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.
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.
P.S. are you male or female in real, BTW?
mootykips
May 15th, 2007
infected: i meant “child pornography” or actual RL images of child abuse/sexual misconduct such as the germans are alleging. to my knowledge, there are none.
Meta Linden
May 15th, 2007
One last comment I’ll add here, given what’s already happened. I, obviously, am Cala – very out transgender resident and roleplay sim owner (yay open source CCS, go Suzanna!). I am a human person with my own perspectives, as well as a responsible new employee of Linden Lab. I have some obvious reasons for strongly supporting personal privacy. Yes, I have been physically bashed multiple times for who I am- I don’t raise this for pity, it’s a valid reason for why I deserve privacy. I joined Linden Lab as an excited resident, thanks to Phillip’s well-stated plea on the blog and in the townhalls, because I have a skillset that’s been sorely needed, and because I’m excited to make the grid a better place- exactly the same fervor I’ve seen from all of you. This is why I and many of my peers follow all of your blogs, intently read your responses to our blog posts, and participate in the discussions. We really are listening, and trying our best to interactively discuss, and get the discussions to be better and more productive.
We are working hard to make the grid better. This is harder to do as the system gets more complex and as more attention falls apon us, and the system will have to change to accomodate. It is infinitely more complex because what we make is a New Life – and I sincerely believe it is a Better Life, and this makes everyone very passionate about the topic. I encourage other passionate residents to apply- we really need your help- no matter your personal background, as long as you can help work toward the *Greater* good.
The Grid is made up of people, and so is Linden Lab. Make no mistake, no matter how many servers we add, it is the needs of our people that need to be met, and there is no such thing as concensus at this scale, particularly with an international audience.
Even the Lindens are made up of People, humans who are also passionate about the grid and have ideas on how best to meet that need. We do best when we *participate* in these discussions and honestly listen, and learn, and change. I learned a lot today. I look forward to learning more tomorrow… and much further on. No matter how hard the criticism comes.
Even if my outing results in more SL grief (sim-crashes, thanks, I’ve already had plenty, and today will just exacerbate things via attacks from the PNs) or even more physical attacks to me from people who will link my RL identity with Cala- the fact that it only took an hour to get Cala linked to my Linden av only illustrates my point on how easy it is to get outed- it is still worth it to be out and direct and honest and communicate directly.
Peace,
-Meta / Cala.
Hazim Gazov
May 15th, 2007
This story is an obvious coverup for the FACT that Prokofy Neva eats babies. I saw her. Wondering where your prim baby went? Ask old garbage disposal over there, while I continue to be a gook.
Infected
May 15th, 2007
Mooty
The German story talks about how once the paedophiles have entered SL, and networked with eachother, they use SL as a medium to share RL child porn. SL facilitates the networking of like-minded individuals, in this case, paedophiles.
darkfoxx
May 15th, 2007
Funny, how all those people ‘fighting’ for this blogger’s ‘freedom’ to post these
conversations, we cheering oh so hard when the freedom of another group of residents got
partially chipped away.
I guess that freedom is only worth fighting for if one’s own freedoms, or freedoms of those
one shares an opinion with, are in danger. Who cares about the freedom of those one dislikes
for whatever reasons?
Wasn’t there a word for this? Hypocracy it was, I believe…
Edit: Funny? no. Sad is a better word.
Prokofy Neva
May 15th, 2007
Meta Linden,
I’m sorry, but your post is self-serving and cloying. This oft-cited mantra of “Lindens are only human” just doesn’t fly when you are uncovered again and again not in GASP having an alt with some kind of “lifestyle” or “personality” but GASP in having some *conflict of interest*. Let’s not distract from the main point here, shall we?
I gather you are trying to imply, Meta, that because you have an original resident avatar who is transgendered, or reflects an actual transgendered status in RL, you feel that if this fact is somehow linked to you real-life persona as an employee of Linden Lab now, that will lead to more physical attacks on you. You let us know that in the past, your RL person has suffered physical attacks and you imply that somehow connecting an avatar to a real person will increase your exposure.
Only you can judge the vulnerability to attacks, of course, and one can only sympathize — but wait a minute. Why are we now dragged into THAT discourse and a way from the very urgent issue of your attempt to chill discussion on third-party sites, in violation of even LL’s existing practice and policy?
Huh? Sorry, but I’m not getting this. I’m quite ready to sympathize with anybody’s physical attacks and virtual attacks — I’ve suffered them myself. But I don’t think that gives them a free pass to abuse others, or exempt themselves from criticism. And I don’t think you can use that situation, as bad as it is, as a way to maneuver people into behaving in such a way as you wish. It’s controlling, and frankly, alarming that you think you can get away with that.
Once hired by Linden Lab, you made a female avatar. That is, the avatar you happened to be was actually in the form of a spider last time I saw you, but on your profile inworld, it shows a woman. Your co-workers and anyone coming to the Lab, and anyone meeting you at something like a trade show or SLCC, however, would obviously put together the difference in genders between your avatar and your RL self, like Torley Linden. And with Voice coming, and with Lindens likely expected to eat their own dog food and show the team rah-rah spirit on Voice, you would have had to use Voice in your office hours. So what, exactly was your plan there? To keep typing forever? To never go to any meetings outside the Lab?
If the concept of transgender in SL was something that you wanted to play out, having no reference at all to a RL gender, sure, I can understand that. People do that all the time. That’s what you’re crusading about when you go banging on Honey’s blog. But…Super Calimari’s profile not only describes her as female and transgendered, it makes reference to her RL gender on the first life profile. So…there’s no secret here on that avatar regarding gender. And…therefore I’m seriously not getting what it is you’re trying to express with all this “issue” of linking a female Linden avatar with a female transgendered resident avatar. You were trying to have the totally female effect on the Linden avatar rather than the resident avatar?
Mind you, I don’t insist on any accuration or clarity about gender expression; unlike Kendra Bancroft, I’m not on the Central Committee of the Gender Gestapo. So do whatever the hell you want. Just don’t use that as a shtick to get away with banging on third-party blogs. It’s wrong.
Whatever your need for whatever kind of gender expression does NOT — repeat NOT! — entitle you go on politically-correct crusades against other residents on their blogs. Not as Cala. And not as Meta. Especially not as Meta! Especially when Cala threatens to get somebody banned and warns them with ARs and gets no response — and then comes back to REALLY make sure it happens as Meta! That’s just plain WRONG, and you cannot use any RL suffering you’ve experienced to distract from that.
The implication in the first post by Cala on Honey’s blog is that Honey’s done something wrong in writing about this confab of drag queens worried about Voice. Yet she doesn’t name them. They aren’t outed. Naturally it’s kind of nasty that she implies she *could* out them — and naturally we understand that Honey herself is no accidental teleporter and is an alt with some kind of her-story herself. No matter. It’s an innocent enough gossip column of the sort we see thousands around SL. Your choice of THAT blog to go banging on when there are far worse hate crimes in the blogosphere and inworld is troubling, to say the least.
Then there’s the crusade about protecting the rights of the age players to go on simulating child pornography. Sorry, but Honey interviewed them as a blogger at a public brothel that was *advertised in notecards*. She didn’t cam in or spy-bot chat out of their bedrooms. She confronted them with a violation of LL policy *which they admitted and claimed to be cleaning up* and outed them as not really doing that. And…you role is *what* exactly here? Trying to extend out the boundaries of ageplayers and insist that you as Crusading Lifestyle Linden can guarantee them privacy for their questionable and possibly even unlawful actions??? I’m just not getting it.
At a time when Lindens in fact are trying to establish the boundaries for what is NOT acceptable, for you to be flying around to blogs and bashing people and trying to extend the limits for what IS acceptable expectation for privacy is odd to say the least. Knock if off. You have no business doing that.
Finally, wrapping this entire enchilada up in a cloying layer of “better worldism” is over the top. Nothing about arrogating oneself the power of Linden vigilantism is “better”. Nothing at all. Don’t sugar-coat it. Don’t play the victim. Don’t pretend you’re new. Don’t pretend this is some lovely learning experience that we can all crow about and hold hands and sing Kumbayah about and have interesting little discussions about.
You were caught misusing Linden powers and people pushed back. You thought you’d *force* them to be politically correct in your cramped notion of the TOS and that you could use *the threat of banning* to get them to change their behaviour.
Nothing nice WHATSOEVER about that Meta Cala. Nothing. Whatsoever.
>It is infinitely more complex because what we make is a New Life – and I sincerely believe it is a Better Life, and this makes everyone very passionate about the topic. I encourage other passionate residents to apply- we really need your help- no matter your personal background, as long as you can help work toward the *Greater* good.
When I see this kind of gobbledy-gook, I really vomit. Leave aside the inane utopianist treacle. It implies that people can be passionate and contribute *only* if they work for the “Greater good” — whatever the hell THAT is and however gets to define it — bleh.
Finally, Meta I can only say: get a grip. You live in San Francisco, one of the most liberal and tolerant cities of the world known for their protection of GLBT rights. You have a high-paying job with a supporting employer surrounded by Love Machine tactics that if anything go too far to boost your easily-distended ego. Knock it off with the victimology, please, it’s not persuasive — many people have it far worse than you. To try to invoke as a form of emotional blackmail over the citizens of Second Life that if they connect the dots between your avatars that they open you up to physical attack — and therefore have to shut up on their blogs!!! — is just manipulative and misleading.
Prokofy Neva
May 15th, 2007
>Wasn’t there a word for this? Hypocracy it was, I believe…
Edit: Funny? no. Sad is a better word.
Freedom for what? To violate a policy of Linden Lab’s to advertise ageplay? These avatars had notecards they were distributing and profiles advertising their services as underage prostitutes. Why do they get to scream privacy and freedom for that?
Prokofy Neva
May 15th, 2007
>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.
No Gaius, you are wrong. The language of the Community Standards states very clearly: *in* Second Life. Their policy statements to date have backed this up. And, most to the point, their jurisprudence backs it up — they have never prosecuted anyone for third-party site speech by taking action against the account inworld.
darkfoxx
May 15th, 2007
No Prok.
First, LL partly took away the freedom of a particular group of residents by making the advertisement of sexual ageplay against TOS, and then made sexual ageplay itself against TOS.
Everyone cheered.
Now, in this particular case, everyone is yelling
“ZOMG our freedoms!”
THAT is what I call hypocracy.
I believe in freedom for EVERYONE
Infected
May 15th, 2007
darkfoxx,
‘Hypocracy’ is not a word.
Prokofy Neva
May 15th, 2007
No Prok.
First, LL partly took away the freedom of a particular group of residents by making the advertisement of sexual ageplay against TOS, and then made sexual ageplay itself against TOS.
1. Real life made “ageplay” — child pornography and sex with minors “against the TOS” — illegal.
2. Linden Lab was compelled to give into the reality of RL, as RL investigators from various countries came on the scene to poke around.
3. Linden Lab then evolved a form of CYA called “no advertising” but “we won’t cam into your homes”.
4. Outraged that the licentious hippies were once again going over the top with what is contrary to pretty much any real-life community standard, people began to push on the issue of why the Lindens were looking the other way even on obvious advertising of simulated child escorts.
>Everyone cheered.
>Now, in this particular case, everyone is yelling
“ZOMG our freedoms!”
Absolutely. Because it is about our freedoms, being on a third-party blog. What’s in SL itself, we have less cause to exact demands from SL about, but when it comes to other sites, and their repercussions against people inworld for what they do outside their jurisdiction, we have grave cause to complain.
>THAT is what I call hypocracy.
I believe in freedom for EVERYONE
Basically, your beef isn’t with “hypocrites” in Second Life; your beef is with RL media and RL police representing RL communities who are outraged at the spectacle of ageplay in Second Life. So…good luck with convincing them about your ideas.
darkfoxx
May 15th, 2007
No Prok. wrong again.
My beef *IS* with hypocrites. And if this were not about ageplay, but about anything other, let’s call Gor for example, or guns in SL, I would still be fighting for freedom for them. My personal opinion about them does not matter, only thing that matters is that everyone on the entire grid is given the same freedom of expression as anyone else.
Don’t try to read betwen my lines, I don’t type there.
Prokofy Neva
May 15th, 2007
What you’re going to have to expect, darkfoxx, is that you and all the lifestyles don’t get a pass. Once the Lindens open up SL to media and scrutiny from real life communities, people are going to express what they are going to express. It’s often going to be disgust and revulsion. I’d agree with them there. You’ve going to have to face the condemnation on moral grounds, if not the criminal prosecution in some states and countries. Linden Lab can’t go on protecting you from that. Nothing hypocritical about it. It’s just the reality of real life.
Fight for freedom all you wish, everybody defines it differently, but even the First Amendment Supreme Court decisions don’t have endless open interpretations, as they admit restrictions like “incitement of imminent action”.
It’s helpful to remember that the European Court of Human Rights ruled against a case involving BDSM advocates that even when consent is alleged to be involved, bodily harm and torture are still bodily harm and tortune by definition under the law and still a crime. That may fly against your notions of freedom. But it flies against other people’s notions of freedom that you’d get to inflict an inversion of meaning on them and expand it out to a society based on coercion.
Pie Psaltery
May 15th, 2007
Let the Witch Hunts begin.
Defne Demar
May 15th, 2007
BTW, since you guys are doing a hell of a good job in publishing these chatlogs on the Internet, accessible to everyone, I (and others I am sure) am able to use these materials freely in my (our) work, without any strings and consent forms, as they are no longer private. So you (all of you who are blogging) are clearing a bunch of stuff for me (us). I can safely say that 70% of my field work on SL was conducted outside the metaverse. The rest were interviews… But it is a tricky business. How can you keep what is in when the platform is merged with bunch of tools that connect you to the outside. Impossible.
cahlkboard
May 15th, 2007
Wow. Anti ageplayers suddenly believe in the First Amendment, some even citing firstamendmentcenter.org! Did they now realize what free speech actually means (protecting even the most repulsive speech)? Oh no, wait. They just believe in their own version of free speech-the one that protects only their speech and bans whatever offends them. It’s not the American version that overturned a ban on “virtual” child ponorgraphy in the first place on free speech grounds:
http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/speech/internet/topic.aspx?topic=virtual_childporn
And it’s also sad to see that some people still seem to think that SL avatars can qualify as “child pornography”, given that no child exists and SL can’t be mistaken for reality as the actual definition of child pornography requires.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00002256—-000-.html
Nacon
May 15th, 2007
Prok said “Nacon, your reading skills are severely lacking. Did you take all the ADD tablets today?”
Yes, all of your tablets in your bathroom cabinet.
(I don’t do drugs, idiot.)
Prok said ” *blinks*. Actually, I’m thinking you need not only the ADD tabs, but a round of Seroquel too. You are not making sense.”
Of course it’s not making any sense, you need to get outside more often. You have been missing out a lot. Ah screw it, you already wasted your life.
Prok said “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 said it sounds like it… meaning it gave me an idea what you’re going with it. Your post “swayed” me in that direction, of course.
Prok said “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.”
Anyone can do it behind your back easily.
Really? Are you 100% sure?
Prok said “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”. ”
Oh REALLLLLLLLY? Interesting you say that. There’s a lot of questions about your action in “invading privacy” with all the blogging and Herald reports you have done in the past. Good luck looking back and deleting them all in time.
Prok said “?”
Thought so.
Prok said “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.”
Funny how you actually commented about my “need to be sent to mental hospital” statement. Meaning it does make you want to say something about that.
(no worry, you won’t understand the point of that anyway. Carry on with more of your rant. ….I mean posts.)
Lorelei Patel
May 15th, 2007
Prokofy: “P.S. are you male or female in real, BTW?
Posted by: Prokofy Neva | May 15, 2007 at 05:24 AM ”
Ahem?
Didn’t you get medieval on someone for asking something very similar a few months back?
Anonymous
May 15th, 2007
Oh Prokky.
Isn’t it Prok that thinks SL is a part of RL?
Yes, I think so.
So Prokky, go and try and record someone’s RL phone call with you, then publish it without their permission and see if you get away with it when that person hauls your ass into court.
SL=RL when it suits Prok’s needs, but only then apparently.
That’s ok, because the day is coming when IM’s will be afforded the same protection as phone calls, no matter what the medium, so enjoy it while it lasts, haters.
Mark
May 15th, 2007
That was my comment above btw, and yes Lorelei, you have it exactly right.
But the truth has never fazed Prok before, as he yet again illustrates above by accusing Nash of outing his RL gender. This is untrue, I read the original post (found it from a link Prok himself supplied, so ironically, he himself gave me the info I needed to determine if he was stretching the truth about his “outing” by Nash, and lo, he is), and Nash simply indicates that he knows real life info about Prok, including name and gender, but never actually publically stated either. Spin , spin, spin.
Cocoanut Koala
May 15th, 2007
The real life media needs to catch on to the fact that LL employees have secret alts.
They need to expose the fact that LL employees are not required to divulge their alts, and are allowed to profit under secret alts from businesses of their own on the platform they run, in addition to using their alts to threaten and harass other residents in SL.
This corrupt system needs full exposure in the media.
LL can protect itself by publishing the names of all their employees’ alts, and requiring any employee who refuses to publish an alt’s name to terminate that alt.
coco
Dr. Benjamin Spock PhD, BFD, STFU/GBTW
May 15th, 2007
I try to read every article I find that has the words LINDEN and CRACK in the headline.
Ethan Schuman
May 15th, 2007
You know, I might just be crazy with my wits being dulled from all the military articles, but am I the only one who sees Prokofy sensationalizing and dramatizing what, at its base, is a simple issue of a trainee new on the job screwing up? Then on top of that, there are his attempts to stir controversy and conflict through his comment posts (in which he goes so far as to bring the trainee in question’s sexuality into the fray, which is a total red herring) to cover a rather weak and overextended “news” article which is 90% opinion and catch phrases. Sure, it may seem like “ZOMG LL IS OUT TO GET US!!! TEH REDCOATS R COMING!!!”, but what this issue really boils down to is a new employee’s misinterpretation of something they were likely taught at an orientation, an attempt to action when the employee saw something amiss, and then a prompt and proper apology when the trainee realized they were in the wrong. There is no conspiracy here, much as Prok might want you to believe there is to compensate for his poorly written article. This is a simple mistake made by a normal person, turned into an outright rantfest simply because it’s a slow news day.
Prokofy Neva
May 15th, 2007
>a simple issue of a trainee new on the job screwing up? Then on top of that, there are his attempts to stir controversy and conflict through his comment posts (in which he goes so far as to bring the trainee in question’s sexuality into the fray, which is a total red herring) to cover a rather weak and overextended “news” article which is 90% opinion and catch phrases’
Um, sorry, but no. This is not about a “trainee new on the job” when it comes to this issue because the Linden in question has already been in Second Life as a resident and already is very familiar with the rules. It’s just a classic case of a resident angling to become a Linden and then once they have power, using it to get what they want, which they couldn’t as a resident. I didn’t bring this Linden’s sexuality into the story — they brought it in themselves by their action. And it’s not a red herring when it formed the motivation for the intial attack on Honey’s blog and attempts to AR her and get her to remove commentary. I hardly agree that this story is “90 percent opinion”: it’s 100 percent news of the oldest story in the book: conflict of interest, and how someone in public office uses their power for a private agenda.
You can’t claim that someone in SL as a resident for quite some time doesn’t understand it about third-party blogs and disclosure. Indeed they do. It’s just that they wished to push the envelope and indeed succeeded in doing this. The apology came only after the misdeed was exposed — obviously this Linden believed the resident they threatened would simply roll over and do what they wanted and it was only exposure that brought the “apology”.
It’s not a slow news day whatsoever when a story that involves actually catching a Linden at what we all know they do comes along. As Cocoanut indicated, the issue of the Linden and then resident alts has been a recurring problem in SL and they need to clean it up by ending the secrecy surrounding it and tightening up the conflict of interest policies.
Prokofy Neva
May 15th, 2007
>Prokky, go and try and record someone’s RL phone call with you, then publish it without their permission and see if you get away with it when that person hauls your ass into court.
SL=RL when it suits Prok’s needs, but only then apparently.
That’s ok, because the day is coming when IM’s will be afforded the same protection as phone calls, no matter what the medium, so enjoy it while it lasts, haters.
A bloggers’ conversation with people in public chat, in an advertised brothel, is not a “phone conversation” as much as you try to strain the metaphor. If anything, the protection of IMs and chat is eroding in SL, not strengthening, as the onset of Voice coming makes it harder for the Lindens to claim the policing of conversation and criminalizing of the dissemination of chat.
Prokofy Neva
May 15th, 2007
>But the truth has never fazed Prok before, as he yet again illustrates above by accusing Nash of outing his RL gender. This is untrue, I read the original post (found it from a link Prok himself supplied, so ironically, he himself gave me the info I needed to determine if he was stretching the truth about his “outing” by Nash, and lo, he is), and Nash simply indicates that he knows real life info about Prok, including name and gender, but never actually publically stated either. Spin , spin, spin.
Nice try at trying to re-write history, Mark. What an asshole.
Everyone knows that Nolan first blackmailed in private messages on the forums messaging system, calling me by my RL name so as to let me know that he knew my RL information including my gender.
To defuse his obvious blackmail attempt which was about intimidating me into silence on the forums and ending my criticism of the FIC, I got on the forums and posted a comment called “Your RL Private Information”.
In this thread, Nolan got on and revealed my gender and signalled to everyone that they could email him for further information. That sat there for days, Lindens did not remove it and did nothing, and many *did* email Nolan and collect links, some of which were to the wrong RL person. Nolan does not denies it. Indeed, he even posted “an apology” for it.
Finally Pathfinder came on and *removed the references to my gender*. That is why it is not there now. Everyone knows this.
The story can be read here:
http://secondthoughts.typepad.com/second_thoughts/2005/07/my_socalled_sec.html
Prokofy Neva
May 15th, 2007
Prokofy: “P.S. are you male or female in real, BTW?
Posted by: Prokofy Neva | May 15, 2007 at 05:24 AM ”
Ahem?
Didn’t you get medieval on someone for asking something very similar a few months back?
Sure did. And will again in a heartbeat. And in Artemis’ case, as she has been trolling and baiting me for years in the most vicious way, it suddenly occurred to me out of the blue that I needed to ask that particular question, and fight fire with fire.
Why? It suddenly occurred to me that Artemis could be a real-life male with a female avatar. Not that it matters. I could care less. And I’m not interested in outing her gender. However, I have noticed a consistent pattern, again and again: the fiercest, nastiest, meannest, most vicious critics of me who bate and troll and harass me most persistently have always been males with female avatars in SL. I guess they’ve conflicted somewhere about their choices, and project it on me.
I’m pretty much done with Artemis’ vicious trolling and blatant harassment of me on the Herald comments for 2 years straight, and it suddenly occurred to me, yes, that’s the right question to ask, and possibly that might shut her up as her own projections of her own troubled soul might be made visible.
Prokofy Neva
May 15th, 2007
Wow. Anti ageplayers suddenly believe in the First Amendment, some even citing firstamendmentcenter.org! Did they now realize what free speech actually means (protecting even the most repulsive speech)? Oh no, wait. They just believe in their own version of free speech-the one that protects only their speech and bans whatever offends them. It’s not the American version that overturned a ban on “virtual” child ponorgraphy in the first place on free speech grounds:
http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/speech/internet/topic.aspx?topic=virtual_childporn
One of the persistent fallacies the civil libertarians keep having in this conversation is that one Supreme Court decision is going to decide this issue forever.
It won’t.
Supreme Court rulings are the law of the land, and serve as a sold precedent, but all it takes is a new lawsuit on a new set of facts to challenge it and force the creation of yet another landmark decision. It’s a dynamic and moving system.
The test here has to do with *obscenity* and its threshold. Maybe *anime* didn’t meet the *obscenity* threshold and that helped get the “virtual child porn” of THAT case thrown out and the ruling made.
But the test for obscenity on the kind of highly realistic child porn you see made by child avatars in Second Life may not pass it. It may quality.
Furthermore, these discussions have revolved around static screenshots and photographs. What hasn’t been discussed is 3-d, streaming, in-the-round DIY porn movies which is essentially what SL is. When that is examined, we can’t know in advance how the court and the experts might rule on it.
I’m not arguing that existing child porn activity in SL is somehow contrary to the First Amendment. Indeed, such as it is at this point without a challenge, it may very well be protected activity.
But that’s not the environment the discussion is about. SL is a private company with a EULA — a TOS. It’s status as a common carrier is still evolving. The German lawyers and media were able to barge in confident that *their* law *did* apply if it included simulated pornography. Other countries will also have less protection than the First Amendment. So if the Lindens, operating on the basis of that reality, find that they cannot wish to violate German law and still have German members pour in the door freely, have opted to prosecute it and to facilitate RL prosecution.
Even though the typists were adult, the Lindens instantly banned them.
>And it’s also sad to see that some people still seem to think that SL avatars can qualify as “child pornography”, given that no child exists and SL can’t be mistaken for reality as the actual definition of child pornography requires.
In the U.S., while this may be the case *for now* it may be challenged successfully and possibly some jurisdictions may find that the obscenity factor ups the ante, whatever your notions of First Amendment application. And SL is a multinational platform so your points are irrelevant as far as LL’s posture.
>http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00002256—-000-.html
Internet lawyers endlessly Googling and pasting links need to be aware that law on cyberspace and on 3-d virtual worlds is *evolving*. And it is not evolving towards *more freedom*. The history of Linden Lab and its decisions in the last 3 years lets us know they are functioning in a climate of less permissibility, not more, regardless of their own attempts to push the boundaries.
Ethan Schuman
May 15th, 2007
The question I ask myself upon reading your response is simply this:
“This is not about a “trainee new on the job” when it comes to this issue because the Linden in question has already been in Second Life as a resident and already is very familiar with the rules. It’s just a classic case of a resident angling to become a Linden and then once they have power, using it to get what they want, which they couldn’t as a resident.”
Exactly what happens when a resident becomes a Linden? We all know the rules change. Now instead of simply abiding by the rules, the Resident is responsible for enforcing them. How LL orients and teaches new Lindens how and when to regulate, we the public do not know. The only way you can truly prove your accusation here is to have experienced the same training courses as every other Linden (or received proper documentation), and be able to show without a doubt that Meta KNEW they were in the wrong, yet engaged in the action anyway. So unless Prokofy, the mighty “champion of the commoners”, is actually a Linden in disguise, this point may be condensed to, “Well you should have known better.”
“I didn’t bring this Linden’s sexuality into the story — they brought it in themselves by their action. And it’s not a red herring when it formed the motivation for the intial attack on Honey’s blog and attempts to AR her and get her to remove commentary.”
So wait… if I read this correctly, you chose to attack the Linden’s sexuality simply because the article in question was sexually related? I take that back, that’s not a red herring, that’s a pathetic attempt at a cop out to engage in irrelevant banter with the purpose of defaming said Linden, and generating controversy (and more traffic) to your article (I mean, seriously, insinuating a person is unsatisfied with their physical gender simply because they enter world under a different one? You can do far better than that). At least, that’s what I ASSUME would motivate you to employ such poor journalistic tactics. I’d hate to think you’d be using your position as a public figure to further your own private agenda after speaking out so loudly against that very same kind of behavior.
“I hardly agree that this story is “90 percent opinion”: it’s 100 percent news of the oldest story in the book: conflict of interest, and how someone in public office uses their power for a private agenda.”
Of course you hardly agree. It wouldn’t make your position very strong if you did. However, news is about facts, not speculation, and the only relevant facts stated forth in your article are “Meta Linden issues a warning to a third party site that posting of private chatlogs are a violation of TOS” and “Meta Linden apologizes for their mistake, citing a misinterpretation of LL policy”. Everything else is your own personal opinion, drivel, rant, or just flat out unrelated, and frankly is unacceptable for any standard of reporting, unless you work at some tabloid paper or political publication.
“You can’t claim that someone in SL as a resident for quite some time doesn’t understand it about third-party blogs and disclosure. Indeed they do. It’s just that they wished to push the envelope and indeed succeeded in doing this. The apology came only after the misdeed was exposed — obviously this Linden believed the resident they threatened would simply roll over and do what they wanted and it was only exposure that brought the “apology” ”
Quite a jump to leap to. Heaven forbid the new Linden actually be afforded the decency of being given the benefit of the doubt. I myself will have been in world a year on the 22nd, and I still do not fully comprehend all the rules regarding privacy and disclosure. Is it reasonable to expect that the people hired by Linden Lab should be held to a higher standard of mastery over the regulations of Second Life? Very much so. Is it reasonable to assume that even with this mastery, mistakes will never occur, so when something like this happens there is no other explanation that a disgruntled, angry transvestite exacting a personal agenda using their power bestowed upon them by a corrupt corporate entity? Of course not. Listen to how silly that sounds.
“It’s not a slow news day whatsoever when a story that involves actually catching a Linden at what we all know they do comes along. As Cocoanut indicated, the issue of the Linden and then resident alts has been a recurring problem in SL and they need to clean it up by ending the secrecy surrounding it and tightening up the conflict of interest policies.”
My my. Sounds like somebody’s tin foil is wrapped a little too tightly around their head, and has cut off blood flow. I’ve got news for you, Prok. No matter where you go in life, no matter what field you get in, you will always have people who abuse the system for their own personal gains. That’s not Linden Lab nature, that’s human nature. Politicians, corporate book-cookers, hell, even child molesting clergy members and radical Islamic terrorists. Honestly, with all that out there, and what I’ve seen from Linden Lab, I think we could be a lot worse off.
insta gator
May 15th, 2007
there should be a website that tracks Lindens on two levels:
First, who was that linden’s avatar in SL before they became a linden?
Second, who is what linden in real life?
The more power they amass, the more important this will be.
It could be a Linden watch! I would love it!
Prokofy Neva
May 15th, 2007
Ethan,
I suggest you do a lot more reading about the entire issue of Linden Lab and its policy of hiring its own feted residents as employees. At one point a year ago, Cory Linden said that as many as one third of the employees were direct hires from residents, and the rest came on recommendations from — among others –residents — meaning those existing Lindesidents got another whack at putting friends in the job, too. It’s an incestuous network and always has been, more so than any other company out there even in the hothouse of the gaming world.
>Exactly what happens when a resident becomes a Linden? We all know the rules change. Now instead of simply abiding by the rules, the Resident is responsible for enforcing them.
This is exactly why, in June 2005, when a group of concerned land barons called “Metaverse Justice Watch” at that time met with Philip and Robin Linden, we demanded that they create an employee code of conduct. Eventually, some 90 days later, they published something I believe is still available today in their recruitment center at Waterhead but is wan and pale compared to the issues we needed definition about: conflict of issue.
We’ve been led to believe at first that residents becoming Lindens had to leave their jobs or businesses or high-profile activities of various sorts upon becoming Lindens — that was scrapped as a number of prominent people, including Cubey Terra, were brought into the company but allowed to maintain their resident accounts and businesses without linking their new Linden status to them.
>How LL orients and teaches new Lindens how and when to regulate, we the public do not know. The only way you can truly prove your accusation here is to have experienced the same training courses as every other Linden (or received proper documentation), and be able to show without a doubt that Meta KNEW they were in the wrong, yet engaged in the action anyway.
Bullshit. We know that a) our attempts to get a publicized policy have failed, and that may be due to the salient fact that there is NO conflict of interest policy and b) any resident of the age of Super Calimari is fully aware of the TOS, having signed it numerous times and read forums and blogs. She knows exactly what’s up with the issue of chat logs. We do not have to know the specifics of her training course or the ‘what did she know and when did she know it’ to raise the very pertinent issue of her misuse of her Linden powers to try to silence third-party blog sites. These are basic issues vital to a democratic society and a free press. You don’t sit passively waiting for an investigation before you publicize an urgent matter involving a huge blow to press freedom of SL, don’t be silly. And the facts of the case are obvious: a Linden couldn’t get action as a resident, and came back, using her Linden status.
We are likely to never know what the Lindens do to train people. Clearly it involves cult-like activity that makes them emerge as nearly blithering idiots raving about “a Better World” and imagining their key role in making that better world which becomes more dubious the more they blither. So we’re unlikely to get privvy to this ritual. However, we can sure as hell ask questions about it.
I’m always amazed that the leftie tekkie crowd around SL that asks sarcastic and cynical questions of representative democracy in RL can become utterly conformist and supine and prostrate when faced with the power of a game company. Amazing.
>So unless Prokofy, the mighty “champion of the commoners”, is actually a Linden in disguise, this point may be condensed to, “Well you should have known better.”
No, it’s not really a matter of education. It’s a belief that using Linden powers, you can accomplish pressure on people. That remains the crux of the issue. Anyone in SL for any significant amount of time is fully aware that there is a blogsphere critical of LL surrounding SL and people banned from the official forums. Super Calimari was not born yesterday. She may have mistakenly believed she could “get someone banned” over a chatlog issue as it is a widespread misconception spread by those with agendas that you *can* get people in trouble this way, but her motivation in using her Linden power and her use of that power is what the story is about, not her level of knowledge of this or that policy.
>So wait… if I read this correctly, you chose to attack the Linden’s sexuality simply because the article in question was sexually related? I take that back, that’s not a red herring, that’s a pathetic attempt at a cop out to engage in irrelevant banter with the purpose of defaming said Linden, and generating controversy (and more traffic) to your article (I mean, seriously, insinuating a person is unsatisfied with their physical gender simply because they enter world under a different one? You can do far better than that). At least, that’s what I ASSUME would motivate you to employ such poor journalistic tactics. I’d hate to think you’d be using your position as a public figure to further your own private agenda after speaking out so loudly against that very same kind of behavior.
Oh don’t be *fucking ridiculous*. There is absolutely nothing of the sort in this story. The essence of this story hinges on this series of events, that aren’t of my making:
o a resident publishes two stories, one about a gathering of lesbians in SL who in fact are males in drag, concerned about voice, another about ageplayers
o a transgender resident publishes a threat on the first story about the lesbians saying that they are intolerant in her view (not true, it’s just a story), and that this is against the TOS, in her view (not true, the TOS doesn’t reach to third-party sites) and that she will abuse-report this blog author
o a Linden comes on and then ups the ante and threatens the blogger with disciplinary action on her account, including banning, if she does not remove chat logs in a story involving her own report and recorded conversation with ageplayers.
o the first threatening resident, who is TG, is subsequently revealed to be the same person as the Linden.
The entire story is about transgenders and ageplayers, and a professed transgender avatar who posts a comment to a blog threatening her.
To not report the substance at issue — transgender and ageplay and the desire to suppress critical commentary about this — would be not to report the story. This topic is vital to the story. If you can’t see this, you are either a troll, or retarded, or both.
To try to imply that I have speciously dragged in somebody’s sexuality is arrant bullshit. The whole point this particular person who is a resident and a Linden started banging on this blog is because of her own personal issues as a TG. She wished to enforce the iron rule of political correctness on this blogger. That failed, so she came back as a Linden and tried it that way. Everyone can see what the story is about, and I utterly reject any charges of “insinuating” anything.
Furthermore, nowhere in my article or in any comment can you find anything remotely implying that a person who changes genders is “dissatisfied with their gender”. That’s silly. Of all people, I’m going to reject *that* charge. People chose another gender because they can and it feels right for them. It is not about disatisfaction but choice and feeling right. The issue of “disatisfation” hasn’t entered into this story whatsoever until YOU interpolated it. So fuck off with that shit and pay attention to the story here: a Linden with a set of sensitivities and political correctnesses AND imbued with a sense of power unchecked by anything in her training (and THAT is of concern too!) used that power of office to bang on a blog that she felt was insensitive and politically incorrect.
The Lindens don’t get to extend their politically correct ambitions to the rest of the world.
>Of course you hardly agree. It wouldn’t make your position very strong if you did. However, news is about facts, not speculation, and the only relevant facts stated forth in your article are “Meta Linden issues a warning to a third party site that posting of private chatlogs are a violation of TOS” and “Meta Linden apologizes for their mistake, citing a misinterpretation of LL policy”. Everything else is your own personal opinion, drivel, rant, or just flat out unrelated, and frankly is unacceptable for any standard of reporting, unless you work at some tabloid paper or political publication.
No, because Meta Linden, on her original SL resident account, posted a threat originally to this blog telling Honey that she was AR’d and that she was in the wrong. That supplies the motivation for her to come back as a Linden and try to pressure further. There’s nothing speculative about this as the linkage has been made.
The Herald is a tabloid and a virtual newspaper. However, even if this story were covered by the New York Times, the Times would of course cover the fact of the transgendered nature of the avatar involved.
The story involves a blog about transgenders meeting in SL, a transgendered resident trying to silence discussion of this, and then even using the power of Linden office to suppress it when that didn’t work. It simply MUST be reported.
Really, your own case of political correctness has really got you hobbled to the extreme.
>Quite a jump to leap to. Heaven forbid the new Linden actually be afforded the decency of being given the benefit of the doubt.
Nope. Not this Linden. We see exactly what’s up, the time and date stamps, the progression of events. This Linden actually thinks that because her approach to this blog is politely-worded and documented as such that it is “nice” or “ok”. But…it’s not. It’s wrong.
In the history of Second Life I’m aware of, I can’t think of a single time that a Linden has ever appeared on a blog or third-party forums and told a resident to remove content. It’s a very serious offense.
>I myself will have been in world a year on the 22nd, and I still do not fully comprehend all the rules regarding privacy and disclosure. Is it reasonable to expect that the people hired by Linden Lab should be held to a higher standard of mastery over the regulations of Second Life? Very much so. Is it reasonable to assume that even with this mastery, mistakes will never occur, so when something like this happens there is no other explanation that a disgruntled, angry transvestite exacting a personal agenda using their power bestowed upon them by a corrupt corporate entity? Of course not. Listen to how silly that sounds.
There’s no “mistake” here. It doesn’t matter if Meta/Cala’s knowledge of enforcement guidelines is spotty. What matters is that *she believed the power of Linden office was ok to sic on third-party blogs and used it*. She was in an enabling environment that made her feel total impunity in doing this.
>My my. Sounds like somebody’s tin foil is wrapped a little too tightly around their head, and has cut off blood flow. I’ve got news for you, Prok. No matter where you go in life, no matter what field you get in, you will always have people who abuse the system for their own personal gains. That’s not Linden Lab nature, that’s human nature. Politicians, corporate book-cookers, hell, even child molesting clergy members and radical Islamic terrorists. Honestly, with all that out there, and what I’ve seen from Linden Lab, I think we could be a lot worse off.
No. You don’t trivialize it or minimize it by saying “oh it’s a game” or “oh, this is the most open game country in the world”
Just because it’s a game or it’s better in its behaviour than, I dunno, the White House or the Kremlin, doesn’t mean you don’t hold it to account. That’s vital not only to any normal democratic and just society, it’s vital to the whole enterprise of building the Metaverse.
shockwave yareach
May 15th, 2007
On Meta/Calamari:
When faced with problems which could be construed at conflicts of interest, the wisest course of action is to hand the problem to another staffer who has no such conflict. When handling an offense by someone the whole net knows you dislike, one should let another handle the problem. That way nobody can say you abused your position or took advantage of your sysop status.
Meta screwed up here. She should never have threatened Honey in any way. What she should have done was pass the AR issue to a different Linden. Instead, she abused her authority in a rather poor way. In the plus column though, she recognized the error and apologized. So considering no harm was done save for some rough words, that’s sufficient for this event. But Meta should be considered a rogue risk for another year and any banning she does should be automatically reviewed by other staffers.
The last thing SL needs now is a BOFH. All virtual spaces have a necessary trust that the sysops will behave professionally. Second Life is no different. Fire, no. But watch for a little while, yes.
Prokofy Neva
May 15th, 2007
shockwave, Meta Linden’s job is not to handle abuse reports and disciplinary actions against residents. There is an abuse report team that does that.
Cocoanut Koala
May 15th, 2007
“No matter where you go in life, no matter what field you get in, you will always have people who abuse the system for their own personal gains.”
Yes, well, that doesn’t mean you look the other way, or worse yet, make it EASY to abuse the system by letting your employees operate with secret alts to pursue their own agendas.
coco
Prokofy Neva
May 15th, 2007
No matter where you go in life, no matter what field you get in, you will always have people who abuse the system for their own personal gains.”
Yes, and no matter where you go in life, no matter what field you are in, you will find safeguards, checkpoints, oversight procedures, accountability options, media scrutiny, judicial scrutiny, citizens’ action groups, employee’s groups or unions — all kinds of ways of keeping those people who try to abuse the system from doing that.
It’s only when you come to Linden Lab and Second Life that you are supposed to roll over, play dead, cease all demands for accountability, roll back any citizens’ activism, and completely prostrate yourself for the Glory of the Greater Good. What you never do in your RL job, community, country you are suddenly asked to do in SL as if you have suddenly become a citizen of an authortiarian or even totalitarian country. It’s absurd. That educated scientists in the computer sciences field advocate this is just way, way over the top and just plain wrong. What they’d NEVER expect of their own community or country they expect of us in this world. It’s deeply suspect. I let’s us know of their OWN agenda to BELONG to this sequestered world where some get to abuse the system for their own personal gain.
It’s not the presence of such people; it’s the inability of those in this world to recognize that you fight this phenomenon and beat it. Instead, what happens in SL is that this elite abusing their powers keeps harassing and even getting banned or trying to get banned those who criticize their excesses. It’s an absolute disgrace that Pathfinder could fail to act to protect my privacy on the old forums. It’s an absolute disgrace that he, Jeska, Jesse and others could ban me for critical commentary about Aimee Weber and let slide the oceans of invective and threads started only about me by Aimee’s little friends. It’s an absolute disgrace that Pathfinder could plot this in the IRC channel with the very people who ran roughshod over the forums.
It’s an absolute disgrace that Pathfinder could then boot me from the Community Round Table for first pointing out that his listserver was violating everybody’s privacy by delivering cc’s of everybody’s private emails to the list (!) counting my exposure of that problem as *itself* disclosure which was REALLY over the top, then giving me a “two strikes you’re out” for pushing back against Lauk, who had accused me on that list of being “involved in all this commercial crap” and suspect in my rentals (!). I mean, seriously, any lawyer would make really short work of this shit if they weren’t afraid of being banned.
Fear of retaliation is the only thing keeping this corrupt system in power. In this climate of impunity, Torley can then come along and remove me from the blog for making pointed questions to Cory Linden about the unaccountability of libsecondlife.
It’s all about accountability. People like me — and unfortunately there just aren’t enough of them — challenge the lack of due process, equal and just enforcement, and accountability — and for doing that very thing, we are banned.
People don’t seem to grasp how fragile these freedoms are, and how you have to keep fighting for them as they will not be dispensed. If Honey had kept silent, if I had done nothing, then this Linden would keep going around threatening other bloggers. One by one, they’d cave and remove chatlogs and other critical content and nobody would have a window into what’s happening in SL.
Brent Recreant
May 15th, 2007
All those comments about how ageplayers do it in Real Life are wrong sometimes.
How many of you thing Violent Video Games should be banned as it imposes Real world deaths, just from a stupid video game?
How many of you thing Ageplay should be banned as it imposes Real world rape, just from a stupid video game?
Ageplay in SecondLife does not cause people to automatically become child rapists, who are really sick, if anything, it keeps them away from the RL Children. I don’t think most ageplayers are really sick in the head.
Prokofy Neva
May 15th, 2007
All those comments about how ageplayers do it in Real Life are wrong sometimes.
How many of you thing Violent Video Games should be banned as it imposes Real world deaths, just from a stupid video game?
How many of you thing Ageplay should be banned as it imposes Real world rape, just from a stupid video game?
Ageplay in SecondLife does not cause people to automatically become child rapists, who are really sick, if anything, it keeps them away from the RL Children. I don’t think most ageplayers are really sick in the head.
These are the old hackneyed arguments that come up each time someone would like to give a pass to ageplay.
One can only respond pointedly: what is it about the simulation of sex with children that you think is alright?
I don’t think the simulation of sex with children is alright. I think it’s morally contemptible and very likely illegal in many states. I don’t see a problem with repudiating it.
Everyone knows that TV and video games promote violence and death and callousness about human death. And they are legal and promoted. There doesn’t seem to be a reasonable way to stop them without stopping freedom of speech. And yet, the violence in American cities, especially in schools, and the wars that American is getting itself into around the world have increased since the advent of this form of media, not decreased, and I don’t think we can afford the moral luxury of not connecting any dots here. Violence in schools, especially the mass murders of the Columbine and Virginia Tech kind, have increased during the era that an entire generation of young boys grew up playing violent video games. To proclaim absolutely no connection between these two phenomenon is morally short-sighted to say the least. Just because rote causal effects cannot be demonstrated does not mean we cannot be concerned about the moral and spiritual dimensions of these undoubtedly related phenomenon.
The commentary in the RL media about ageplay always talks about the “knock-on effect,” that in those cases where predators are found to engage in review of child pornography on the Internet, some percentage of them then carry these acts over into reality with real children. It’s a contributing factor in the eyes of both analysts and law-enforcers. This simply cannot be dismissed.
If only one percent of child pornographers actually go out and harm children, that’s one percent too many and if the contributing factor is child pornography, you then work to eliminate that as a factor.
There’s another sick concept at play here, which is “placebo therapy”. By this concept, SL is a “buffer” that is “keeping the sickos from reaching real children”.
I’m not prepared to cede that sort of sick role to SL. I don’t think it’s therapeutic, for one. As Ace Albion famously asked, what’s in it for Daddy? Hard to understand why the re-enactment of predation is “therapeutic” even if the re-enactment of victimhood is supposed to be. None of it is persuasive.
Anonymous
May 15th, 2007
“all it takes is a new lawsuit on a new set of facts to challenge it and force the creation of yet another landmark decision”
The censorship brigade can only hope.
“The test here has to do with *obscenity* and its threshold. Maybe *anime* didn’t meet the *obscenity* threshold and that helped get the “virtual child porn” of THAT case thrown out and the ruling made.”
Wow, another sad state of affairs in Censorship County, USA. That comment made absolutely no sense whatsoever. Not only did the case deciding this 1) have nothing to do with anime 2) involve a lawsuit seeking to prohibit enforcement of a law, and did not have a set of facts specific only to this case (much less anime), but also 3) did not involve any obscenity test for said missing facts (such a test would require specific fact and these tests are generally made at the trial level).
This case decided for ALL of these kinds of depictions that don’t involve a real child, whether it’s drawings (ie, anime), sculptures, virtual world interactions, or whatever else there is to come.
It helps to actually read court decisions. Read it here.
http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/00-795.ZS.html
“But the test for obscenity on the kind of highly realistic child porn you see made by child avatars in Second Life may not pass it. It may quality.”
Obviously, the same could be said for any depiction of sex or bodily excretion, yet the fact is that “obscenity” cases are extremely difficult to prosecute (indeed, this was a major reason the government enacted unconstitutional provisions in the first place). The hardest of hardcore pornography has been successfully argued as having artistic and literary value -even in the most conservative of jurisdictions (thereby failing obscenity tests).
I also don’t think SL is quite exactly “highly realistic” yet even if it were, as long as it’s in the computer and doesn’t involve real people, I and other responsible adults know that the things that happen to virtual people aren’t happening to real people.
“I’m not arguing that existing child porn activity in SL is somehow contrary to the First Amendment. Indeed, such as it is at this point without a challenge, it may very well be protected activity.”
Well things are looking hopeful in Censorship County after all. It’s good to recognize that that not every randomly selected group of people in different parts of the country will think that two adults harmlessly roleplaying with one another is somehow obscene to the point that they must be punished for their “offending” others.
“…Germany…Lindens…”
I wasn’t making a point about Linden policy. I was making a point about anti-ageplayers’ notions of free speech. But if we’re going to talk about Germany, I couldn’t care less about the moral values of a place that legalizes beastiality and under-18 prostitution, and criminalizes denying historical events [holocaust], simply displaying symbols [swastika] (as has been mentioned about German laws), among other things.
“In the U.S., while this may be the case *for now* it may be challenged successfully…”
Well it was a 6-3 decision, and the 6 in the majority are all still on the Court, so I don’t see it changing any time soon.
“The history of Linden Lab and its decisions in the last 3 years lets us know they are functioning in a climate of less permissibility, not more, regardless of their own attempts to push the boundaries.”
And this is pretty sad to see as well, whether it’s banning people from forums, banning people without notification for offenses that were previously said to be protected, or just claiming to value free-expression -except that which is “abusive.” But at least they tried to live up to the “your imagination” motto (maybe they’re still trying-I have no idea any more). Of all the people to at least give the idea a shot, though, I’m glad it was a group of (generally) tolerant San Franciscan hippies to succeed as much as they have.
Prokofy Neva
May 15th, 2007
Wow, another sad state of affairs in Censorship County, USA. That comment made absolutely no sense whatsoever. Not only did the case deciding this 1) have nothing to do with anime 2) involve a lawsuit seeking to prohibit enforcement of a law, and did not have a set of facts specific only to this case (much less anime), but also 3) did not involve any obscenity test for said missing facts (such a test would require specific fact and these tests are generally made at the trial level).
I don’t live in Censorship County, USA, so knock it off with the innuendo. I am not approving of censorship. I’m explaining the rationale for LL’s actions. They are also not required to enforce the First Amendment in a private club. This is Boy Scouts, not Mall of America. You can hope someone might successfully test the Boy Scouts analogy, but nobody has yet!
An anime case has been brought, and while anime may not be relevant in *that specific case* — you’re right — anime is the example most often cited.
And regardless of whether *the obscenity test had to be met in THAT case* the obscenity test MAY HAVE TO BE met in ANOTHER case. Surely you can see that! You don’t get exemption from that, unfortunately.
The scenes in SL are immersive and highly realistic. Watch the German film and note how they are analyzing the phenomenon of SL.
SL has not been seen, analyzed, written about and thought abuot by any significant body of people. No APAs of the world or even major literary and political magazines have really analyzed it, let along parents’ groups — which have a right to exist and promote their opinion as much as anybody. All we’ve had looking at SL for the longest time is the hardcore geeky hedonist gang who will trumpet their rights uber alles, regardless of whether they actually even are rights in every country, even in the U.S.
I’ve read the case, you’re not new here in this discussion with this, it’s been looked at ad nauseum forever. You aren’t a lawyer, you don’t even play one in SL AFAIK, and you can’t know how it might play out in a state even shy of a Supreme Court decision. This is after all a multinational environment where Ashcroft simply doesn’t rule.
Let’s look at some actual text here, shall we?
“The CPPA is inconsistent with Miller. It extends to images that are not obscene under the Miller standard, which requires the Government to prove that the work in question, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest, is patently offensive in light of community standards, and lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value, 413 U.S., at 24. Materials need not appeal to the prurient interest under the CPPA, which proscribes any depiction of sexually explicit activity, no matter how it is presented. It is not necessary, moreover, that the image be patently offensive. Pictures of what appear to be 17-year-olds engaging in sexually explicit activity do not in every case contravene community standards. The CPPA also prohibits speech having serious redeeming value, proscribing the visual depiction of an idea–that of teenagers engaging in sexual activity–that is a fact of modern society and has been a theme in art and literature for centuries. A number of acclaimed movies, filmed without any child actors, explore themes within the wide sweep of the statute’s prohibitions. If those movies contain a single graphic depiction of sexual activity within the statutory definition, their possessor would be subject to severe punishment without inquiry into the literary value of the work. This is inconsistent with an essential First Amendment rule: A work’s artistic merit does not depend on the presence of a single explicit scene. See, e.g., Book Named “John Cleland’s Memoirs of a Woman of Pleasure” v. Attorney General of Mass., 383 U.S. 413, 419. Under Miller, redeeming value is judged by considering the work as a whole. Where the scene is part of the narrative, the work itself does not for this reason become obscene, even though the scene in isolation might be offensive. See Kois v. Wisconsin, 408 U.S. 229, 231 (per curiam). The CPPA cannot be read to prohibit obscenity, because it lacks the required link between its prohibitions and the affront to community standards prohibited by the obscenity definition. Pp. 6—11.”
Note several operative things here:
o obscenity *is* at issue
o AGE is at issue — we’re not talking about 17, but *8 and 9* or even *3* in Second Life. Far more sick.
o community standards, i.e. the idea of statutory rape at 16 and under are at issue
o scenes portrayed — we’re not talking about a schoolgirl in a uniform at age 16 but tiny children in pajamas subjected to the most brutal BDSM torture equipment — very, very different.
Any court looking at THAT might find it significantly different than the materials reviewed in Ashcroft.
And Brandenburg is also at issue, frankly, because if the German and other cases show that persons engaged in the licentious atmosphere of child porn made by their child avatars in SL then easily and effortlessly moved to distributing real-life child porn, the case may be closed with the Brandenburg test met if there are enough indications.
I’m not so sure, if I had to do it all over again, that I’d pick a group of San Francisco engineer hippies to make a virtual world with their values. I don’t think their liberal values about gays and BDSM and ageplay necessarily spell a true liberalism that is in fact inclusive and defensive of all freedom of speech and freedom of assembly.
I think that they do not even understand these values of the rule of law and its protection of freedoms. I think they have a set of tribal values that they promote regardless, which involves suppressing some speech they don’t like, and promoting other speech they do. I think it’s the worst sort of thing to be putting its stamp on the Metaverse, frankly.
Brent Recreant
May 15th, 2007
The Second Deadliest school shooting evar was in in 60′s. Did Video Games Influence that?
I don’t care if Second Life Bans ageplayers, I’m tired of people AR’ing it, it seems vigilent to me.
Prokofy Neva
May 15th, 2007
The school shootings have increased over time, with the number of their victims increasing. The number of cases of just one-on-one shooting in schools has dramatically increased. In my city, all high schools have metal detectors and squadrons of city police deployed in them now. Sorry, but you cannot make the case for there being NO influence or connection but one can go on raising the question if there IS a influence or connection because of the obvious correlations of the age demographics and the phenomena.
mootykips
May 15th, 2007
You know, you guys would have much less problems if you actually outlawed adult activity in SL. While its appeal would probably tank, it would avoid all this drama and make it a legitimate platform rather than just a glorified cybersex simulator.
Brent Recreant
May 15th, 2007
The Second Deadliest school shooting evar was in in 60′s. Did Video Games Influence that?
I don’t care if Second Life Bans ageplayers, I’m tired of people AR’ing it, it seems vigilent to me.
Jacqui Cheng
May 15th, 2007
Why age verification won’t cure what ails social networking sites
“Age verification” has been a hot topic as of late as a means for keeping children safe on the Internet. Here’s how the argument works: if sites such as MySpace and virtual worlds like Second Life used age-verification methods, they could magically cut down on the number of children being exploited by sexual predators online. After all, if we could somehow figure out a way to keep kids and adults separate online, it would certainly take care of many of the concerns voiced by the parents of Internet-using children.
Once you look past the initial sales pitch on these types of solutions, however, the situation becomes much more complex. How effective is age verification at protecting children from online predators? Adam Thierer of the Technology Liberation Front held a panel discussion on that topic with regards to social networking sites, which brought up many of the holes that can be found in currently-proposed “solutions.”
One of the major points made several times during the 90-minute panel discussion is that age verification is not a fictional concept and it generally works… in cases where adults need to be verified as adults. Buying cigarettes or alcohol or registering for an adult web site are instances when adults often have to provide some sort of proof that they are over a certain age in order to participate in an adults-only activity. And that proof isn’t difficult to come by: a driver’s license, a credit card, a Social Security number, or a combination of the above will do the trick.
It’s when adults and kids play in the same space that things get sticky and the effectiveness of age verification seems to go out the window. Anyone can very easily verify that they are over 18, as ex-investigator and CEO of Sentinel Tech Holding Corporation John Carillo pointed out, even criminals and sexual predators. None of the age-verification measures proposed by Congress or parental groups involve doing lengthy (and costly) background checks, and so the mere fact that a certain subset of users is over 18 provides virtually no protection against online predators. Additionally, it’s easy to fake one’s age online by using someone else’s credit card or personal information “To me, that says we’re giving the pedophile, the felon, a level of credibility,” Carillo said during the panel discussion. “We’re putting some kind of seal next to their name, saying that they were verified on some level or something. That’s just a scary concept to me.”
On the flipside, there is no way to verify that a child online is, in fact, a child for the purposes of creating a child-only site or keeping adults and children separate. There is no publicly-accessible record on kids or their existence, Carillo pointed out, which means that it is significantly more difficult to verify the identity of a child. Requiring “parental permission” for children to be online doesn’t quite work either, since it’s just as easily faked as it is to fake being over 18. Carillo said that he used the real names of four of his adult NYPD colleagues to register as children on Imbee, a site that advertises itself as “the first secure social networking and blogging destination for kids.” Imbee requires parental permission for registration by way of credit card entry, which Carillo filled in with random corporate cards from his current company. Five days later, “they sent me what I’m calling the pedophile passport. They sent me my identity 2.0 virtual credential to Chris Clark at my apartment,” he told the panel.
Other issues brought up during the discussion were the fact that “verified” identities could easily be sold cheaply online and statistics from researchers at the University of New Hampshire pointing out that in 95 percent of the cases in which a child was assaulted by an adult that he or she met online, they were well aware that they were speaking to an adult. Not just that, but nearly 80 percent of the time, they were aware of the adult’s intentions to have sex with them, and they voluntarily met up with said adult 83 percent of the time. Given these statistics, it seems as if age verification on social networking sites would do virtually nothing to stop minors from connecting with predators offline and merely provide a false sense of security for parents.
In response to the false sense of security, some panelists argued that “perfection should not be the enemy of the good.” Doing something is better than doing nothing, right? Others disagreed, saying that doing nothing was preferable. “Nobody advocates leaving doors unlocked and not even trying [to protect your home], because, well, there would be a false sense of security,” said Jeff Schmidt, CEO of authentication company Authis. “However, you need to make sure that your result is not worse than doing nothing in the first place. In this age verification, we have a unique scenario where you will have age-verified bad guys. Okay? It’s not just that the system failed and ‘worse’ is status quo. I’m saying now with 100 percent certainty that we will have age-verified bad guys.
“My concern is that the false sense of security will actually result in more problems in a less safe environment,” Schmidt said later during the discussion. “I believe that if we create something that we call a safe area, or a safer area, or whatever, people’s inherently simplistic attitude to that will be ‘Oh, okay. I’ve locked my kids off to the safe area.’ Then the people will let their guard down. That’s my concern.”
It’s clear from the discussion that currently-proposed methods of age verification are not only not perfect, but in fact are not effective. Without true identity verification (and reverification to ensure that the person who created the profile is still the person who is now logging into the profile) there will be no way to ensure that even a nominal dent will be made in the effort to help keep children safe from predators on the Internet.
Ordinal Malaprop
May 15th, 2007
@mootykips: but what would you do then?
NobodyImportant
May 15th, 2007
Prokofy, you’re too loquacious for your own good.
Y’know, I used to read all your bullshit, but now when I see a huge comment… I just scroll past it.
And it never surprises me that your name’s on it.
(Also, you could break it up a little. Seriously. Use some empty space in your monster rants. NOBODY wants to read a wall of text just to find some more of your bullshit points to beat you over the head with.)
Raideur Ng
May 15th, 2007
“Get your facts straight on this one, hon. You’re um “new”.”
“Nacon, your reading skills are severely lacking. Did you take all the ADD tablets today?”
“Meta, you should line up your ducks there at the Lab.”
“Finally, Meta I can only say: get a grip.”
“…and possibly that might shut her up as her own projections of her own troubled soul might be made visible.”
Play nice, Neva.
Remember, it’s their game. They can do what they please with it, just like you are doing as you please on this website.
Prokofy Neva
May 15th, 2007
Jacqui Cheng, it’s not the first time the arguments you are trotting out have been cited, nor that study cited, nor the tired notion that yes, you can’t protect children online when their own parents have apparently abdicated their first line of real-life responsibility.
But that only looks at one side of the equation of age verification, and I always marvel that nobody ever looks at the OTHER side of the equation:
The adult.
Verifying the *adult* is the goal here, because an adult who is required to turn over his real license or passport or other verifiable form of ID will be that less likely to engage in criminal activity.
It’s the anonymity of the Internet in general and the avatarization of SL in particular that makes the enabling environment for someone to engage in criminal activity with impunity because no one has ever asked for the real name. Not even a credit card.
So verifying *the adult* is as good as it gets here. It’s never going to be perfect. And there’s no saying that a verified licensed adult with his ID perfectly well obtainable by authorities won’t still go ahead and engage in predatory behaviour. But…it’s a deterrent.
Combine that with the percentage of at least SOME children you deter from that exposure; combine that with the overall non-permissible environment you create by having such a policy in the first place, and you have done your best — and pretty well — to prevent the abuse of children online.
Prokofy Neva
May 15th, 2007
>Play nice, Neva.
Remember, it’s their game. They can do what they please with it, just like you are doing as you please on this website.
Or…what? Meta will get me banned? Is that your point?
No, it’s not “their game”. I pay for the server space. A reasonable expectation of decency and conformity with some kind of code of conduct is fine for something of this nature.