How is this allowed?

[CNitsah]

Isn't it the case that the clause "protect children from access to age-inappropriate content introduced by other players" is legally covered by the ToS prohibition of third party tools.

I can't think of any player-driven content that would be age-inappropriate if it is viewed vanilla.

That's a good point, but questionnable when you see how unwilling SE is about doing anything about that. I guess there is no telling without an actual trial.

That said, text only can be innapropriate enough. When you advertise your PF as 18+ you know people will use the chat for unsafe things. Sexting is a thing, it's only words, would you say it's safe for childrent because there is no visual support?

[Mawlzy]

That's a good point, but questionnable when you see how unwilling SE is about doing anything about that. I guess there is no telling without an actual trial.

That said, text only can be innapropriate enough. When you advertise your PF as 18+ you know people will use the chat for unsafe things. I know it's not PF, but I remember a post from someone on the forum really pissed because someone DM'ed their 13 y.o. daughter (IIRC) to be a courtesan in a 18+ club, and they were pissed because their kid came ask them what a courtesan was. You might say it's not much, but it's still enough to fall under that article, and clearly enough to show that text only can still be inappriate.

I recall that thread and am obviously uncomfortable with minors receiving such an invitation.

Equally, unless incredibly sheltered, I imagine any 13 year-old on receiving an explanation of what a "courtesan" is would reply "oh, a prostitute!" and get back to playing the game. Alternatively they would simply Google it. As noted previously, they are just as likely to come across the term in (leve)quests.

[CNitsah]

I recall that thread and am obviously uncomfortable with minors receiving such an invitation.

Equally, unless incredibly sheltered, I imagine any 13 year-old on receiving an explanation of what a "courtesan" is would reply "oh, a prostitute!" and get back to playing the game. Alternatively they would simply Google it. As noted previously, they are just as likely to come across the term in (leve)quests.

That's not the important part, I was just trying to show text can be inapropriate enough (that's why I changed the example when I thought of a better one). The fact "they have to be sheltered to not know" doesn't matter. A rule is a rule, even if you don't agree with it. You can argue about its legitimity, but you'll still get punished if you break it.

The big difference between user content and msq is that msq will be evaluated, you exactly know what kids will be exposed to. FFXIV talk about prostitution and slavery, but it always stay at a reasonable lvl. You cannot know if players will have that restrain. comparing msq with user generated content is such bad faith argument.