LINDEN CRACKS DOWN ON THIRD-PARTY BLOG!….THEN APOLOGIZES.
by prokofy on 14/05/07 at 9:38 pm
Prokofy Neva, Dept. of Community Affairs
In an unprecedented and appalling action this evening sure to have major repercussions, Meta Linden, a new Linden born May 12, 2007, has informed a resident of Second Life that the chatlogs from Second Life she has posted on her own blog, a third-party site unrelated to Second Life, are in violation of the Terms of Service and must be removed, or the resident can face disciplinary action within SL. Update 5/15: Meta then subsequently retracted her statements and apologized, explaining that she was “new” and unfamiliar with guidelines for enforcing policy.
The chatlogs on a blogspot.com SL diary involve the investigations of resident Honey Wendt into activity in Yongchong she claims involves ageplay, or simulation of sex with children, although the typists behind the avatars are said to be adults.
The warning against Honey Wendy and the instruction to remove the material from the third-party site did not come through the official Abuse Report system, but in a series of IMs Meta Linden initiated with Honey Wendt directly.
Meta Linden reported at an office hour two weeks ago that prior to being hired to work for Linden Lab, she was a resident of SL who owned a private island and a business. She declined to give reporters her SL avatar name nor the name of the business.
Robin Linden and other Lindens have made it very clear in past round tables and upon direct questioning that material that is on third-party sites is outside the jursidiction of Linden Lab. Unlike other companies that provide online multiplayer games and worlds, LL has never attempted to overreach its bounds and tell residents what to do outside of their ambit.
The crackdown against a site outing ageplay activity which LL itself has indicated it will no longer tolerate seems odd, unless it is seen in a broader context of LL moving across a variety of fronts in a variety of manners to rein in a mushrooming, anarchic population to satisfy claims beginning to be made by real-life law-enforcement and media that real-life criminal offenses may be committed in this virtual world.
Crusaders against ageplay in Second Life who have outed the identities, locations, groups, and conversations of people whom they say are guilty of child pornography have long incurred the wrath of the liberal Second Life crowd, who see it as an unwarranted invasion of privacy.
But the Community Standards have traditionally been interpreted as only applying to expression *within* Second Life:
Remotely monitoring conversations, posting conversation logs, or sharing conversation logs without consent are all prohibited in Second Life and on the Second Life Forums.
Meta Linden has considerably upped the ante by quoting *another* portion of the TOS:
take any action or upload, post, e-mail or otherwise transmit Content as determined by Linden Lab at its sole discretion that is harmful, threatening, abusive, harassing, causes tort, defamatory, vulgar, obscene, libelous, invasive of another’s privacy, hateful, or racially, ethnically or otherwise objectionable;
She has construed this TOS language to mean that transmitting chatlogs that are believed by LL at its sole discretion to be “libelous” or “invasive of another’s privacy” *outside of* Second Life to a third-party site is now actionable.
It’s not at all clear whether Meta Linden is free-lancing here, possibly against someone she acquired a beef against while a resident, and now wishes to use her Linden powers on, or whether she is operating with a new as-yet unknown policy for third-party blogs.
We were still awaiting a response to an inquiry from Robin Linden and other Lindens at press time.
Last year, protesters hounded another ageplay house out of Yongchong by organizing a mass protest on a parcel next door when their abuse-reports to LL were not acted upon. Guy Linden, who came to the scene, had no comment and took no action. The residents in question removed the RL child porn from the walls of their home, and left up only SL avatar child porn, then later sold their land and moved away.
UPDATE 12:30 am SL: Meta Linden has now come forward and apologized on Honey Wendt’s blog in the latest development, as has come out in the comments.
However, the apology is as troublesome as Meta’s original intervention to pressure Honey to remove content, because Meta Lindens claims that in fact the TOS do *not* protect third-party blogs from overreach by Linden Lab.
In her post to Honey Wendt’s blog, Meta writes:
I checked with more other Lindens (I am new btw) and discovered that while our TOS doesn’t state that it only covers SL Servers, and the intention is to protect the privacy of all resident conversations, that we do not enforce outside of our servers, forums, and blogs, as a matter of policy. I was incorrect. I apologize.
In fact, the CS and TOS *do* state “in Second Life” and imply that they only cover SL servers. We are not aware of any official senior Linden interpretation that says “our TOS doesn’t state that it only covers SL Servers”. That’s Meta Linden’s — and possibly some other Lindens’ — spin on it.
In comments below, Meta writes further:
Yes, I did extend my individual interpretation of our TOS as it is written past our guidelines for enforcement. I did so nicely at least, and certainly discussed it with other Lindens re:our policies.
No author of a blog could *ever* find a Linden challenge to remove content from their blog as something that is “nice.”
Finally, in a follow-up conversation in-world, Meta contacted me on her resident alt and told me that she did not apologize because Honey and I publicized her attempt to put pressure on this blog, but apologized simply because she became aware of the policy. The time stamps and the circumstances of course tell another story, however. It’s clear that she hoped to accomplish on her Linden account what she was unable to accomplish on a resident alt merely filing an AR.
Even before being contacted, I had received various tips from the crowd-wisdom surfers out there putting together the links between Meta’s Linden avatar and her previous resident avatar.
Meta challenged me inworld once she figured that I had the connection, implying that if I made this connection, I would be hypocritical given my privacy concerns. I find that untenable, as Lindens should not be able to hide behind any concept of privacy when in fact they have a conflict of interests involved with their resident personas and are evidently using their Linden accounts to settle scores.
That’s wrong.
When Lindens violate norms of decency like that I don’t think they should be able to be shielded by “privacy.”
I will merely do Meta Linden the courtesy never ensured for me by Linden Lab, and let others make the connection if they wish. I can only reiterate: Lindens must not use their Linden accounts to settle scores. It undermines the professionalism and effectiveness of the Linden team, and undermines their credibility significantly.
Scott McMillin
May 14th, 2007
Wow. The hole LL is digging just keeps on getting bigger and bigger. Can’t wait to see what happens next.
Defne Demar
May 14th, 2007
Prok, I am not surprised at this. This is a major privacy issue, though no one cares much about it in SL. As a researcher, I have to change all the avatar names I publish both online and in print unless I obtain specific consent from the person that I may use his/her avatar name. Otherwise my research permission from the IRB will get yanked. I assume LL doesn’t want to get into trouble either. When I first started my research back in September, I had to get permission from both the IRB and LL. Now LL specifically left this one to the IRB (I assume they have too much to deal with). But they don’t want to lose too much control, I assume.
The rule of thumb is that anything that anyone get see/access without any restrictions is fair game for me (and anyone) to use. But any conversation that goes in an IRC chatroom or an in-world IM, or forum IM/PM is off-limits unless I get consent from the relevant parties. I don’t see why regular citizens would be above this rule.
Anyone who is publishing a private chatlog or IM is violating someone else’s privacy, simple as that.
Defne Demar
May 14th, 2007
And it is not a freedom of speech issue as you say in Twitter, it is a privacy issue…
Prokofy Neva
May 14th, 2007
Defne, don’t confuse what you might view as *ethical* with what is permissible under the TOS, and what can be legitimately referenced out of the TOS. This overreach *can not* — at least not when they reference *these sections* which make it clear that the scope is *inside SL*.
BTW, the Lindens don’t even have the rules up they used to have for researchers. With the flood of market researchers coming into SL, they have not been able to police people as they used to, and gave up They removed their regs even from the Knowledge Base. There is now no clearance by LL itself.
What your standing is and how you abide by the IRB is another matter, but that’s not what we’re talking about here.
I don’t buy the idea that chat spoken between avatars is “public” in every context. In a public meeting, in an interaction with a Linden, who is an official in his official capacity, when it comes to a reporter asking for information or commentary — that’s normal journalistic work. You don’t obtain consent in every instance. Don’t confuse what you might see as good practice with the problem of Second Life: how to obtain justice, in a closed society, with no free press, and no democratic governance.
The whole reason people are driven to publish chatlogs is to obtain rectification and justice and fight against fraud, griefing, and bad behaviour. There really is no other recourse. I believe in this setting, it is in the public interest, and part of the ‘public’s right to know” to publish chatlogs involving these public issues.
After all, it’s not a transcript of two private individuals having their own private relationship published by a jealous ex-girlfriend.
It’s a group of people in a public brothel advertised as such offering the services of ageplayers.
A blogger who is concerned about ageplay in SL, in a climate where LL finally seems to be cracking down, confronts people about what they are doing. Seems reasonable to me.
If every person who has a convo in SL first has to obtain consent, there can be no critical discussion — much needed in this closed society where a great deal of abuse takes place.
To hold up “privacy” and “libel” to cover up bad behavior, including by Lindens, is not a necessary limitation on free speech required by law for public order.
Prokofy Neva
May 14th, 2007
*I don’t buy the idea that chat spoken between avatars is NOT “public” in every context and must be defined as private and requiring consent for the free media to report freely of matters in the public interest.
Prokofy Neva
May 14th, 2007
it is a privacy issue…
No, it’s not a privacy issue, because matters in the public interest sometimes require that the media bring them to light. There would never be any Pentagon Papers or Abu Ghraib papers if everybody took such notions of “privacy” in the way you indicate.
Defne Demar
May 14th, 2007
I don’t believe I got preachy at any point, I merely said I understand where LL is coming from. Say if you were publishing the chatlog somewhere in-world where it is only accessible by SL residents they may be a different matter. But when one is publishing it on an Internet site where everyone who are not members of SL can access it, you are violating a privacy. I am not condoning ageplay, mind you. I am just making a statement. When I use images that I took in SL I make sure that this person knows it. Good practice, yes. Maybe we should have more of that. And the issues we are talking about are nowhere the scale of Pentagon Papers or Abu Ghraib.
BTW, the reason why LL removed that researchers ethics page is because they left the permissions to IRB. IRB is much stricter than LL ever was. So why not leave it to people who do a better job, when they have to worry about other important stuff, like making sure the grid works (and we know how well that is going). All I am saying that LL is trying to cover their ass in case of future lawsuits. And well they should. It is either privacy issues or copyright issues that are going to bring the metaverse down.
Prokofy Neva
May 14th, 2007
What’s fascinating to watch is how these liberal licentious Lindens like Meta, who could well be a BDSMer on her original resident account for all we know, or a skin seller or some such, will construe the issue of ageplay in a politically correct manner.
Some would argue they’ve gone too far against free speech even by their own terms if they attempt to restrict behaviour and expression between consenting adults on their own parcels. There are some, like Cocoanut, extracting a reading out of what the Lindens are saying now about ageplay and age verification that they will crack down on ANY expression of ageplay ANYWHERE if they catch it, real or imagined, furry or human or anime or whatever.
I actually think from what they’ve said that no, they’ve delineated what they will do — as with the casinos. You can’t have advertising of ageplay, or public display of ageplay, or graphical depictions of ageplay that are visible, i.e. in a store. But what you do on your own privately is not going to be policed.
So when somebody invokes freedom of expression — the same principle — for their blog, and their criticism of ageplay from the other perspective than the traditionally Linden laissez-faire principle, the Lindens — or at least this one — are not principled. Then they are politically correct. Then they don’t go by the rule of law, but go by rule-by-laws. Then they opt for saying it is ‘privacy’ what goes on like this on a parcel, and no one can put it up on a third-party site.
What drove Meta Linden to single out *this* site among all sites, unrelated to her or her issues, which are supposedly about number-crunching for SL?
I think Lindens in general in this atmosphere of prosecution where they are now laying down the law feel emboldened to go on their own little pet posses.
For example, a tenant of mine was selling somebody’s item that they said was a freebie. I was told to discipline that person, and that it was a violation of the TOS. I said it was not — there is nothing in the TOS you can construe to criminalize the sale of freebies, however immoral you believe it to be. If you don’t want your item sold, don’t check it off “resell”. I noted that my position is that I never get involved with these disputes creators have with tenants and they must deal with the disputed party and object themselves. I was then informed that this person was going to “go get Torley” who would “prove to me that it is a TOS violation”. Not the first person to feel they have a Linden in their pocket.
Defne Demar
May 14th, 2007
BTW, it is not a free for all for researchers. As a matter of fact, as you noticed, researchers are more responsible about their use of private materials. Their hands are tied with IRB. So even if LL removed the ethics page, IRB is keeping everyone in check, rest assured. They can’t publish a single word without proper clearance.
Cocoanut Koala
May 14th, 2007
Sexual ageplay, Prok. I think they have outlawed sexual ageplay even among avatars who are run by humans over 18.
In any case – fine little piece of investigative journalism in that person’s blog.
And no, the Lindens can’t – simply can’t – get away with trying to impose upon their citizens that what happens in SL stays in SL.
If word gets out that someone has been expelled from SL, disciplined in SL, or coerced by threat of such action to remove their blog contents because they posted their piece of investigative journalism (about sexual age play, no less!), there will be hell to pay.
coco
coco
Prokofy Neva
May 14th, 2007
>Say if you were publishing the chatlog somewhere in-world where it is only accessible by SL residents they may be a different matter.
But it’s not a different matter. Here, it’s wrong *because they say so*. It’s in a TOS *which we sign*. You can’t publish a chat transcript *in Second Life* so it’s not a ‘different matter’ in the slightest, and one we are forced to respect –as it is in the TOS.
>But when one is publishing it on an Internet site where everyone who are not members of SL can access it, you are violating a privacy.
That’s merely you take on it. It’s your moral concept. But it has no legal standing. And it’s not in the TOS. There is nothing in the TOS that says that LL reserves the right to monitor third-party sites about SL and discipline accounts based on that monitoring. Nothing whatsoever. The “upload and transmit” language is regarding *the use of the service itself* (that’s why it says “upload*).
LL knows — or has always known until Meta came along with a grudge and a sense of impunity — that it cannot overreach. That if it does that, it becomes like Stratics, EA.com, Youtube, and many other sites that have been found to have illiberal and even unlawful policies of overreach attempting to suppress their customers’ expression.
You have to distinguish between morality and legality, between what is considered good journalism, which may differ given the setting (and I would argue in this closed society, we are obligated by our conscience to report on matters of public interest regardless of whether someone construes it as “private chat” as that concept is overrbroad when you are in a public brother advertised on an avatar and a land description open to the public.)
>I am not condoning ageplay, mind you. I am just making a statement. When I use images that I took in SL I make sure that this person knows it. Good practice, yes. Maybe we should have more of that. And the issues we are talking about are nowhere the scale of Pentagon Papers or Abu Ghraib.
Oh but they are. They may seem trivial now, involving silly avatars and silly fantasies by sickos. But the PRINCIPLES and the DYNAMICS are the same. After all, this isn’t just one company. This is the company laying the tracks for the Metaverse. What gets condoned or practiced now will stick. It’s very important to fight for freedom now.
The political incorrectness that will likely seize some people about being anti-ageplay can’t be allowed to cloud the basic issue here: once a game company starts telling customers it will police their critical content on third-party sites, it’s game over. And Linden Lab knows that.
>BTW, the reason why LL removed that researchers ethics page is because they left the permissions to IRB. IRB is much stricter than LL ever was.
That’s fine. And that’s how it should be. Linden Lab isn’t an educational institution, it is not accredited, and its Ph.Ds are not in education. They are not specialists on research. They are computer engineers. They should not be straying into this area that has its RL institutions and procedures.
>So why not leave it to people who do a better job, when they have to worry about other important stuff, like making sure the grid works (and we know how well that is going).
If, by analogy, you want to leave the matter of how chat should or shouldn’t be covered in SL, you can leave it to the ACLU, the Electronic Frontier Foundation and any number of civil rights attorneys. They are likely not to find anything libelous or tortious in a reporter from a blog asking some critical questions of people in a public brothel, then recording them on her blog.
>All I am saying that LL is trying to cover their ass in case of future lawsuits. And well they should. It is either privacy issues or copyright issues that are going to bring the metaverse down.
The lawsuit could ostensibly be made by those targets of exposure against this Honey Wendt. They can send a lawyer’s letter to her via LL if they like, but LL is not required to unilaterally, in this freelance manner, start discplining people and trying to chill the entire Sl blogosphere and critical media coverage of its often very controversial policies.
Prokofy Neva
May 14th, 2007
>They can’t publish a single word without proper clearance.
Thank God we’re not all researchers tied by the IRB or we would not have a free society, real or simulated.
Prokofy Neva
May 14th, 2007
I think they have outlawed sexual ageplay even among avatars who are run by humans over 18.
In any case – fine little piece of investigative journalism in that person’s blog.
I think that this chat log is exactly that: a fine little piece of investigative journalism. She approaches the people, asks questions, attempts to find facts. She doesn’t send a spy cam into their bedroom and publish their chat; she herself as a reporter approaches them and publishes her findings. It’s normal journalism. Done all the time.
I think a lot of people waving the “consent” issue about such situations are not only concerned about privacy; they are either academics who want a very rigid notion of consent as we’ve seen Defne invoke, or they are corporativists who want to concede the right of corporations uber alles to pwn everything on their servers — and connecting to their servers or about their servers.
I think that Cocoanut, if you ever wanted an official — or let’s hope unofficial! — read-out on the Linden attitude toward which ageplay they’ll allow — this is it! They are AGGRESSIVELY here insisting on the RIGHT of ageplayers to have privacy and ageplay without publication or interference!
Artemis Fate
May 14th, 2007
No threatening, abusive, harassing, causes tort, defamatory, vulgar, obscene, libelous, invasive of another’s privacy, hateful, or racially, ethnically or otherwise objectionable speech on 3rd party websites? Wow, this pretty much means the end of your career doesn’t it Prok? Strip all that stuff away from your writing and you pretty much just have the word “the”.
Wrestling Hulka
May 14th, 2007
Solution: In you profile write a disclaimer: “ALL CHAT IS LOGGED AND ABUSE WILL BE POSTED ON THIRD PARTY WEBSITES NOT AFFILIATED WITH SECOND LIFE OR LINDEN LABS. IF YOU DON’T WANT ME TO EXPOSE THE FACT YOU ARE AN AGEPLAYER, OR ACTIVELY ROLEPLAYING WITH THOSE WHO CLAIM TO BE UNDERAGE, AND OTHERWISE BREAKING THE LAW DO NOT INITIATE A CONVERSATION WITH ME OR ANSWER MY IMs TO YOU”.
I think that pretty much sums up bypassing SL’s TOS.
BOXCUTTER-THEORY
May 14th, 2007
Wake me up when the social science experiment is over so we can all go back to playing WoW.
Prokofy Neva
May 14th, 2007
Wow, this pretty much means the end of your career doesn’t it Prok? Strip all that stuff away from your writing and you pretty much just have the word “the”.
No, there’s nothing I write that “threatening, abusive, harassing, causes tort, defamatory, vulgar, obscene, libelous, invasive of another’s privacy, hateful, or racially, ethnically or otherwise objectionable speech”.
I do think that you and your friends at Second Citizen really need to quake in your boots, though.
Nacon
May 14th, 2007
Prok, did you even remember that any sexual minor activity are still illegal in USA? That’s why LL is taking up to power as a heroism against these kind of stuff… which has something to do SL anyway.
I don’t see how it’s a crime for LL to take action. Same for bunch of hippies at streets of Washington D.C. against wars.
Even I don’t see how it’s a crime for Superman to throw a huge chunk of land which is a property belongs to Lester off the planet.
Actually…. after I’ve read your report… you actually sounds like you WANT to support ageplay or any sexual minor fantasy crap.
So, I’m asking… wtf?
I’d give the blogger the credit to make a stand against that wanking crap and Prok can’t do stuff like that. (or won’t?)
Anyone who like to pretend minor getting fucked, even if they aren’t minor… need to be sent to mental hospital.
Meta Linden
May 14th, 2007
Prokofy, it would be great if you would actually reach out to *Honey Wendt* and get the rest of this story. Yes, I did extend my individual interpretation of our TOS as it is written past our guidelines for enforcement. I did so nicely at least, and certainly discussed it with other Lindens re:our policies. Yes, I apologized for it and expect to see an addendum on her blog.
I personally do not like to see *anyone* have their individual privacy rights invaded – not mine, not yours Prokofy (ref: your “I’m Done” post- note that what happened around YOUR privacy being invaded was wrong, but fully outside of our TOS enforcement also), not Honey Wendt either, and not even someone accused of something heinous. But at least I understand the limits of how we *enforce* our TOS better, after today.
Artemis Fate
May 15th, 2007
“I do think that you and your friends at Second Citizen really need to quake in your boots, though.”
Ahaha for a guy who so LOVES to broadly paint anyone slightly involved with something as whatever minor aspect he can discern of it, you might notice that I have a shocking 4 posts on Second Citizen, and my last activity was over a month ago.
So you’ve already fulfilled “libelous”, let’s see what else you can crack out in this short span of a story.
Artemis Fate
May 15th, 2007
While you, on the other hand I might add, has 1,359 posts on Second Citizen, and your last activity was today only about 12 hours ago.
So, it would seem that in terms of “Friends of Second Citizen” you are FAR more familiar with them than I am.
Gaius Goodliffe
May 15th, 2007
“That’s merely you take on it. It’s your moral concept. But it has no legal standing. And it’s not in the TOS. There is nothing in the TOS that says that LL reserves the right to monitor third-party sites about SL and discipline accounts based on that monitoring. Nothing whatsoever.”
There’s nothing in the TOS that says LL will *not* read third-party sites, either. And there’s absolutely no legal standing to say they don’t have the right to do so. None whatsoever. The TOS says posting chat logs is a violation. It doesn’t say anything about *where* they can’t be posted, and you have no basis for claiming it is in any way restricted to inside SL.
Eric Rice
May 15th, 2007
The notion of ‘no chat logging’ in the equivalent of a public chat room is absurd– private IMs, maayyyyybe group IMs- I’m cool with that. It can easily be written as a Term of use, and probably fall within the general good ethics of ‘Don’t post e-mail conversations’ that exists in blogging.
It’s kind of a PR mess that will get MORE attention to LL that they aren’t desiring, especially since it’s about the ageplay/underage/pedophile topic that’s the easiest target yet– all that aside from the Serious Business nature of ‘escorts’ discussing policy and procedure.
Would Linden Lab subpoena WordPress.com or any other blog service for an anonymous blog that contained a chat transcript? And what happens when it gets to the blogosphere, the ones that aren’t in Second Life?
Once it’s out there, it might as well be on Digg, Slashdot, Scoble and oh also, Google. Nothing dies in Google.
Let’s also not forget that the applications people are writing within SL to publish to the web (various stat programs, friend programs etc) have made the process of chat logging, data logging, scraping and real time publishing a living reality.
The can of worms has long since opened.
Petey
May 15th, 2007
While I agree with Prokofy that this shit is fair game to publish I do find it delightfully ironic that the same person who threatened me with libel for “google witch hunting” her is now defending the publication of private chatlogs, which I would contest are far more private than forum posts or websites in the Google index.
Wrestling Hulka
May 15th, 2007
Someone should create a website specifically for post chatlogs.
Eric Rice
May 15th, 2007
Heh, this is all over Twitter now. Awesome. I’m betting we’ll see a blog post from LL, posted late, and then comments will be closed (all the Business Blog Consultant/Conference types have noticed LL’s pattern in what not to do as a company blogging).
Seriously, watch.
Dr Who
May 15th, 2007
there is an update to this now, apparently Meta Linden messed up. He’s apologized to the blogger.
http://honeywendt.blogspot.com/2007/05/this-is-update-on-meta-linden.html
Prokofy Neva
May 15th, 2007
>While I agree with Prokofy that this shit is fair game to publish I do find it delightfully ironic that the same person who threatened me with libel for “google witch hunting” her is now defending the publication of private chatlogs, which I would contest are far more private than forum posts or websites in the Google index.
Of course it’s fair game to publish anything about me anyone wishes in the form of critical commentary. Indeed, I’m a public figure and Times v. Sullivan basically exempts public figures from the protections afforded a private individual. And there’s nothing libelous about a reporter’s conversation in which she asks pointed questions of avatars in Second Life, and they answer what appear to be stretched versions of the truth.
There’s nothing wrong about publishing chat about me, criticism of me, even hate speech about me if the server where you publish it allows it. But libelous statements about me are not allowed, and claims about my RL which are false in fact *are* libelous, far more serious and actionable than the claims of an avatar in SL, in fact, that can’t be tied to a real-life subject of a real-life libel suit.
The claims frequently made about me cobbled up from various people with a similar name to mine from the Internet, or various falsehoods spread by rumour mills, etc. are indeed in that category, and there’s nothing deliciously ironic about this in the slightest, except that “Petey”, an anonymous fucktard, thinks he can get away with unprincipled behaviour “just because”.
Prokofy Neva
May 15th, 2007
It’s good that Meta has apologized. But this “I’m a new Linden” stuff is sheer, unadulterated bullshit. Because this Linden is by her own admission A RESIDENT of some significant period, who was on the grid, owning a sim and a business, before she began a Linden. She knows EXACTLY what the rules are and she was zealously trying to bend them in her own direction abusing her Linden powers — something I’m seeing more and more lately from new Lindens and that is HIGHLY troubling. It lets me know not only that they have no proper training, it lets me know that they are in a climate of impunity where they are given a sense of power and arrogance from the Lindens surrounding them that they can “go after” people and situations they don’t like.
If you think this issue went away with this apology — guess again. The arrogance and confidence with which Meta pursued this, the intensity, the detail — that lets me know this is part of a “school of thought” among some Lindens that they were trying to float and get away with, more than likely.
Of course, we have no idea what they are up to with this but it’s part of a growing pattern of a sense of impunity.
Nacon
May 15th, 2007
Once again, you still sounds like you want to support minor sexual crap, Prok.
If you don’t, then shut up. Sure… it’s all about blogging some chatlog… but this IS about minor crap issue.
Oh whatever, you’re losing your mind anyway. Carry on with your rant.
Veronique Lalonde
May 15th, 2007
“The crackdown against a site outing ageplay activity…”
Isn’t this actually a crackdown against a violation of the TOS? Chat recordings are not public. Similar to what someone else mentioned, when I interview someone for a story, I ask them whether I can record the chat. If there is no permission, I do not have rights to that chat, either in world or outside.
I’ve been eavesdropped on. Believe me, it sucks.
If there is an issue, I wish people would stick to the issue, not get sidetracked by a different issue. It would also be nice if Prok would stick to facts and not the rantings of his fevered imagination, but I’m sure that’s too much to ask. I am *so* glad I’m not constantly bitter. Bad for the blood pressure. Aummmm!
Prokofy Neva
May 15th, 2007
>Prokofy, it would be great if you would actually reach out to *Honey Wendt* and get the rest of this story.
Um, guess what, “Meta”. Honey reached out to *me* to ask me for advice about this issue as I have written extensively about it, and I gave her everything I had on the TOS. She came to me with the story, I asked many questions about it, I followed it on her blog, and I saw the update. So all the reaching out that needed to be done to *Honey Wendt* got done.
I’m more than concerned — I’m furious as we all should be! — at your freelancing and self-aggrandizement. It’s totally unbecoming for a Linden and a person in power. You don’t get to free-lance around with the TOS, Meta.
Disciplinary actions must be taken through the proper channels, by those Lindens in charge of that system, with proper notification, and numbers, and a written trail within the SL communication system, not an informal IM. I thought you were supposed to crunch numbers, not peoples’ blogs.
Why are you on about this so? Do you know Honey from your previous life as a resident? Do you know these people? Do you have some personal or corporate reason to try to define out the borders of allowable ageplay?
> Yes, I did extend my individual interpretation of our TOS as it is written past our guidelines for enforcement. I did so nicely at least, and certainly discussed it with other Lindens re:our policies. Yes, I apologized for it and expect to see an addendum on her blog.
That’s great that you apologized. But you haven’t, really. You’ve implied that there isn’t a law, but merely “guidelines for enforcement” — that could be changed on a whim. You’ve put down an alarming new fact on the ground which is that in fact, in your view, and possibly in the view of more senior and wiser Lindens, there *isn’t* a notion within the TOS that you cannot police outside your servers.
But there is. The CS states explicitly regarding privacy that it relates to communications *within Second Life*. It doesn’t say “about Second Life” or “everywhere”. It says *in Second Life*. “In Second Life” isn’t the blogosphere.
Furthermore, several Lindens, including Robin Linden, have stated officially, as you may not be aware, that with the onset of Voice, they will not be able to police chat copying and distribution, obviously. At some point, this will have to be decriminalized.
In the part you referenced, by using the term “upload” and referencing *the service of Second Life* there is a reference explicitly to the context of Second Life — not the entire Internet.
>I personally do not like to see *anyone* have their individual privacy rights invaded – not mine, not yours Prokofy (ref: your “I’m Done” post- note that what happened around YOUR privacy being invaded was wrong, but fully outside of our TOS enforcement also)
No, Meta, you are fully, entirely, completely full of shit when you claim that the outing of my privacy wasn’t against your TOS. It most certainly was, and you know it, and it has nothing to do with third-party sites.
And…interesting that your ZEAL for going around policing privacy issues involving third-party sites went in THIS direction and didn’t, say, head on over to Second Citizen, hmmm? Are you a member there on your resident account?
Get your facts straight on this one, hon. You’re um “new”.
Nolan Nash outed my gender and other facts about my RL *on the Second Life forums* and Pathfinder and Jeska *sat on their hands and did nothing*. That was part of a pattern of unequal enforcement of the TOS. It was a crystal clear violation of the TOS, and later Pathfinder and other Lindens apologized for not enforcing it with regard to me, and Pathfinder put a crystal-clear interpreation on the forums: if it is not on the first life panel of the avatar, it is not fair game for SL, full stop. That means even if someone’s avatar is linked somehow, somewhere to a RL name, it is not fair game. I’m not aware that has been abandoned. But it is not enforced, and you know it.
Others published false statements about me *on the Linden forums and within Second Life* based on a googling of someone with a similar name, who was charged with plagiarism *on the LL forums* not somewhere else *in violation of the TOS* and NOTHING WAS DONE. Nothing. In fact, I was the one who was banned trying to restore my good name from the legions of fucktards that you all give a pass to on the forums. That was my deepest and gravest insight into the true nature of the Linden cult, and I have never forgotten it. You do not uphold the rule of law. You uphold the rule of code as law and your tribal powers to control it.
Furthermore, I’ve been treated to a slew of disclosure/harassment attacks in SL — INSIDE SL — regarding my picture, RL details — even my door in RL is distributed as a photo texture with my address! Effigies of me are made, and cards are passed with my precise address, phone number, etc. so that people can come and stalk me in RL — and do. The people who do this do not show up on the police blotter; they do not get removed from the People list for months. When they do, it’s for another offense.
So um, tell me about your “privacy policy” and your great concerns about “privacy,” Meta Linden. Tell me about them. Seriously. You have no friggin’ clue. It’s fake. There isn’t any enforcement of this policy whatsoever when it comes to people for whom certain Lindens just don’t feel like enforcing it. And when they do — as a cudgel and an axe to define their own lifestyle licentiousness — oh, then they do, as a matter of convenience.
Your zeal about this outing of an *avatar’s name* by Honey Wendt has never been matched by any zeal toward, oh, say, Second Citizen, a third-party site linked to your official Linden blog, in which my RL name, street address and phone number have been published with incitement to stalk me and harass me in RL, and with actual carrying out of that threat — and then minimizing it.
Seldom have I seen such hypocrisy in action as I have seen with Linden Lab on this issue of “privacy”.
>not Honey Wendt either, and not even someone accused of something heinous. But at least I understand the limits of how we *enforce* our TOS better, after today.
That’s not comforting one bit. Those limits were put today, but you yourself don’t buy it, other Lindens don’t buy it, and we see that at a whim, you might enforce it — or not. That’s how you are.
Prokofy Neva
May 15th, 2007
Nacon, your reading skills are severely lacking. Did you take all the ADD tablets today?
>Prok, did you even remember that any sexual minor activity are still illegal in USA? That’s why LL is taking up to power as a heroism against these kind of stuff… which has something to do SL anyway.
Of course I’m aware of that. The issue here isn’t involving actual real-life minors but adults, and that’s where LL has been fuzzy. I’m not for them being fuzzy on this whatsoever. I think they need to get rid of ageplay as an enabling environment for real child pornography. But the very reason that Meta could go after this blogger who feels the same way is that Linden Lab thinks that they need to define out the limits of licentiousness to include fantasy child ageplay between consenting adults in private.
Honey Wendy pointed out rather cogently that this was a group *advertising* in profiles, notecards, etc. They *solicited* which is how she found out about them and went after them to get a report about what they were up to.
And their profuse claims of ‘cleaning up’ lets us know they know what’s wrong.
>I don’t see how it’s a crime for LL to take action. Same for bunch of hippies at streets of Washington D.C. against wars.
Even I don’t see how it’s a crime for Superman to throw a huge chunk of land which is a property belongs to Lester off the planet.
*blinks*. Actually, I’m thinking you need not only the ADD tabs, but a round of Seroquel too. You are not making sense.
>Actually…. after I’ve read your report… you actually sounds like you WANT to support ageplay or any sexual minor fantasy crap.
I think you must have read it in a mirror, backwards.
Since young, weak minds like yours are so easily swayed, let’s go over it again?
I oppose ageplay as morally and legally and intellectually indefensible and reprehensible.
I don’t allow it in my rentals, not the publicizing of it, not the enactment of it, even if it involves “consenting adults”. No clubs or brothels or anything of that sort exists on my properties.
There is a limit to how much we can go around policing people in their private homes. The Lindens have evidently taken a stand that if something is not publicized, then they will leave it alone. I find that creepy, but if that’s their policy, we will have little recourse. I personally am not going to be picking up this cause, but others have, and Honey Wendt’s blog is a good example of something following up on a story and reporting it. I support what she did, and I do not believe the publication of a blogger’s chat, for the purpose to get to the bottom of the story of a TOS violation allegation and a clarification about a new policy, is “invading privacy”.
>So, I’m asking… wtf?
Medication time….
>I’d give the blogger the credit to make a stand against that wanking crap and Prok can’t do stuff like that. (or won’t?)
?
>Anyone who like to pretend minor getting fucked, even if they aren’t minor… need to be sent to mental hospital.
I don’t know if you have ever attempted to actually get someone committed to a mental hospital. In the U.S., in most states, it’s extraordinarily difficult. I think we can’t advocate the sending of people off to mental hospitals en masse, but we can condemn behaviour that we find reprehensible.
It’s Sodom and Gomorrah, and I guess, like Lot, we should not look back, or we will turn into a pillar of salt.
Prokofy Neva
May 15th, 2007
Oh. I understand what this is about now, having given Honey’s entire blog a thorough reading.
Just as I had thought. Score settling. Use of the Linden account to achieve what one could not achieve as a mere resident.
That’s wrong.
Lindens should not conceal their resident identity, Meta. Nor should they misuse their Linden accounts to harass people they’ve had disagreements with as residents.
Meta Linden
May 15th, 2007
It’s a serious topic, and one that will get tested and pushed to the limits constantly, especially as we face such emotional topics as age play and identity, and as what happens inside and outside of SL gets blurred further. With the existence of RSS readers within SL, and upcoming HTML-on-a-prim, or web-sourced-JPG as prim textures, then that which is published *outside*, becomes once again consumed inside. Do those fall under our jurisdiction, if the original source was from within SL? What if the web content was created purely for the purpose of publishing within SL? Already we have tech that allow us to directly twitter from within SL that publishes to the web. I predict that SL Identity will be tied to publishing content in external systems through technologies such as OpenID, and the published content will likely be fed in many instances from technologies originating in SL, and the documented outcomes will be published publicly on the web and verifiable back to SL sources.
With newer technologies it is also very easy to link multiple identities together – having one’s Alts “outed” is a sadly common occurence *and is a violation of privacy*.
Where then, shall we draw the line? How can we balance openness of the platform with the need to protect individuals’ right to privacy? When someone’s personal information- whether it be their favourite colour, preference for sushi above mexican, sexual preferences, RL gender, or address information gets disclosed, we should ALL be worried, and participate in the conversation and help build the new better vision of real privacy. What happened with Prokofy is a terrible example of this, and as he points out, one that led to further clarity of overall SL policies. I intend to work with everyone- both inside and outside of LL to help keep this clarity and transparency of what can be done, hopefully *before* it leads to more stalking and harassment.
I appreciate that there is such thoughtful conversation happening about the topic. Honey Wendt was *very* curteous and friendly in discussing a very heated subject (Thank You!), and I’m glad this conversation is getting the attention it deserves. I look forward to discussing it more- privacy and identity are ALL of our concern, regardless of role – Linden, Resident, Dissident, or concerned reader.
Prokofy Neva
May 15th, 2007
Meta, you should line up your ducks there at the Lab.
Your friend Daniel Linden is already explaining in the video made of him at Stanford that the concept of disclosure as an offense will have to be ditched. That’s the gist of what he is saying.
Let me restate the point, Meta:
“Lindens should not conceal their resident identity, Meta. Nor should they misuse their Linden accounts to harass people they’ve had disagreements with as residents.”
I don’t believe that once a resident takes office as a government official, which is how I construe the role of Linden Lab, that they get to keep crying “privacy”.
And the reason is because real conflicts of interest emerge — as did right here, and right now, as you are fully aware.
Metrics UnLinden
May 15th, 2007
Super-Sized Ego Linden, Our Beloved Meta.
These things you say are very complicated. How do you propose Linden Labs should sheriff the entire World Wide Web when you guys have admittedly suggested that you can NOT police 6MIL+ residents when your superiors closed Live Help?
humanoid
May 15th, 2007
LL’s attempt to censor content within SL strikes me as very retro. Prodigy and AOL did it all the time before the web gave people a thousand alternatives to their proprietary version of an online community. The same thing will happen to networked 3d environments- it’s only a question of time.
Wrestling Hulka
May 15th, 2007
Who is Meta Linden?
More….. I feel reluctant to post this for reasons you soon find out. The reason why I am going ahead with it is because I find the actions of this Linden Labs employee to be deplorable. She is using her admin powers to settle personal grudges and only when the residents wouldn’t step down from the fight did she retract. That should not be a way for a Linden Labs employee to act and I do hope she steps down.
When Meta Linden joined Linden Labs a friend of mine mentioned in passing that one of her friends became a staff member. She never told me which Linden it was, but I always assumed it was Meta because of the timing.
Fast forward to yesterday and the whole Meta Linden/Ageplay/Censorship/Honey Wendt drama that played out on Wendt’s blog and SLHerald. I recalled the name Meta Linden and began thinking of every single person who I might have met with my unnamed friend. I didn’t want to outright ask my friend because that would violate any friendship they have.
While compiling a list with another mutual friend there were a couple of names that stood out. One was an owner of a successful BDSM mall, and the other was Super Calamari.
Read more: http://wrestlinghulka.com/post/1931592
Dr Who
May 15th, 2007
Re: http://wrestlinghulka.com/post/1931592
this is getting more and more interesting. if that isn’t abuse i don’t know what is. i do hope this linden gets fired asap. how not to abuse power?
i can see how this happen.. ms. wendt was mistakenly invited to a conversation that involved this linden and they were talking about taking over the world (she doesnt go into detail). next he reads about it on her blog and fums and fums..
http://honeywendt.blogspot.com/2007/05/secret-gathering-of-virtual-dykes.html
there posing as cala the linden yesterday morning says he’s ar’ed the blogger, then he logs in SL and threats the blogger with TOS over a totally different story, thinking the blogger would automatically do his bidding cuz he was big bad linden. but sadly for him the blogger did not. then he comes and apologizes to it all.
but the motive remains, he lied to us in his initial threat, he said the whole thing was due to an ar by the child porn people who didn’t like their names on wendt’s blog. but the fact was, it was him the whole time, he was made a secret super sensitive conference of him was overheard by wendt..
then he launched the vendetta
dear god… if this type of kid remains as a linden i dunno whats going to happen to second life.
wendt, i think you should ask linden labs why exactly this happened and have them give you assurance that it would not happen again.
dr. who
ps: meta linden what was the super secret virtual dyke conference about?! seriously where you guys planning of making platform shoes a fashion or something?!
TJ Ay
May 15th, 2007
@Prok: “I was then informed that this person was going to “go get Torley” who would …… Not the first person to feel they have a Linden in their pocket.”
Hehehehe, I can do one better, I got someone who told me that Phil L. would see into the issue we had, smile. Still waiting, always wanted to talk to him, smile.
TJ Ay
at “Kreiss” and “Ebersberg” with the Salsa Club “Salsa en Cielo”
Prokofy Neva
May 15th, 2007
People who get all mushy and sentimental about “Lindens are people, too” and “they get to have their private lives” — or who get even self-righteous, indignant and even thuggish absolutely fail to impress me.
I do not shed a tear nor get all indignant about GASP these Lindens with their outed privacy where GASP they can’t have a minute’s peace.
Why?
Because it’s called “conflict of interest,” boys and girls.
When you are elected or appointed to public office, you have to leave the private sector. The very reason we can get all indignant about Dick Cheney and Haliburton is because it represents a commingling of public and private sectors that we find suspect and event corrupt in a democratic and open society.
It’s not about leaving Lindens alone to have private lives. They can always make an alt and cyber away like to their hearts’ content.
It’s about the *business* and more important — *political* — connections between their Linden and resident personas.
The very reason I have fussed about this for two years now, even making it the chief plank of our meeting with Philip in June 2005, was that abuses occur rampantly. Lindens help out their friends. They pump their interests, their businesses, they get them jobs, connections — well, um, feting is the word I used to cover it all.
The chief reason I’ve always campaigned for the overt linkage of Lindesidents is because I wanted to avoid the situation where they settle scores. As settle they do! And in this case, there is a really glaring case of a score-settling that’s just plain wrong, no matter how you parse the content or the backgrounds.
You don’t use a Linden account to get somebody to change their behaviour, remove content, under threat of banning, that you couldn’t achieve with your ordinary resident account.
That’s just misusing your Linden powers for evil, not good.
What’s scary is that Meta, speaking to me at length about this in world, is as convinced as ever — chillingly — that she’s in the right, that she didn’t threaten or pressure anybody, that it was all “nice”, that she has a right to privacy (we’d had that convo before at her office hour) and that we should basically screw off or we’d be guilty of hate attacks.
Wrong, wrong, wrong.
(Remember how Hiro Pendragon threatened he’d get me banned for mentioning the connection between Ben Linden and Buhbuhcah Fairchild? (Ben later outed himself after having long dark nights of the soul about it.)
Prokofy Neva
May 15th, 2007
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conflict_of_interest
http://usinfo.state.gov/journals/itdhr/0800/ijde/vaughn.htm
http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/news.aspx?id=15000
Prokofy Neva
May 15th, 2007
Dr. Who.
Our goal here is not to get this Linden fired. I don’t think there are grounds for firing. But she needs to be reined in and they all need to get a big talking-to from the grown-ups at the Lab that they need to cut out this shit.
The Lindens also need to publish the entire list of Linden staff and their inworld avatar resident accounts in the wiki and end the secrecy, manipulation, threats, and innuendos and cease this glaring absence of a lack of conflict of interest policy. They need to grow up. They need to stop getting the fangirlz and fanboyz to do weepy gushy sentimental rants about how Lindens need their privacy. They don’t “need” their privacy. If they want privacy, they “need” to not become Lindens! Simple solution there!
Once you decide to go work for the centralized federal government equivalent — the Lab — you forfeit a degree of privacy known to all public figures in RL. You don’t whine about it and keep the media away. It’s part of the job. You leave the private sector. Go back to it at the end of your tour of duty. Do not seek to hide and fail to disclosure your interests.
Our goal here is to get these friggin Lindens to make standards for personnel behaviour, a code of conduct, that they promulgate, enforce, and stick to.
They need to eliminate this constant perception of a conflict of interest. Jeska posing for Flipper. Shaun DJing for whomever. Chadrick giving his little pals a pass when they grief. The whole damn thing. They need to end the actual, and the perceived, conflicts of interest.
I don’t think we have any evidence that this resident account of Meta’s was at this dyke conference. I don’t see that at issue at all, so don’t “go there”. I think it’s a more generic issue, of fervent, zealous politkorreknost’ as we call it in Russian.
The desire to take this whole fucking hippie utopian belief system that the Lindens are flogging, and that they have some of their newer and younger employees really zealously enforcing, and force it on people under threat of banning is WRONG.
Wrestling Hulka
May 15th, 2007
I screwed up. I shouldn’t have connected the dots here. I retract the statement I made about wanting Meta to lose her job. I was only saying that because I was angry and upset that a Linden Labs employee was seemingly siding with ageplayers. I don’t want to project my RL to this issue, but I’m militantly against those who pretend or really do harm children in sexual or nonsexual ways. It is sick and they deserve the harshest penalty the law can give them. In rereading Meta’s conversation with Honey I was able to get a better understanding of what she meant. Her tact may have been wrong, but I believe what she was doing was trying to protect her own rights as a resident and a person.
After talking with her I felt like she knew the issue escalated the wrong way. And Meta, I know I’ve said sorry to you about a million times already, but I just wanted to say sorry publicaly. It was a dumb thing for me to do. I shouldn’t have outed your resident name. I was doing it without any regards of harm I might be causing you and your friends. I crossed the line of my own morals and curiosity got the best of me.
I believe we all are on the same side of the issue here. Prokofy, Honey, Meta, and the rest of us. And once the venom for each side wears off, hopefully we will realize that common sense can prevail.
mootykips
May 15th, 2007
i’ve been to yongchon, hell all of PN has, and they have no CP or anything like that there.
Infected
May 15th, 2007
Mooty, I went this morning, and there were 3 ‘child prostitutes’ offering their goods. In addition a ‘small boy’ called FritzFranz Fride turned up. He had a location in the ‘Picks’ section of his profile which is not findable under search. The image depicting this place is of a seminaked young teen boy, in an obvious ‘erotic’ pose. The location itself is owned by a sexual ageplayer. It is a small house. Downstairs there is a non-sexual picture of a boy biting his fingernails, upstairs there are poseballs entitled ‘fuck’, ‘screw on one knee’, and ‘pain’. To summarize, Yongchon is full of ‘child prostitutes’ and their punters. It is fucking obvious what goes on there.
Prokofy Neva
May 15th, 2007
Wrestling, I’m confused about this, truly.
What possible harm can it cause Meta and her friends if her identity as a resident is linked to her Linden account?
Only if this Linden begins to appear in public meetings or on TV or something does it become some kind of issue for them as their RL person — and we don’t have Meta Linden’s RL name nor do we seek it nor is it relevant to this discussion.
You don’t get to invoke the threat of putative harm in an emotionally blackmailing way to gain protection and absolution for your misdeeds as a Linden misuing powers, I’m sorry.
That dog just won’t hunt.
I don’t care WHAT Meta’s residents’ av’s issues are: she doesn’t get to work them out and intimidate people on their blogs like that using Linden powers — full stop. And to imply that if she is corrected and outed that somehow you bring harm to her or her friends is just plain sick — it’s emotionally manipulative, blackmailing, and wrong. I really find that LOW.
Meta tried that with me, and I’m not buying — no sale. You do not get to take your concerns — and I don’t care WHAT they are — and inflict them on people on their blogs by treatening them with abuse reports to take down content.
Try to look at the larger issues here, Wrestling.
Prokofy Neva
May 15th, 2007
>I believe what she was doing was trying to protect her own rights as a resident and a person.
No. You don’t protect YOUR rights by inflicting WRONGS on other people. You don’t bully them into refraining from critical commentary on their blog — or any kind of commentary at all. It’s wrong. It’s emotionally sick and manipulative. Seriously, this can’t fly.
People with opposite genders deserve their privacy. Linden Lab doesn’t do an awful lot to ensure it, but it does have a policy and one should invoke it.
That is completely unrelated, however, as to whether Lindens get to fly around and beat on blogs for what they say.
Prokofy Neva
May 15th, 2007
>I have a shocking 4 posts on Second Citizen, and my last activity was over a month ago.
That’s all it takes. Well, if they are insufficient, hey, let’s work with your posts on the Herald then, hon.