Playboy magazines and policy violations involving minors
Summary: ellieandavas expressed frustration over eBay removing their Playboy magazine listings due to policy violations involving minors. They argued that the magazines, decades old, wouldn't intentionally feature minors, questioning eBay's actions and seeking guidance. eburtonlab and others pointed out that historically, underage models have appeared in such publications, making them potentially problematic. ellieandavas later learned that eBay's automated filters flag images that might depict youthfulness, regardless of actual age or context. The discussion grew contentious, with some participants emphasizing the importance of vigilance in verifying the age of models to avoid trafficking in exploitative material. mod-paul from eBay reminded participants to maintain civility in discussions.
Number one, I am very concerned because this is the second time I have had a playboy magazine taken down and issued a warning related to eBay's policy regarding "placing minors in a compromising position". These were two separate issues. A 1966 issue and a 1974 issue. In both instances, I have read the covers, covered any potential nudity or impression of nudity, and examined the model on the front and for the life of me, I have absolutely no idea what they could be referring to. It's not the fact that I am desperate or even really need to list these particular issues, it's actually a 3-fold problem for me. Number one, I cannot afford a suspension when there is not even a question on my end as to what I am listing and I am getting 'blindsided" by the violations. Number two, they cannot possibly think that a major international corporation such as playboy who has been around for probably 70 years would even put themselves in that position in the first place by mass producing material with minors, and lastly, you cannot even get them to take a phone call to find out why this is happenning. Any thoughts?
puremichigand
·1 month ago · EditedTry not to take the comments personally – no one thinks that you intended to do anything wrong. You were just listing a few items - no bad intentions, clearly.. Although – I had a hunch that one of your “competitors“ that is railing against you actually has Playboy things for sale. Sure enough, the seller that he works for does.
powell-collectibles
·1 month ago · Editedit really isn’t surprising – the guy that yell the loudest are the ones that have the most to hide.
fm2000
·1 month agoTechnically, they didn't intentionally do that, the models lied about their age. Nowadays, by Federal law, they have to electronically verify ages and keep records, back then a fake ID was enough. It didn't come out until many years later the models were underage.
At any rate, don't list them here. Even if you were right and they were legal, it wouldn't matter, they think they are a problem and will pull them and eventually you will lose a fortune by being banned here for the rest of your life. Don't risk it.
chapeau-noir
·1 month agoBut...but...but...I only subscribe for the articles!
tobaccocardyahoo
·1 month agoThe laws restricting child exploitation were updated several times after these issues of Playboy were published.
Trafficking in them was legal when they were published and is not now.
Ebay is protecting you, by removing your listings as well as obeying the law. You could be charged with a sex crime by selling these issues.
Stranger things have happened to people for less offensive crimes than selling kiddie porn.
onefootflipper
·1 month ago · EditedThere is a list of the issues known to have minors in them. Many of them don't even have any images that would actually even be illegal (sort of depends on how they are posed and what they are and are not doing), however pretty much every online platform is going to ban all of them because that is the safest choice for them to do.
Traci Lord's presence ruined what would have been one of the most collectible issues of Penthouse, the September 1984 issue that featured Vanessa Williams back when she was Miss America. Traci managed to appear in an incredible amount of adult material in the 1980s, all before her 18th birthday. Lying was still working back then, they didn't check close enough.
I am not an aficionado of such things, I just researched them once for a youtube video I ultimately decided not to make.
fm2000
·1 month agoKnowing YouTube, it was probably the right call. What they did to you over your beanie baby money laundering video was disgraceful and absolutely indefensible. I can't stand social media censorship to begin with, sanctioning you over a totally harmless video small children safely could watch takes a special amount of nerve. They censor you while they promote videos encouraging violence against retail workers, welfare fraud, reckless driving, child abuse and all kind of other horrible things. I honestly don't know how you YouTube creators can take it, my head would explode the first time I had to say "unalive".
onefootflipper
·1 month ago · EditedIt is so weird, their are very detailed and lengthy videos on youtube that explain how money laundering actually works and those videos have apparently no issues whatsoever. But my brief description of the process in a video about Beanie Babies got me in trouble on both Youtube and Facebook.
Long story short, ebay is an absolutely terrible money laundering structure, particularly if it is done "selling" things for extremely large sums of money that have no inherent value. The fact is the professionals whom one could hire to do such things for you take a cut that is often going to be lower than the ebay fees on the transaction would be.
It could also be because I also explained that those transactions were not people "buying" young girls either. The organizations that fight human trafficking let the false narrative work for them because it gets them more donations. The actual fact is that "trafficked" minors are almost universally 16 and 17 year old runaway drug addicts who lie to their pimp about their age. No pimp is going to risk that much, much, much higher level of crime to have a girl that makes exactly the same amount of money as one 2 years older would, and younger than that, it basically doesn't happen at all, the other criminals will actually turn them in (or kill them). I dug really deep into the statistical data researching that, both because of the video and because my wife was always afraid someone was going to kidnap our daughter for that, and the age data fell off a cliff once it got below 16, there was another cliff at 15 and statistical data was in the single digits annually for the 14 and younger age categories. Epstein was personally apparently involved with a lot of girls in the younger age ranges, but it was a much more complicated situation that didn't involve anyone being sold as a beanie baby on ebay.
mod-paul
·1 month agoHi everyone,
This discussion is getting a bit heated. Please remember that, while it is fine to disagree with others, discussion should always remain friendly and respectful as required by the Community Guidelines.
You can review our Community Guidelines here: https://community.ebay.com/forum/about-the-community-57910/topic/ebay-community-guidelines-465340/
Thank you for your cooperation.
eBay Community Moderation Team
adamcartwright
·1 month ago · Edited@ellieandavas
Linda Moon, who was featured as the Playmate of the Month for the October 1966 issue (born September 24, 1948), was 17 years old when she was photographed for her centerfold.
Wikipedia
You really need to do your research BEFORE listing, and BEFORE coming on here to complain.
There is no excuse for trafficking naked photos of underage girls when the info is readily available. You are selling these Playboys for very low prices + free GA shipping. The $3-4 of profit means that much to you, to be trafficking nude minor photos?
And may this be another lesson to take Playboy down off the pedestal on which some of you have placed it, as there are numerous issues featuring underage girls.
funfactorychannel
·1 month agoThere is a ban list of playboy mags that have minors in the book(not the cover). I used to have that list on my desktop but oct 1966 is one of those books..
adamcartwright
·1 month agoWould you mind sharing the exact issues you are trying to sell?
ellieandavas
OP1 month agoI forget the date of the 1974 issue but the one today was the october of 1966 issue.
momtoabeautifuldaughter
·1 month agoYep, that one had a 17 year old in it...so a minor
eburtonlab
·1 month agothey cannot possibly think that a major international corporation such as playboy who has been around for probably 70 years would even put themselves in that position in the first place by mass producing material with minors
You really don't think it is at all possible that over seventy years and tens of thousands of women photographed and published in that magazine, that at some point some seventeen-year-olds got away with lying about their ages? Not even back in the sixties or seventies?
Instead, you think... what exactly? That eBay is just pulling down random issues for no reason at all?
ellieandavas
OP1 month agoWell I found my answer and no, I do not have my head up my backside, or I am stupid, or neglectful, or anything else that someone may jump to a conclusion about.
Based on similar threads:
eBay’s automated filters are extremely sensitive to anything that resembles youthfulness — even stylized 1960s/1970s models with certain poses or hairstyles.
Vintage Playboy covers sometimes get false positives because the models look younger than they are.
The system does not consider context, publication date, or legality — it only scans imagery.
Appeals rarely succeed, and human review is inconsistent.
Many sellers simply stop listing Playboy covers and instead list them with:
No cover photo
A photo of the table of contents
A photo of the spine
A description only
This avoids the automated image scan entirely.
Next time don't be so quick to insult someone.
simply-the-best-for-you
·1 month agoNone of that is true. It's based completely on the dates of the known issues. I recall a recent situation where an artist was drawing semi-nudes of people they claimed were over 18. Of course since the artist claimed they were all a figment of his imagination, they could claim that the obviously very young girls & a few boys, were 65 & there would be no way to prove they weren't b/c they weren't "real" people. A few of the most egregious ones were removed, but most were left. It is NOT based on the images. I'm sure others will remember this exact situation.
The list of the problematic Playboys is very well known & it's simply based on the issue number & date.
adamcartwright
·1 month agoAnother seller was here lately complaining about the same exact thing, and it was easily determined that one of the models in the issue was photographed at age 17.
WHY do these sellers insist on trafficking nude photos of minors for a measly few bucks?
ellieandavas
OP1 month agoI am not INSISTING on anything. Frankly, the responses from a few of you are nothing more than attempts it seems to inflame anger. Do you really think that a seller with a couple of hundred listings would intentionally risk their account for 2 or 3 dollars in profit? I see more "sketchy stuff" and scantily clad women at Walmart on a Tuesday then the items that got flagged. And if we are all honest with ourselves, I am sure that some things may have slipped through the cracks throughout the years but that's not my point. The point is how is someone like the average seller supposed to surmise that some long-forgotten model on the front page of a men's magazine that has had millions of copies released to the public 65 years ago may or may not have been 18. It seems to me there is a certain amount of trust or implied trust that if something is good to be released to the general public that has been approved by corporate officers and the government no less, that it should fine. If that is a hard concept to understand, then we have bigger issues than the magazine.
hartungcards
·1 month ago · Edited"Do you really think that a seller with a couple of hundred listings would intentionally risk their account for 2 or 3 dollars in profit?"
It wouldn't surprise me in the least.
"The point is how is someone like the average seller supposed to surmise that some long-forgotten model on the front page of a men's magazine..."
You do understand it's not just the photo on the cover of the issue that can cause the red flags, right? And you do understand that if someone was a minor "65 years ago," they're still a minor in that photo today, right?
ellieandavas
OP1 month agoSadly, you all are missing the point but that's okay. I made the mistake of assuming that this was a forum for discussing issues to help gain understanding as to what is acceptable and what is not. I am not going to continue entertaining trolls. I am absolutely against any exploitation of anyone whatsoever. I was simply trying to understand how to keep the wheels rolling without violating policy or causing harm to my account. Thank you all for your non-help. I think a couple of you should be ashamed of yourself for treating a fellow seller like this. Shameful. Have a good day.
jonathanbrightlight
·1 month agoIf you were against exploitation, you would have destroyed those magazines instead of asking for advice on selling them.
adamcartwright
·1 month ago"It seems to me there is a certain amount of trust or implied trust that if something is good to be released to the general public that has been approved by corporate officers and the government no less, that it should fine."
You've GOT TO be kidding me!
ellieandavas
OP1 month agoYou know it's bad enough that sellers have to keep the ebay wolves off our backs, but I wouldn't think that some of your own fellow sellers would be the actual enemy.
gone.c-33
·1 month agoeBay took your listing down, as long as you don’t relist, your account should be fine. Now that you know some issues included minors, you’ll be able to look them up before you list again.
What you shouldn’t do is double down on minimizing pictures of underaged girls because… it’s been a long time and/or women wear short shorts at Walmart?
Maybe we’re misunderstanding, but that’s what a lot of us are getting out of your replies.
An “Oops, I didn’t know, yikes, in the fireplace they go” is generally the normal reply.
gurlcat
·1 month ago · EditedWhat are the eBay wolves??? I know that's not the mascot because that's the purple princess Beanie bear (obviously).
Would Ellie be a woman's name perchance? Talk about wolves and fellows. I too am "absolutely against exploitation of anyone whatsoever" which is why I wouldn't even want money from any kind of p***ography media. -Minors, females, males, anyone whatsoever.
adamcartwright
·1 month agoYeah, call me the enemy -- of peddling photos of underage girls.
I'm the enemy.