How do I change my birthday?

What?

hiekkapillu said:
What?

I turned 18 34 minutes ago

that moment when you announce that you've been ducking age requirement for the past 3 years

Versperus said:
that moment when you announce that you've been ducking age requirement for the past 3 years

TBH I just want it to not say I was born in the 70's or some shit.

what are you talking about? No where on this site does it have your birth date or any other personal information.

TheOnlyGirlOnE621 said:
TBH I just want it to not say I was born in the 70's or some shit.

Are you asking this for some other site or...?

TheOnlyGirlOnE621 said:
How do I change my birthday?

Big rip

next you'll tell me you aren't a gril

https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/993/047/148.jpg

ayy lmao

So if they just turned 18 why ban them now?

Kodanis said:
So if they just turned 18 why ban them now?

No physical proof of them being 18, but user stated they were using site underage. So, unless proof is provided, they're assumed underage.

If she was the only girl on this site, I guess we've reached peak masculinity.

Clawdragons said:
If she was the only girl on this site, I guess we've reached peak masculinity.

Accept for ya know ImpidiDinkaDoo lol

Kodanis said:
Accept for ya know ImpidiDinkaDoo lol

Just making a joke based on the name. There's a lot of women on this site.

Clawdragons said:
Just making a joke based on the name. There's a lot of women on this site.

Oh I know you were. I was too.

Clawdragons said:
There's a lot of women on this site.

I'm not sure I buy that for a minute. There are a lot of people on the site who say they're women, but... eh, I'm not convinced.

CCoyote said:
I'm not sure I buy that for a minute. There are a lot of people on the site who say they're women, but... eh, I'm not convinced.

I wouldn't be surprised if most of us were sophisticated bots with randomly assigned personalities.

Dogenzaka said:
I wouldn't be surprised if most of us were sophisticated bots with randomly assigned personalities.

Can confirm, I got the personality of some weird Austrian painter that moved to Germany.

NotMeNotYou said:
Can confirm, I got the personality of some weird Austrian painter that moved to Germany.

Was he also a college dropout?

NotMeNotYou said:
Can confirm, I got the personality of some weird Austrian painter that moved to Germany.

That's German humor, it's no laughing matter.

f

L

ImpidiDinkaDoo said:
No physical proof of them being 18, but user stated they were using site underage. So, unless proof is provided, they're assumed underage.

Just out of curiosity how does someone go about providing proof? The can't exactly show ID here.

Kodanis said:
Just out of curiosity how does someone go about providing proof? The can't exactly show ID here.

If I recall correctly, photo ID/other identification can indeed be used to prove a user's age. However, this info isn't public (for obvious reason) and is more between the user and staff.

A statement saying that you are underage is evidence enough for a ban, but a statement saying that you are of-age is not evidence enough for lifting bans? Why is there a double standard with a gap so great that anecdote is needed for one while a photograph of your ID card is needed for the opposite?

wanker said:
A statement saying that you are underage is evidence enough for a ban, but a statement saying that you are of-age is not evidence enough for lifting bans? Why is there a double standard with a gap so great that anecdote is needed for one while a photograph of your ID card is needed for the opposite?

Because minors accessing pornography is literally... illegal, and a large amount of the website is not safe for work, so it's top priority rectify and remove the minor from the 18+ website.

Also, legal identification has more legal standing/proof than someone just saying they're an adult, especially when it's incredibly easy to lie on the internet. Even people who joke around and say they're underage as an adult risk a ban until they can prove their age and that they were joking.

ImpidiDinkaDoo said:
minors accessing pornography
remove the minor

But... A ban doesn't do this, it only stops them from making themselves visible while they're here?
e621 underage-banning has always seemed more like liability-coverage than any genuine concern about minors browsing.

it exactly is liability coverage. i am 99.99999% sure no one actually gives a shit if minors access the site - e6 just can't legally, knowingly let minors on here because that's illegal.

Pro Tip: Try not to openly advocate giving minors an even greater level of access to adult artwork. It's not a good look.

It's one thing for them to access it on their own because this is the internet, and stuff isn't locked down. It's legally something entirely different for administrators to hand out user names and passwords and extra browsing tools.

Why the hell does this even have to be said?

CCoyote said:
Pro Tip: Try not to openly advocate giving minors an even greater level of access to adult artwork. It's not a good look.

Yeaaaaah it's absolutely not a good look. Trusting people's word in regards to age is just not reliable whatsoever, because the internet makes anonymity so damn easy.

And also to add: even if it is for (or was originally made for) liability in regards to the site, I'm certain that at the same time admins enforcing these age ban rules and stuff can also be concerned with the safety of the minors in question. Like, yes, obviously they can try to circumvent this easily because Internet, but that doesn't mean we can't keep trying to keep them away when we catch them dodging age rules.

Stop lying about your age... -_-

ImpidiDinkaDoo said:
Yeaaaaah it's absolutely not a good look. Trusting people's word in regards to age is just not reliable whatsoever, because the internet makes anonymity so damn easy.

And also to add: even if it is for (or was originally made for) liability in regards to the site, I'm certain that at the same time admins enforcing these age ban rules and stuff can also be concerned with the safety of the minors in question. Like, yes, obviously they can try to circumvent this easily because Internet, but that doesn't mean we can't keep trying to keep them away when we catch them dodging age rules.

Hear hear!

How rude. No one congratulated you

ImpidiDinkaDoo said:
Like, yes, obviously they can try to circumvent this easily because Internet, but that doesn't mean we can't keep trying to keep them away when we catch them dodging age rules.

They don't have to circumvent anything, because all the porn is accessible without account access, and to my knowledge you don't IP or hardware ban.
Banning doesn't keep them away from the porn, only from the community (using that word very loosely).

Obviously there isn't a real way to keep them away from the porn(sites) without locking access itself behind a proof-of-age system, and the UK is already being criticised for trying that.

Happy birthday. But this site is 18+, ur gone.

*Curb Your Enthusiasm Theme Intensifies*

Haha now that's a petty ban if I've ever seen one.

Lock down their account because they said they used to be underage, not because they are lol

ImpidiDinkaDoo said:
Yeaaaaah it's absolutely not a good look. Trusting people's word in regards to age is just not reliable whatsoever, because the internet makes anonymity so damn easy.

And also to add: even if it is for (or was originally made for) liability in regards to the site, I'm certain that at the same time admins enforcing these age ban rules and stuff can also be concerned with the safety of the minors in question. Like, yes, obviously they can try to circumvent this easily because Internet, but that doesn't mean we can't keep trying to keep them away when we catch them dodging age rules.

There is no "Are you 18+" confirmation to people accessing this site for the first time, the underage ban has nothing to do with protecting minors, I can guarantee it's 100% a liability protection for the site.

Purely from a legal standpoint.

FurryMcFuzzball said:
Haha now that's a petty ban if I've ever seen one.

Lock down their account because they said they used to be underage, not because they are lol

No matter the way you look at it, dodging age requirements is still shady and the "Happy 18th to me" is a self-admitted rule breaking. That said, they *can* get unbanned if they provide proof of age; it's just that the ban won't expire on its own.

Also, as an aside (only a minor thing though) it's generally in bad taste to begin or end sentences with "lol" or "lmao" (I've seen it used enough such that it's become a personal pet peeve) because it hurts your point. Whether you're correct on this or not, I feel instead of the "lol haha" angle, you could have said, "I personally feel it's kind of petty to ban them just because they admitted to having using the site underage. I think they should be unbanned as they are now of age to use the website." That way, you appear less combative. (And that's just an outside view, as most of my forum activity is aliases/implications)

There is no "Are you 18+" confirmation to people accessing this site for the first time

True. If something like that can be implemented (and that's only if) it could lessen underage signups. Unfortunately, considering how easy it is to lie on the internet, there's probably no real way to check that without mass tracking, going through a census and generally being shady.

the underage ban has nothing to do with protecting minors, I can guarantee it's 100% a liability protection for the site.

Purely from a legal standpoint.

It can go both ways, really. Out of purely curiosity, what is it that makes you think it's 100% legal reasons? (Aside from the fact that a business or website wanting to stay open is not a bad thing.)

AgentParadox said:
No matter the way you look at it, dodging age requirements is still shady and the "Happy 18th to me" is a self-admitted rule breaking. That said, they *can* get unbanned if they provide proof of age; it's just that the ban won't expire on its own.

Also, as an aside (only a minor thing though) it's generally in bad taste to begin or end sentences with "lol" or "lmao" (I've seen it used enough such that it's become a personal pet peeve) because it hurts your point. Whether you're correct on this or not, I feel instead of the "lol haha" angle, you could have said, "I personally feel it's kind of petty to ban them just because they admitted to having using the site underage. I think they should be unbanned as they are now of age to use the website." That way, you appear less combative. (And that's just an outside view, as most of my forum activity is aliases/implications)

True. If something like that can be implemented (and that's only if) it could lessen underage signups. Unfortunately, considering how easy it is to lie on the internet, there's probably no real way to check that without mass tracking, going through a census and generally being shady.

It can go both ways, really. Out of purely curiosity, what is it that makes you think it's 100% legal reasons? (Aside from the fact that a business or website wanting to stay open is not a bad thing.)

"haha" is a phrase a person uses when they find something to be humorous, and I found it ironic that the user was banned for being underage despite no longer being underage. Even if they were accessing the site underage, they didn't get caught until they became of legal age. It's kind of like banning someone who smokes from entering a no-smoking area even if they haven't smoked recently.

There is absolutely no viable way for any site to verify the age of every person to access it. I only suggest it so it works along side underage accounts being banned. I feel like only doing one is a bit half-hearted, but at the end of the day both measures are just a cover so the site a) doesn't get sued b) Doesn't get a bad reputation.

I should have said 70% legality 30% reputation, mostly because covering yourself legally is a lot more important than having a flawless reputation.

FurryMcFuzzball said:
"haha" is a phrase a person uses when they find something to be humorous, and I found it ironic that the user was banned for being underage despite no longer being underage. Even if they were accessing the site underage, they didn't get caught until they became of legal age. It's kind of like banning someone who smokes from entering a no-smoking area even if they haven't smoked recently.

That's an invalid analogy. A more apt one would be someone who had a smoke in a non-smoking area, then after they put out their cigarette walked over to staff and told them they smoked in a non-smoking area but they aren't anymore. The staff would not be happy, and could kick him out on principle.

Just because they're not breaking the rule now doesn't absolve them of the consequences of breaking the rule in the past. The staff also cannot verify they aren't still breaking the rule other than their say-so. And yes, it's typically the case that admitting to having done something bad is given more weight than a promise of not doing anything bad anymore. That's the way the world works. It's why you can get thrown in jail by self-incrimination, but can't get out of jail by promising to not break the law anymore.