may be able to get away
with scrubbing once, and then very diligently checking each new
subscriber to make sure that they are not residents of Michigan or
Utah.
>> I guess I am looking to clarify for some of the program owners
>>are truly are concerned about how this affects them as? far as a
>> double opt in list and how to be compliant with the new laws.
You may want to steer them towards ISIPP's IADB email senders'
accreditation program.? Our rates for small publishers are _extremely_
reasonable ($10/month for small newsletter publishers).? While this
doesn't get around the need to comply with the laws, it does help to
make sure that their email does get delivered.
Kind regards,
Anne
Anne P. Mitchell, Esq.
President/CEO
Institute for Spam and Internet Public Policy
Professor of Law, Lincoln Law School of SJ
Advisor, Kinar Secure Email
Advisor, Relemail Email Privacy Certification
Advisor, Virus Bulletin
Your email, for which I thank you, was forwarded to me today.
>> Most of these sites are small sites which do not make much profit once
>> members are paid so purchasing scrub lists montly on memberbases
>> could be a? real problem as far as another added expense to their now
>> limited? budgets.? Many of these programs are run by stay at home
>>moms themselves who are? trying to make a little extra money.
I can completely sympathize with their situation, and understand
completely!
>> My concern mostly is on the internet if we set up a verification
>> system we? still have no guranatee on if the verification of age, or the
>>person? signing up is of legal age. What is to stop a parent from filing
>>charges on a? site? if the site has stated no one under 16 and even if they
>>request proof? of age? ie a copy of a drivers licence or other proof of age
>>that the child? would? not falsify this information.
Nothing, because that really isn't what the law is directed to.? The
law is, in its basest form, about not sending email containing certain
content to any email address on that list.? Period.? Even if people
verify that they are over 18 and they really *are* over 18, that
doesn't mean that their email address isn't also on the state registry,
as they may have small children at home who access that same email
address.
That's why, unfortunately, the only really _safe_ way to comply is to
scrub your mailing list and make sure that those email addresses which
are on the registry are _not_ on your mailing list.
The one bright spot, or, less grey spot(?) is that usually smaller
businesses have smaller mailing lists... it costs $12.00 per month per
thousand email addresses to scrub against *both* state registries.?
And, if the businesses are small enough that they don't get very many
sign-ups to their mailing list per month, they may be able to get away
with scrubbing once, and then very diligently checking each new
subscriber to make sure that they are not residents of Michigan or
Utah.
>> I guess I am looking to clarify for some of the program owners
>>are truly are concerned about how this affects them as? far as a
>> double opt in list and how to be compliant with the new laws.
You may want to steer them towards ISIPP's IADB email senders'
accreditation program.? Our rates for small publishers are _extremely_
reasonable ($10/month for small newsletter publishers).? While this
doesn't get around the need to comply with the laws, it does help to
make sure that their email does get delivered.
Kind regards,
Anne
Anne P. Mitchell, Esq.
President/CEO
Institute for Spam and Internet Public Policy
Professor of Law, Lincoln Law School of SJ
Advisor, Kinar Secure Email
Advisor, Relemail Email Privacy Certification
Advisor, Virus Bulletin
Got a second email after I posted this:
QUOTE
Suzanne,
I neglected to mention that the seminar materials, MP3 audio, and
written transcript of our recent seminar on the new child protection
email address registry laws (and compliance thereto) is available as a
package at our website - some of your members may find it useful. It's
available at:
http://www.isipp.com/child-protection-emai...-registries.php
Kind regards,
Anne
I neglected to mention that the seminar materials, MP3 audio, and
written transcript of our recent seminar on the new child protection
email address registry laws (and compliance thereto) is available as a
package at our website - some of your members may find it useful. It's
available at:
http://www.isipp.com/child-protection-emai...-registries.php
Kind regards,
Anne
*sigh* Once again people try to foist off responsibility for raising their children onto someone else.
One thought I had would be to charge a $0.03 fee to members from the states in question to cover the cost of verifying their emails are not in the database... It could be charged at signup and required to be paid monthly (because monthly verification is required by the law) or simply deducted on a monthly basis from the person's account. Or, perhaps, adding it as a fee to cashout from those members ($0.03 * # of months the person has been a member)
While I appreciate the benefits of going to inbox-only, I personally much prefer being able to do all my emails from one place. If the sites were to go inbox-only, the onsite inbox would need to be upgraded to be more like other web based email inboxes.
One thought I had would be to charge a $0.03 fee to members from the states in question to cover the cost of verifying their emails are not in the database... It could be charged at signup and required to be paid monthly (because monthly verification is required by the law) or simply deducted on a monthly basis from the person's account. Or, perhaps, adding it as a fee to cashout from those members ($0.03 * # of months the person has been a member)
While I appreciate the benefits of going to inbox-only, I personally much prefer being able to do all my emails from one place. If the sites were to go inbox-only, the onsite inbox would need to be upgraded to be more like other web based email inboxes.
[B][I][FONT=Courier][SIZE=7][COLOR=red]
Question: Would i stay with a company that says that I can only click their ads onsite?
Answer: No
Reason:
1. I have far to many emails to read that do come into my mail box and would forget to do the ones that don't.
2. I don't feel that it is fair that I should be penalized for something that doesn't even apply to me.
Question: Would i stay with a company that says that I can only click their ads onsite?
Answer: No
Reason:
1. I have far to many emails to read that do come into my mail box and would forget to do the ones that don't.
2. I don't feel that it is fair that I should be penalized for something that doesn't even apply to me.
Well if they do not go overboard on what is acceptable i can see the point. I get some spam in my webmaster email adresses i dont like the kids to even read the subject lines on, much less what might be in them. What is on the list seems to pretty much be prohibited on our sites anyway. (as long the primary message bit is indeed true)
QUOTE(MoneyMaker1 @ Jul 12 2005, 05:50 PM)
[B][I][FONT=Courier][SIZE=7][COLOR=red]
Thank Cheese you forgot to close your tags. Why oh why would you feel the need to add so much unnecesary formating to your post?
QUOTE(MoneyMaker1 @ Jul 12 2005, 05:50 PM)
Question: Would i stay with a company that says that I can only click their ads onsite?
Answer: No
Reason:
1. I have far to many emails to read that do come into my mail box and would forget to do the ones that don't.
2. I don't feel that it is fair that I should be penalized for something that doesn't even apply to me.
[right][snapback]3710414[/snapback][/right]
Answer: No
Reason:
1. I have far to many emails to read that do come into my mail box and would forget to do the ones that don't.
2. I don't feel that it is fair that I should be penalized for something that doesn't even apply to me.
[right][snapback]3710414[/snapback][/right]
1. You'll have far less emails to read if the programs you are in don't scrub their list, get fined or sued and have to close down.
2. It applies to everyone though to a larger extent it applies more to programs in the USA. If you are a member of a program, then you are risking clicking for nothing if the program you are in isn't taking precautionary measures.
QUOTE(Emaillionairesemail @ Jul 12 2005, 03:35 PM)
Well if they do not go overboard on what is acceptable i can see the point. I get some spam in my webmaster email adresses i dont like the kids to even read the subject lines on, much less what might be in them. What is on the list seems to pretty much be prohibited on our sites anyway. (as long the primary message bit is indeed true)
[right][snapback]3710485[/snapback][/right]
[right][snapback]3710485[/snapback][/right]
The problem is this will not take care of the spam problems if it is truly about what children shall not see. Do you think a spammer is going to comply and buy their scrub list to send his spam out to you when he steals others email addresses and bandwith to do so now?
I mean it is a bit ridiculous. And every single one of the replies back is pushing a sale. It doesn't seem to me they really care about children but how much money they are going to make off this new law. It seems more that if they wanted to protect children they would provide a scrub list for free and make it available to prevent honest programs from having a problem.
Question to all: Is there any 100% fool-proof method to verify if someone is from a certain state (yes, michigan and utah) ?
I would like to set all utah and michigan accounts to inbox, and then automatically set all new members to inbox (and they can then contact me to have it set back to email addy, if I can prove they are not from michigan or utah).
But this would only be possible if I could know for sure in which state they currently reside.
IP is useless, as they can use a proxy or router or whatever.
Utility bill is useless too, as it can very easily be modified (and even if sent by post, they could easily just make a copy of a friend's bill).
Oh, and what about if someone had a bad experience with PTR, and wants revenge? They just submit their email addy to that protected registry, signup on a ptr site with it, wait for a "bad" email to come in, and then report it.
Would that be possible? If so, we're kinda screwed...
Olivier
... for a laugh .. From the day I started WAGP 'til now:
I would like to set all utah and michigan accounts to inbox, and then automatically set all new members to inbox (and they can then contact me to have it set back to email addy, if I can prove they are not from michigan or utah).
But this would only be possible if I could know for sure in which state they currently reside.
IP is useless, as they can use a proxy or router or whatever.
Utility bill is useless too, as it can very easily be modified (and even if sent by post, they could easily just make a copy of a friend's bill).
Oh, and what about if someone had a bad experience with PTR, and wants revenge? They just submit their email addy to that protected registry, signup on a ptr site with it, wait for a "bad" email to come in, and then report it.
Would that be possible? If so, we're kinda screwed...
Olivier
... for a laugh .. From the day I started WAGP 'til now:
QUOTE
I mean it is a bit ridiculous. And every single one of the replies back is pushing a sale. It doesn't seem to me they really care about children but how much money they are going to make off this new law. It seems more that if they wanted to protect children they would provide a scrub list for free and make it available to prevent honest programs from having a problem.
I totally agree with you. I too just received a reply, similar to the one you received from Anne and posted higher up.
Some parts were different (well, different question different answer, which is pretty logical), but all the hints and links to signup/buy their pack/benefit from our "great" discount and such were there.
This new law will not protect kids at all. Most "kids" (we are talking about people between 13 and 18, some might be offended to still be called "kids"), or teenagers, know more about internet and computers than their parents. So if anyone were to modify their email or browser settings it'd be them, lol.
The annoying thing with this is that we know that our members will probably use their own email, that they will know if their email is in the registry or not, they will let us know if their parents have access to their accounts...BUT...there is a risk that one member doesn't. That just one member doesn't know his/her parents added their email addy to the registry. There's a chance just one member has his email in the registry and forgets about it, and then uses it on our ptr..and so on.
And those "little" and "slight" chances, although very small, still risk us thousands of $ and jailtime.
And what if within a few months other states follow? Can all of us afford spending money to scrub our databases regularely with all those registries/databases? Not really, no.
Argh! I'm trying to find the perfect solution that would work for all of us (Wms and members), but can't!
If anyone comes up with some great new original and efficient concept, please post and share your wisdom.
I've had enough of this for today, I'm going to bed (1 AM here).
I'll come back some time tomorrow and hopefully we'll have had new ideas by then.
Good night everyone,
Olivier
p.s. Oh, and to my wonderful members who actually came here and posted their opinions and/or ideas, THANKS! You are really great, and I would do anything (well, anything reasonable that is..lol) to make you happy and keep you on my site.
Well I have been working on my sites but the best right now I can do is members from these states are going to have to go to inbox only and I have put on the signup page and in my terms they must be 18 years old to join and if from Michigan or Utah must set their emails box for inbox only.
One thing I wonder while doing this. Since the program provide an onsite inbox could they twist this and misconstue it to be an emailbox. I am only picking apart what might be done. It does not mean it will be.
I am as frustrated as everyone else and I sure don't want to ban my members from Michigan or Utah due to the law. I do want to protect them as well as myself though.
I would never dileberately send an email that was in violation of the list they have, but how many of us have had a banner changed or the page was redirected to something else even though we throughly checked the link when sending it out or setting it up? it would take one time for this to happen. I for one can't afford to be fined nor do I want to spend time in jail.
I sure don't want to close my programs down either though due to laws to earn the states some revenue.
Perhaps it is time to look at going over the states and writing to find out what really can be done or not done. I am not sure where to start but I will do some digging. This truly is unfair and the gals remarks were I sympathize but you only have to spend x amount of dollars a month. Well when the next state decides this 50 states Xs $20 a month for scrub lists ... ppppppt who needs it! I don't make that much from ptr to dish out another $20 a month let alone more.
One thing I wonder while doing this. Since the program provide an onsite inbox could they twist this and misconstue it to be an emailbox. I am only picking apart what might be done. It does not mean it will be.
I am as frustrated as everyone else and I sure don't want to ban my members from Michigan or Utah due to the law. I do want to protect them as well as myself though.
I would never dileberately send an email that was in violation of the list they have, but how many of us have had a banner changed or the page was redirected to something else even though we throughly checked the link when sending it out or setting it up? it would take one time for this to happen. I for one can't afford to be fined nor do I want to spend time in jail.
I sure don't want to close my programs down either though due to laws to earn the states some revenue.
Perhaps it is time to look at going over the states and writing to find out what really can be done or not done. I am not sure where to start but I will do some digging. This truly is unfair and the gals remarks were I sympathize but you only have to spend x amount of dollars a month. Well when the next state decides this 50 states Xs $20 a month for scrub lists ... ppppppt who needs it! I don't make that much from ptr to dish out another $20 a month let alone more.
Okay, after a good night's sleep, here's what I think I might do.
I would add to the advertising restrictions something like "any site who's main content is not accessible to minors (less than 18) is prohibited from any kind of advertising".
And then list some examples.
This new law only applies to email ads, so if for a few hours someone manages to sneak an adult or search or whatever PTC, rotating banner or sidelink in our site, we wouldn't risk anything.
Oh, and I don't think restricting signups to a certain age would protect us. If the email addy is in the registry and we send it an ad with linking to a site who's main purpose is prohibited content, we are responsible, even if the member said they were 18.
I got this as a reply to another question I asked, asking them if it would change anything if I wrote that members can't use an address that's in or will ever be in the registry.
Their reply certifies to me that the whole law is directed to the primary purpose of the advertised site, and not any ads one might find on it (well, okay, it it's a site with 5 porn site banners, it's a no no, obviously).
So, I think we are safe if we decide not to advertise any site that isn't accessible to minors (we'd have to check the terms of a few sites we promote, but I think it wouldn't be that much of a hassle).
Olivier
I would add to the advertising restrictions something like "any site who's main content is not accessible to minors (less than 18) is prohibited from any kind of advertising".
And then list some examples.
QUOTE
I would never dileberately send an email that was in violation of the list they have, but how many of us have had a banner changed or the page was redirected to something else even though we throughly checked the link when sending it out or setting it up? it would take one time for this to happen. I for one can't afford to be fined nor do I want to spend time in jail.
This new law only applies to email ads, so if for a few hours someone manages to sneak an adult or search or whatever PTC, rotating banner or sidelink in our site, we wouldn't risk anything.
Oh, and I don't think restricting signups to a certain age would protect us. If the email addy is in the registry and we send it an ad with linking to a site who's main purpose is prohibited content, we are responsible, even if the member said they were 18.
QUOTE
You should consult with your legal counsel on questions regarding your specific situation.
However, generally, liability will attach if you send an advertisement for a prohibited product to a registered address. The best way to avoid liability is to not send messages whose primary purpose is to promote prohibited products, or to scrub your mailing list against the Michigan Children's Protection Registry at least once every 30 days.
ProtectMIChild Customer Support
However, generally, liability will attach if you send an advertisement for a prohibited product to a registered address. The best way to avoid liability is to not send messages whose primary purpose is to promote prohibited products, or to scrub your mailing list against the Michigan Children's Protection Registry at least once every 30 days.
ProtectMIChild Customer Support
I got this as a reply to another question I asked, asking them if it would change anything if I wrote that members can't use an address that's in or will ever be in the registry.
Their reply certifies to me that the whole law is directed to the primary purpose of the advertised site, and not any ads one might find on it (well, okay, it it's a site with 5 porn site banners, it's a no no, obviously).
So, I think we are safe if we decide not to advertise any site that isn't accessible to minors (we'd have to check the terms of a few sites we promote, but I think it wouldn't be that much of a hassle).
Olivier
QUOTE(WAGP @ Jul 13 2005, 11:37 AM)
So, I think we are safe if we decide not to advertise any site that isn't accessible to minors (we'd have to check the terms of a few sites we promote, but I think it wouldn't be that much of a hassle).
Olivier
[right][snapback]3711531[/snapback][/right]
Olivier
[right][snapback]3711531[/snapback][/right]
But that would limit advertising options at your program tremendously... it's not all about porn and gambling which is easy to recognize and deal with.
What if an advertiser wants to send an add for say Tupperware? Children can't buy that as they only sell onsite with CC and such so that would go under the "materials that children can not legally respond to" clause...
Or am I completely off here?
QUOTE
But that would limit advertising options at your program tremendously... it's not all about porn and gambling which is easy to recognize and deal with.
What if an advertiser wants to send an add for say Tupperware? Children can't buy that as they only sell onsite with CC and such so that would go under the "materials that children can not legally respond to" clause...
Or am I completely off here?
What if an advertiser wants to send an add for say Tupperware? Children can't buy that as they only sell onsite with CC and such so that would go under the "materials that children can not legally respond to" clause...
Or am I completely off here?
You are right, but I think I can live with just a few less ads. Actually, almost all of the ads I sent on my site since I opened it were for PTRs or traffic exchanges.
So I don't think I'd be missing out on too much.
I think the best way, to keep the most possible members happy, is this solution. To my eyes, here are our options, and the consequences:
1) We forget about this law and risk it -> Owner, members and advertisers will suffer
2) We ban michigan and utah members -> People won't like it and might not join, thinking "what if my state is next?"
3) We set michigan and utah members to inbox only -> Some will still not like it and some might even lie and make believe they aren't in those states
4) We set all to inbox -> A bunch of unhappy members
5) We stop sending ads that might put us in danger -> We get a bit less ads to send, but basically everyone is happy, and we don't risk anything anymore
I think 5) is best (for my site. Others may feel differently, depending on their opinions and also the kind of ads they tend to send).
Olivier
QUOTE(WAGP @ Jul 13 2005, 05:44 PM)
5) We stop sending ads that might put us in danger -> We get a bit less ads to send, but basically everyone is happy, and we don't risk anything anymore
[right][snapback]3713182[/snapback][/right]
[right][snapback]3713182[/snapback][/right]
I totally agree!
I have read all the posts in this thread, but I think I'm probably more confused now than I was when I started.
One suggestion I have is that maybe some POs should check some of the adult webmaster forums and see what they're saying about it. Presumably they deal with this sort of thing a lot more than PTR owners do.
Cheers,
Wil
One suggestion I have is that maybe some POs should check some of the adult webmaster forums and see what they're saying about it. Presumably they deal with this sort of thing a lot more than PTR owners do.
Cheers,
Wil
I don't think "adult" site webmasters have anything to worry about in connection with this law, since they ALREADY have to make sure their members are over 18/21. And, as has been pointed out, just having the member be over 18/21 is NOT enough. If a 35 year old parent of a 14 year old kid has their email in the database because the kid uses the same address & a "banned" email is sent, the sender is liable, even if the email was intended for the parent.
QUOTE(CountryClicker @ Jul 14 2005, 04:18 AM)
I totally agree!
[right][snapback]3713673[/snapback][/right]
[right][snapback]3713673[/snapback][/right]
I don't... because it's not that simple. Will you really rule out all advertising except for PTR? Then better be aware that you can not send links for eBay auctions. Children can not legally take part. And you can't send ads for PTR programs with a minimum age of 18 years either.
I'm not even sure you can send out an ad for anything that needs to be paid with PayPal because they have a minimum age of 18 years as well. So the means to purchase go under the "materials that children can not legally respond to" clause as well...
QUOTE
Will you really rule out all advertising except for PTR? Then better be aware that you can not send links for eBay auctions. Children can not legally take part.
I'm not even sure you can send out an ad for anything that needs to be paid with PayPal because they have a minimum age of 18 years as well. So the means to purchase go under the "materials that children can not legally respond to" clause as well...
I'm not even sure you can send out an ad for anything that needs to be paid with PayPal because they have a minimum age of 18 years as well. So the means to purchase go under the "materials that children can not legally respond to" clause as well...
As I said, at the moment the ads I get to send are already pretty much only PTR, so it wouldn't have that much of an impact (I am talking about my site only. Other sites would have to sacrifice more, depending on what ads they send).
And yes, I did think about ebay, and also anything related to paypal or moneybookers (must still check if egold has an age limit).
I know this is annoying, but better than the alternatives (setting all to inboxes; getting fined for an ad; jailtime).
Also, don't forget this is just for the emails. PTCs, Side links, rotating banners, sites in manu/auto surf are ok. So we wouldn't lose on all ad types.
QUOTE
And you can't send ads for PTR programs with a minimum age of 18 years either.
I did not know that some PTRs were only for 18+
Are there a lot? And why are they for 18+ only?
If we're lucky, this situation would just be temporary. In time, some WM might come up with an idea that'll work for us, or maybe the registry scrubbing will be free (who knows..).
Olivier
Me again..lol
I came up with an idea (don't know why I didn't think of it before).
I have decided that, on my site, I will set all member accounts to email addy AND inbox, and set the default to that too so all new members are set automatically.
And from now on (well, once I update my terms and frontpage and all, and set everyone to email addy and inbox), all email ads for sites/products available/purchaseable only by 18+ members will go to the inboxes only.
All other ads will be sent to the inbox and the email addy.
I think this is the best idea yet (well, if the site is "small" and doesn't have too many members. For larger sites it might require a lot more bandwidth and therefore would lead to some extra expenses on hosting).
Olivier
I came up with an idea (don't know why I didn't think of it before).
I have decided that, on my site, I will set all member accounts to email addy AND inbox, and set the default to that too so all new members are set automatically.
And from now on (well, once I update my terms and frontpage and all, and set everyone to email addy and inbox), all email ads for sites/products available/purchaseable only by 18+ members will go to the inboxes only.
All other ads will be sent to the inbox and the email addy.
I think this is the best idea yet (well, if the site is "small" and doesn't have too many members. For larger sites it might require a lot more bandwidth and therefore would lead to some extra expenses on hosting).
Olivier
QUOTE(WAGP @ Jul 14 2005, 11:25 PM)
I did not know that some PTRs were only for 18+
Are there a lot? And why are they for 18+ only?
[right][snapback]3715910[/snapback][/right]
Are there a lot? And why are they for 18+ only?
[right][snapback]3715910[/snapback][/right]
WolfEmails is 18+. SkamPTR is 18+. 5StarPromotions is 18+ (though they accept 14+ with parental consent). Menboo is 18+. Class-act-clicks is 18+. The Kerocene Cucumber says "You agree that you are the legal age in your state and/or country for submitting a contract." which comes down to the same. There are probably a lot more out there.
Plenty of programs you won't be able to advertise per email anymore. Or send p2p mails for.
And WHY do you think this is a temporary situation? Isn't it more likely that more and more states will follow this example? Especially when there is money to be made? I wouldn't count on free services any time soon... that is against government nature.
Olivier, that's a great idea. I prefer doing my emails from the onsite inbox anyway and have it set that way at almost all the sites I'm a member of. I haven't been a member of WAGP for very long, but so far I like what I see and this decision is definitely a plus in my book. Thanks for being a Wm who cares about her members as well as her site
QUOTE(Essperanza @ Jul 14 2005, 04:40 PM)
I don't... because it's not that simple. Will you really rule out all advertising except for PTR? Then better be aware that you can not send links for eBay auctions. Children can not legally take part. And you can't send ads for PTR programs with a minimum age of 18 years either.
I'm not even sure you can send out an ad for anything that needs to be paid with PayPal because they have a minimum age of 18 years as well. So the means to purchase go under the "materials that children can not legally respond to" clause as well...
[right][snapback]3715801[/snapback][/right]
I'm not even sure you can send out an ad for anything that needs to be paid with PayPal because they have a minimum age of 18 years as well. So the means to purchase go under the "materials that children can not legally respond to" clause as well...
[right][snapback]3715801[/snapback][/right]
I may agree or disagree with a comment but that doesn't mean that I am making it my final decision. No, I am not really going to rule out all advertising but then I also do agree that we stop sending ads that might put us in danger.
Yes, I am well aware of links for ebay auctions, sites with minimum age of 18, and others.
QUOTE(Symok @ Jul 14 2005, 07:31 PM)
I don't think "adult" site webmasters have anything to worry about in connection with this law, since they ALREADY have to make sure their members are over 18/21. And, as has been pointed out, just having the member be over 18/21 is NOT enough. If a 35 year old parent of a 14 year old kid has their email in the database because the kid uses the same address & a "banned" email is sent, the sender is liable, even if the email was intended for the parent.
[right][snapback]3715303[/snapback][/right]
[right][snapback]3715303[/snapback][/right]
You have understood the situation with that law correctly.
Therefore adult site webmasters DO have something to worry about!!!
One point that i have not seen mentioned in this thread concerns this business about the "primary purpose".
As you know many paid-to-search engines bring out in their results hard porn links regardless of what the searcher asked for.
Often, these are the ONLY links in the results.
An extreme example happened to me just yesterday.
Searched for "furniture" and got 17 (seventeen) results ALL of which were hard porn-related (multiple repetitions of 2-3 links really).
Not sure how this would stand legally, but logically it could be argued that these portals have as their primary purpose to promote hard porn.
Just food for thought....
As you know many paid-to-search engines bring out in their results hard porn links regardless of what the searcher asked for.
Often, these are the ONLY links in the results.
An extreme example happened to me just yesterday.
Searched for "furniture" and got 17 (seventeen) results ALL of which were hard porn-related (multiple repetitions of 2-3 links really).
Not sure how this would stand legally, but logically it could be argued that these portals have as their primary purpose to promote hard porn.
Just food for thought....
QUOTE(Essperanza @ Jul 14 2005, 04:58 PM)
WolfEmails is 18+. SkamPTR is 18+. 5StarPromotions is 18+ (though they accept 14+ with parental consent). Menboo is 18+. Class-act-clicks is 18+. The Kerocene Cucumber says "You agree that you are the legal age in your state and/or country for submitting a contract." which comes down to the same. There are probably a lot more out there.
Plenty of programs you won't be able to advertise per email anymore. Or send p2p mails for.
And WHY do you think this is a temporary situation? Isn't it more likely that more and more states will follow this example? Especially when there is money to be made? I wouldn't count on free services any time soon... that is against government nature.
[right][snapback]3716094[/snapback][/right]
Plenty of programs you won't be able to advertise per email anymore. Or send p2p mails for.
And WHY do you think this is a temporary situation? Isn't it more likely that more and more states will follow this example? Especially when there is money to be made? I wouldn't count on free services any time soon... that is against government nature.
[right][snapback]3716094[/snapback][/right]
I'm going to go out on a limb here. I'd be willing to bet more are 18+ than not for PTRs. Add to that list Kismet Kash and Alley Kash, both have to be legal age for your state. Ad Paid is 18+ as is Gone Fishin, He Says She Says is 17+, Mails For Us is: You must be 16 years of age or older. Minors must have parental consent to participate in this program., Sky-Mails is 18+ and If you reside in Michigan or Utah you must select Inbox Only for emails, tmbcptr is 18+, so somewhere around 1/2 my ptrs are 18+ and that is a small portion of the ones out there..
QUOTE(acolyb @ Jul 15 2005, 03:09 AM)
You have understood the situation with that law correctly.
Therefore adult site webmasters DO have something to worry about!!!
[right][snapback]3716805[/snapback][/right]
Therefore adult site webmasters DO have something to worry about!!!
[right][snapback]3716805[/snapback][/right]
I interpreted "adult site" as being actual pornographic websites. Since these sites
(a) are already required to confirm that a person is 18+ before allowing them membership
and
(b) (just an assumption on my part) don't send out email advertising for other sites
that they don't have to worry about laws relating to email advertising.
If something else was intended by "adult site", please enlighten me.
QUOTE(WAGP @ Jul 14 2005, 02:25 PM)
As I said, at the moment the ads I get to send are already pretty much only PTR, so it wouldn't have that much of an impact (I am talking about my site only. Other sites would have to sacrifice more, depending on what ads they send).
And yes, I did think about ebay, and also anything related to paypal or moneybookers (must still check if egold has an age limit).
I know this is annoying, but better than the alternatives (setting all to inboxes; getting fined for an ad; jailtime).
Also, don't forget this is just for the emails. PTCs, Side links, rotating banners, sites in manu/auto surf are ok. So we wouldn't lose on all ad types.
I did not know that some PTRs were only for 18+
Are there a lot? And why are they for 18+ only?
If we're lucky, this situation would just be temporary. In time, some WM might come up with an idea that'll work for us, or maybe the registry scrubbing will be free (who knows..).
Olivier
[right][snapback]3715910[/snapback][/right]
And yes, I did think about ebay, and also anything related to paypal or moneybookers (must still check if egold has an age limit).
I know this is annoying, but better than the alternatives (setting all to inboxes; getting fined for an ad; jailtime).
Also, don't forget this is just for the emails. PTCs, Side links, rotating banners, sites in manu/auto surf are ok. So we wouldn't lose on all ad types.
I did not know that some PTRs were only for 18+
Are there a lot? And why are they for 18+ only?
If we're lucky, this situation would just be temporary. In time, some WM might come up with an idea that'll work for us, or maybe the registry scrubbing will be free (who knows..).
Olivier
[right][snapback]3715910[/snapback][/right]
I have been swamped last few days but have not had a chance to reply to some of this. Another problem with some ptrs is they adult sections and it is not mentioned on the frontpage and there is no age limit in their terms or their help pages. So how far does it go?
QUOTE(acolyb @ Jul 15 2005, 12:19 AM)
One point that i have not seen mentioned in this thread concerns this business about the "primary purpose".
As you know many paid-to-search engines bring out in their results hard porn links regardless of what the searcher asked for.
Often, these are the ONLY links in the results.
An extreme example happened to me just yesterday.
Searched for "furniture" and got 17 (seventeen) results ALL of which were hard porn-related (multiple repetitions of 2-3 links really).
Not sure how this would stand legally, but logically it could be argued that these portals have as their primary purpose to promote hard porn.
Just food for thought....
[right][snapback]3716813[/snapback][/right]
As you know many paid-to-search engines bring out in their results hard porn links regardless of what the searcher asked for.
Often, these are the ONLY links in the results.
An extreme example happened to me just yesterday.
Searched for "furniture" and got 17 (seventeen) results ALL of which were hard porn-related (multiple repetitions of 2-3 links really).
Not sure how this would stand legally, but logically it could be argued that these portals have as their primary purpose to promote hard porn.
Just food for thought....
[right][snapback]3716813[/snapback][/right]
Actually search engines were brought up further back will have to go back through posts and if I remember right the answer to the person who ask it was a site was not liable for what a search engine had. But I question this as some of the stuff on other forums and even in the info provided was even if a third party had it on their site one could be liable, but again if I remember right it was the wording with the intent or knowing you sent a link to... Then we are back to how or who decides what intent was.
QUOTE(priestes @ Jul 15 2005, 07:23 PM)
Actually search engines were brought up further back will have to go back through posts and if I remember right the answer to the person who ask it was a site was not liable for what a search engine had. But I question this as some of the stuff on other forums and even in the info provided was even if a third party had it on their site one could be liable, but again if I remember right it was the wording with the intent or knowing you sent a link to... Then we are back to how or who decides what intent was.
[right][snapback]3717998[/snapback][/right]
[right][snapback]3717998[/snapback][/right]
I can see the logic that a search engine such as Google cannot be held liable for what it brings up but in this case i believe things are very different for 2 reasons.
1. They are not genuine search engines in the sense that they bring up results out of their own links database which essentially contains paid-for entries. They are really advertising/promoting their customers.
2. The frequency with which they bring up hardcore porn links in the results even though the searcher did not ask for such a thing indicates that this is a deliberate act on their part rather than an oversight.
Edit to add:
A seperate, but related, issue that occured to me is that since us PTR members are often encouraged/requested to make a "valid" search by clicking on some result this effectively results in entering hardcore porn sites whenever no other kind of result is there!
In my books this is more of an issue concerning the protection of minors than the law in question, which is clearly unenforceable and thus a very bad law indeed.
Yesterday I clicked on a PTP that had an ad for "Live Sex Chat" along with the graphic pictures usually associated with such sites. This wasn't a slide-in, glide-in, or pop-up ad but it was the ad inside the rotator. This would be considered the primary ad, wouldn't it?
With all the junk that gets accidently inserted or switched over in these PTPs, sending emails will always be a risk to POs that send PTP ads.
Dunno what it would take to convince POs not to send PTPs in emails. The risk is far too great compared to the miniscule income they produce.
Most programs have Manual Surf and/or PTCs. This is where PTPs belong. Once the majority does it that way, members will get used to using both features to their full advantage.
With all the junk that gets accidently inserted or switched over in these PTPs, sending emails will always be a risk to POs that send PTP ads.
Dunno what it would take to convince POs not to send PTPs in emails. The risk is far too great compared to the miniscule income they produce.
Most programs have Manual Surf and/or PTCs. This is where PTPs belong. Once the majority does it that way, members will get used to using both features to their full advantage.
time to do a search/ptp/ponzi free ptr central project 
I just read all of the thoughts and comments, I really do not know what to do..I do live in Michigan and own 5 small PTR's...I am deffently going to set the age limit to 18...But after that I am not sure yet, what to do.
As a Michigan resident, I do know that it is all a money issue..I have a 16 year old right now that got into trouble for a MIP (Minor in pocession) He had got drunk while staying at a freinds house. His punishment from the courts is actually aimed at the parents, rather than the child...Say like $1500.00n fine to be paid in 90 days..(Hmmm Then they want to talk about the child labor law) Okay how is a 16 year old proposed to pay that! Now as a parent knowing how most teenagers won't do anything for free..Here's an idea "Why not 100 hours of community service or something"
That would make the teen think twice, but his parents having to pay $1500.00 isn't going to teach him anything.
Another example is "back 16 years ago when we lived in Arkansas, The parent was allowed to disipline the children with spankings and what not as long as you didn't abuse them..Then moved back to Michigan if you spanked your kids you were breaking the law..My older 2 kids are better for having disipline as the younger 2 are for having to watch how you handled a situation.
What I am getting at is that Michigan is always looking for ways to take your money and homes..When my 20 year old got into trouble, it wound up costing me like 50,000.00 Dollars in which I still owe 8,500.00 and they had told me once that they would take everything I own if I didn't pay 500.00 a month..(I have seen alot of homes lost due to children getting into trouble) Because the courts expect so much money from the parents that those parents become unable to pay their property taxes and morgages...
So yes this issue makes me alittle nerves..I yesturday wanted my sites to grow, But today I am thinking maybe I should limit them to say 250 members or something..I myself do not use site inboxes, so why should I expect my members to. I started my sites for enjoyment and I do enjoy them and my members. I have never profited from my sites, the few ads I do sell would never even come close to the $70.00 a month I pay for hosting.
What do I do now...Close them all down, Hmmm Don't even know..BUT I do know I have alot of thinking to do!
Well I just wanted to do my little part of ranting and raving, although I have no answers or suggestions for anybody...I will keep an eye on this topic..just incase someone does come up with the perfect solution...
As a Michigan resident, I do know that it is all a money issue..I have a 16 year old right now that got into trouble for a MIP (Minor in pocession) He had got drunk while staying at a freinds house. His punishment from the courts is actually aimed at the parents, rather than the child...Say like $1500.00n fine to be paid in 90 days..(Hmmm Then they want to talk about the child labor law) Okay how is a 16 year old proposed to pay that! Now as a parent knowing how most teenagers won't do anything for free..Here's an idea "Why not 100 hours of community service or something"
That would make the teen think twice, but his parents having to pay $1500.00 isn't going to teach him anything.
Another example is "back 16 years ago when we lived in Arkansas, The parent was allowed to disipline the children with spankings and what not as long as you didn't abuse them..Then moved back to Michigan if you spanked your kids you were breaking the law..My older 2 kids are better for having disipline as the younger 2 are for having to watch how you handled a situation.
What I am getting at is that Michigan is always looking for ways to take your money and homes..When my 20 year old got into trouble, it wound up costing me like 50,000.00 Dollars in which I still owe 8,500.00 and they had told me once that they would take everything I own if I didn't pay 500.00 a month..(I have seen alot of homes lost due to children getting into trouble) Because the courts expect so much money from the parents that those parents become unable to pay their property taxes and morgages...
So yes this issue makes me alittle nerves..I yesturday wanted my sites to grow, But today I am thinking maybe I should limit them to say 250 members or something..I myself do not use site inboxes, so why should I expect my members to. I started my sites for enjoyment and I do enjoy them and my members. I have never profited from my sites, the few ads I do sell would never even come close to the $70.00 a month I pay for hosting.
What do I do now...Close them all down, Hmmm Don't even know..BUT I do know I have alot of thinking to do!
Well I just wanted to do my little part of ranting and raving, although I have no answers or suggestions for anybody...I will keep an eye on this topic..just incase someone does come up with the perfect solution...
lol uhm this is almost 16 months old lol maybe you should look under current case law to see the whats what etc lol
SamI
SamI
QUOTE(tweetronda @ Nov 18 2006, 04:27 PM) [snapback]4593896[/snapback]
I just read all of the thoughts and comments, I really do not know what to do..I do live in Michigan and own 5 small PTR's...I am deffently going to set the age limit to 18...But after that I am not sure yet, what to do.
As a Michigan resident, I do know that it is all a money issue..I have a 16 year old right now that got into trouble for a MIP (Minor in pocession) He had got drunk while staying at a freinds house. His punishment from the courts is actually aimed at the parents, rather than the child...Say like $1500.00n fine to be paid in 90 days..(Hmmm Then they want to talk about the child labor law) Okay how is a 16 year old proposed to pay that! Now as a parent knowing how most teenagers won't do anything for free..Here's an idea "Why not 100 hours of community service or something"
That would make the teen think twice, but his parents having to pay $1500.00 isn't going to teach him anything.
Another example is "back 16 years ago when we lived in Arkansas, The parent was allowed to disipline the children with spankings and what not as long as you didn't abuse them..Then moved back to Michigan if you spanked your kids you were breaking the law..My older 2 kids are better for having disipline as the younger 2 are for having to watch how you handled a situation.
What I am getting at is that Michigan is always looking for ways to take your money and homes..When my 20 year old got into trouble, it wound up costing me like 50,000.00 Dollars in which I still owe 8,500.00 and they had told me once that they would take everything I own if I didn't pay 500.00 a month..(I have seen alot of homes lost due to children getting into trouble) Because the courts expect so much money from the parents that those parents become unable to pay their property taxes and morgages...
So yes this issue makes me alittle nerves..I yesturday wanted my sites to grow, But today I am thinking maybe I should limit them to say 250 members or something..I myself do not use site inboxes, so why should I expect my members to. I started my sites for enjoyment and I do enjoy them and my members. I have never profited from my sites, the few ads I do sell would never even come close to the $70.00 a month I pay for hosting.
What do I do now...Close them all down, Hmmm Don't even know..BUT I do know I have alot of thinking to do!
Well I just wanted to do my little part of ranting and raving, although I have no answers or suggestions for anybody...I will keep an eye on this topic..just incase someone does come up with the perfect solution...
Well in all honesty, as a parent you are responsible for your children. It's you who should learn them how to behave, not the community through community service. Though a fine of $1.500 just for a 16 year old being drunk is too steep imho.
Anyway, the problem is verification. You can add to your terms that only 18 or 25 or 60 year olds may join, but if a 14 year old child joins and states he's 45 they can still come after you.
The best to avoid problems is run the email addresses by that database (5 cent per email address if I remember correctly?) but that will cost you dearly and you still have no guarantee they will not come after you if something goes wrong.
I think we'll see more of this type of legislation coming and that is why some time ago I decided to go inbox only.
QUOTE(tweetronda @ Nov 18 2006, 07:27 AM) [snapback]4593896[/snapback]
I just read all of the thoughts and comments, I really do not know what to do..I do live in Michigan and own 5 small PTR's...I am deffently going to set the age limit to 18...But after that I am not sure yet, what to do.
As a Michigan resident, I do know that it is all a money issue..I have a 16 year old right now that got into trouble for a MIP (Minor in pocession) He had got drunk while staying at a freinds house. His punishment from the courts is actually aimed at the parents, rather than the child...Say like $1500.00n fine to be paid in 90 days..(Hmmm Then they want to talk about the child labor law) Okay how is a 16 year old proposed to pay that! Now as a parent knowing how most teenagers won't do anything for free..Here's an idea "Why not 100 hours of community service or something"
That would make the teen think twice, but his parents having to pay $1500.00 isn't going to teach him anything.
Another example is "back 16 years ago when we lived in Arkansas, The parent was allowed to disipline the children with spankings and what not as long as you didn't abuse them..Then moved back to Michigan if you spanked your kids you were breaking the law..My older 2 kids are better for having disipline as the younger 2 are for having to watch how you handled a situation.
What I am getting at is that Michigan is always looking for ways to take your money and homes..When my 20 year old got into trouble, it wound up costing me like 50,000.00 Dollars in which I still owe 8,500.00 and they had told me once that they would take everything I own if I didn't pay 500.00 a month..(I have seen alot of homes lost due to children getting into trouble) Because the courts expect so much money from the parents that those parents become unable to pay their property taxes and morgages...
So yes this issue makes me alittle nerves..I yesturday wanted my sites to grow, But today I am thinking maybe I should limit them to say 250 members or something..I myself do not use site inboxes, so why should I expect my members to. I started my sites for enjoyment and I do enjoy them and my members. I have never profited from my sites, the few ads I do sell would never even come close to the $70.00 a month I pay for hosting.
What do I do now...Close them all down, Hmmm Don't even know..BUT I do know I have alot of thinking to do!
Well I just wanted to do my little part of ranting and raving, although I have no answers or suggestions for anybody...I will keep an eye on this topic..just incase someone does come up with the perfect solution...
Unfortunately if we do not want to deal with problems from specific statest one has to figure out how to work around it. My resolution was setting a requirement of must be 18 (although hard to prove online unless I required ID to join) and specifically stating if someone is from Michigan or Utah they may only use inbox only or I would have to ban the two states to protect myself. The only problem I have found with it is that on occassion someone goes to setting their account to email and I have to set it back.
And Ray not sure why it matters if it is an old issue or not it is still an issue that concerns the person who dug it up and relevant to the old discussion.
lol Priestes I was not at all trying to say you shouldnt have posted this and esp not in this thread.
I was trying to say; This is an old topic and case law prolly has changed and even so you prolly should check to make sure it hasnt and or if they cleared it up more.
Yes its still an issue that concerns me even and Im glad she brought it back up and yes its completly relevant to the old discussion.
Im sorry If my previous post was able to be read that I was upset with the poster or something ugly like that.
SamI
I was trying to say; This is an old topic and case law prolly has changed and even so you prolly should check to make sure it hasnt and or if they cleared it up more.
Yes its still an issue that concerns me even and Im glad she brought it back up and yes its completly relevant to the old discussion.
Im sorry If my previous post was able to be read that I was upset with the poster or something ugly like that.
SamI
QUOTE(OurPTR2 @ Nov 19 2006, 03:30 AM) [snapback]4594032[/snapback]
Well in all honesty, as a parent you are responsible for your children. It's you who should learn them how to behave, not the community through community service. Though a fine of $1.500 just for a 16 year old being drunk is too steep imho.
There are children out there that are beyond reproach, especially teenagers. I find it a bit harsh to say it's you who should learn the child to behave vs community service.
Not all parents are bad parents, it is that some children are (for lack of a better term) bad eggs........some kids in my area have gotten in trouble at school............smoking is an example........they are sent to the local magistrate who then fines the kids for smoking and assigns them community service.......................community service is not in place of parental discipline.....it is however sometimes an effective tool utilized to help wayward or misdirected kids hopefully see the light and amend their ways.
Granted I don't know what the circumstances were that caused the poster to be held responsible for a 50 grand fine.............however, if it was due to a teenager gone bad...............unless the state can obsolutely beyond a doubt prove that the parents allowed their child to run amuck............I find holding the parents responsible for an unruly kid............outlandish.
The government takes away our ability to discipline our children then wants to turn around and hold us responisble when they do not abide by the laws.
Anyway, the problem is verification. You can add to your terms that only 18 or 25 or 60 year olds may join, but if a 14 year old child joins and states he's 45 they can still come after you.
The best to avoid problems is run the email addresses by that database (5 cent per email address if I remember correctly?) but that will cost you dearly and you still have no guarantee they will not come after you if something goes wrong.
I think we'll see more of this type of legislation coming and that is why some time ago I decided to go inbox only.
Exactly.............so what is the point in paying out what could be a hefty sum of money to check someone elses databases of email addresses?
Firstly, the information one is paying for is most likely flawed. Secondly, I don't see even if the state has the resources how they can guarantee that the information one is buying is correct.
Until the day when we have to stick our drivers license or government ID into a little access hole on our computers that scans the info to verify we are who we say we are................paying for that information is a waste of money.
How does inbox only help prevent someone who is 12 from doing emails? If they are lying about age, the other information on site is most likely bogus as well...............I don't understand how inbox only protects a program....................Sure I understand that it is not then being sent to an outside email source such as Yahoo, however.................if the law is going to say that children should not have access to specific emails or info...................regardless of whether or not it was sent to their email program or read online at the site...................the information the state wishes them not to see.................is still readily available and therefore breaking the laws they have set forth. Or hasn't it?????
Don't send adult ads to members. If you want to send adult ads you should be verifying members ages anyway.
If parents can't or won't control their kids the courts should either treat the kids as adults or if they're too young, take them away from the parents.
If parents can't or won't control their kids the courts should either treat the kids as adults or if they're too young, take them away from the parents.
QUOTE(Arawn @ Nov 18 2006, 09:49 PM) [snapback]4594061[/snapback]
Don't send adult ads to members. If you want to send adult ads you should be verifying members ages anyway.
If parents can't or won't control their kids the courts should either treat the kids as adults or if they're too young, take them away from the parents.
Excuse me but this is NOT about adult ads.
This is about ANY type of advertising that requires an adult transaction like getting a credit card, insurance, whatever. Read the thread.
QUOTE
There are children out there that are beyond reproach, especially teenagers. I find it a bit harsh to say it's you who should learn the child to behave vs community service.
Not all parents are bad parents, it is that some children are (for lack of a better term) bad eggs........some kids in my area have gotten in trouble at school............smoking is an example........they are sent to the local magistrate who then fines the kids for smoking and assigns them community service.......................community service is not in place of parental discipline.....it is however sometimes an effective tool utilized to help wayward or misdirected kids hopefully see the light and amend their ways.
Granted I don't know what the circumstances were that caused the poster to be held responsible for a 50 grand fine.............however, if it was due to a teenager gone bad...............unless the state can obsolutely beyond a doubt prove that the parents allowed their child to run amuck............I find holding the parents responsible for an unruly kid............outlandish.
The government takes away our ability to discipline our children then wants to turn around and hold us responisble when they do not abide by the laws.
Not all parents are bad parents, it is that some children are (for lack of a better term) bad eggs........some kids in my area have gotten in trouble at school............smoking is an example........they are sent to the local magistrate who then fines the kids for smoking and assigns them community service.......................community service is not in place of parental discipline.....it is however sometimes an effective tool utilized to help wayward or misdirected kids hopefully see the light and amend their ways.
Granted I don't know what the circumstances were that caused the poster to be held responsible for a 50 grand fine.............however, if it was due to a teenager gone bad...............unless the state can obsolutely beyond a doubt prove that the parents allowed their child to run amuck............I find holding the parents responsible for an unruly kid............outlandish.
The government takes away our ability to discipline our children then wants to turn around and hold us responisble when they do not abide by the laws.
I'm not getting into a discussion with you about bad parents as I did not say OR imply any such thing.
To me, parenting is about responsibility for bringing up a child and taking action when that doesn't work as hoped plus teaching that child to act responsible as well.
If irresponsible behaviour of a 16 year old - who at that age should know responsibility about use of alcohol and it's consequences - caused me to be fined $1,500 I'd make pretty darn sure he and not I would be working his butt off to pay that until the last cent.
You do not need to physically abuse most children - though there may occiasionally be an exception - to discipline them. If you have tought them to respect that isn't necessary at all. So don't complain about the state taking away your rights to beat your kids up. To me, wanting to have that right is outlandish.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.