1. Sarah Nerd sounded off here: http://www.your2ndplace.com/node/131

Her perspective is SL-grounded, I think... mainly because she deals with this stuff daily.

Posted at 1:41AM on Jun 1st 2007 by Nobody Fugazi

2. >>I am fully expecting Linden Lab to clarify this clarification before very long.

I don't see why they should. The more they define the more liable they become. The atomic of the matter will be left in the hands of land owners. Daniel taking a stance is only positive and for blurred that the message may seem I think it is carefully crafted. As a consequence of this some hint at a bloodshed, revolts, raining frogs, losses, etc... possible. But the bottleneck is there and we need to navigate thru. LL knows it. If you recall we're over 6 repetitive official posts on this matter which is: overdefining is not wanted. I agree with LL on this.

Posted at 2:59AM on Jun 1st 2007 by starcomber Vig

3. Love the justification opening of this idiotic stuff:

"our community has made it clear to us"

Isn't that what whackos use; "I speak as a representative for the silent (aka moral) majority"

There is stupid, then daft, then imbecile, but this justification of something so irrational is beyond any of those or other terms.

How about a referendum, if the LL chaps want to claim acting on requests from the "community"?

Posted at 3:03AM on Jun 1st 2007 by Sin Trenton

4. Just heard that a friend is planning to shut down his island, since he expect the "enemies of immoral values and indecent smut" is going to crack down on him pretty soon.
Being a socialist, homosexual furry with a non-furry bf, and being open about his sexual orientation, political views, etc, he already had his share of morally outraged people popping by to protest against this insult to good American family values.
Until now, they were just a nuisance.

"Combating intolerance is a cornerstone of Second Life’s Community Standards." (ToS)

Picovina. Welcome to the time of bigotry.

Posted at 3:20AM on Jun 1st 2007 by Sin Trenton

5. Yes, Mr Trenton, that line jarred for me particularly as well - it is the language always used when some reactionary sort wishes to curtail freedoms, "the public are demanding that I take action" when of course the public have demanded nothing of the sort.

Really, I think it is something of an achievement that, in the face of SL residents requesting that the exact details of the policy be urgently clarified and expressing concerns about over-hasty closures based on the actions and prejudices of informants, LL put out a post making the process even less clear, more threatening and promising over-hasty closures based on etc. I'm not sure quite what could have been more effective in increasing the worries of residents; perhaps starting a group for reporters of "broadly offensive content" called "SL Stasi", or announcing a merger with the Family Research Council?

Posted at 3:24AM on Jun 1st 2007 by Ordinal Malaprop

6. Stop! I've been violated by LL Rhetoric!

(Couldn't resist).

Posted at 3:49AM on Jun 1st 2007 by Nobody Fugazi

7.
I'm so glad the from the onset I didn't buy land or too many assets because it would tie me to the platform and the whims of it's government.

But I'm amazed at the rate at which they're dealing out that stuff. When the first thing about ageplay not being advertisable came over the tickers, some people said "this is just the beginning". When they closed those two ageplayers, the question was "Who's next?"

Well, we know now that it was the beginning and who's next.

Question now is: Where do we go?

Posted at 5:44AM on Jun 1st 2007 by Nicholaz Beresford

8. Daniel Linden's declaration is against the TOS condition of tolerance. So we should we AR him if he says the same inworld ? If it is the case, even if only one tenth of all Furry, Gorean, BDSM AR him, will will stall the AR system...

I seriously think "Linden Lab Needs To Bring In Professional Management" like Micth Wagner in InformationWeek.

No coherent statement, their policy seems to change every day, they don't read their own TOS rules, they piss of resident in vain posturing toward the corporates (who are only looking at potential profit).

I'll go back to SL now because it's end is near, or so says the "book of daniel", and then daily “breaking of seals” (the seals of object stability is broken, the seal of instant messanging is not well mended…)

Posted at 5:59AM on Jun 1st 2007 by DD Ra

9.
What's most broadly offensive to me however is that tone of Daniel's blog entry. I mean I can't see what all this has to do with "safe" and generally this whole thing sounds like these "we want something and we'll make it sound like it's good for you in the most whimsical way because we think you're stupid" press releases from fortune 500 companies.

Posted at 6:55AM on Jun 1st 2007 by Nicholaz Beresford

10. Actually... I see their aim.
They will make a big PG SL merged with the Teen Grid.

My Premium Account is getting cancelled.

Posted at 8:42AM on Jun 1st 2007 by Despil Korobase

11. I would think that LL would want 'common carrier' status but the more they control and specify, the more it's evident that they want responsibility for SL content. The other approach of setting up laws, courts and a process and letting the residents control the operation of the world is the other solution but that obviously is not the track LL has decided to take. They must like dealing with RL lawyers.

Posted at 10:46AM on Jun 1st 2007 by misterblue waves

12. Hmmm...without flying off the handle into political rhetoric, I just have to wonder if Daniel Linden's statement was reviewed by anyone else before he posted it. I can see one person being that out of touch with reality, but I'd like to think that at least a few Lindens are in better touch with their primary user base.

I do have to say that statements like this make me rethink my plans to buy an island and get more involved in SL--not because of the contents of the message, or even its supercilious tone, but just because it was made at all. It reeks of ignorance, of history and of the residents, and incompetence, in that someone with a better grasp of the situation did not edit it before it was published.

Posted at 11:47AM on Jun 1st 2007 by Klang Wopat

13. I put in my L$5 (approximately US$0.02) here: http://evansavenue.wordpress.com/2007/06/01/keeping-sl-safeor-cya/

The two points I take away from this announcement were (a) that it was primarily a CYA maneuver by LL, and (b) that it was necessary, because, as Raymond Chen might put it, "the alternative is worse."

Posted at 1:22PM on Jun 1st 2007 by Erbo Evans

14. ...it's refreshing to read more voices driven to action - when i retired from my own in-world involvement a couple of weeks ago to the cacaphony of people screaming witch, the only voices of reason at the time seemed a diminshingly hollow echo in our absence...

...and it's not just the people driven away by chilling actions who are at risk under linden lab's newly conspicuous anti-common-carrier policy: even those who mirthfully celebrate their newfound community standards risk their investments in the platform under the unmanagable liability fostered by capricious provincial regulations...ineveitably, only common carriers succeed as an open marketplace of ideas, and we all know intimately well that aside from that marketplace there's nothing else going for this platform...

Posted at 2:22PM on Jun 1st 2007 by Myrrh Massiel

15. Erbo's two points are pretty solid.
LL does a lot of CYA. I think that is probably the main reason their statement was so vague also. They want to absolve themselves of any potential legal entanglement over any fine points regarding what is "offensive"
Some people consider pictures of naked people (or AV's) offensive. Others wouldn't be offended at a RL snuff film. LL has to cover all it's bases.

Posted at 2:24PM on Jun 1st 2007 by Neural

16. I can go with the CYA, I really can - but the fact of the matter is that LL seems to go out of its way to avoid establishing precedents for abuse reports such that the process is transparent and the community knows where it stands.

To quote Pink Floyd - all in all, it's just another brick in the wall.

Posted at 3:01PM on Jun 1st 2007 by Nobody Fugazi

17. I think this goes beyond required arse-covering, to be quite honest, into the realms of suspected potential future arse-covering, since there is at this point no legal threat.

In any case, there are further issues:

1. Hysteria regarding evil computer games, online predators and paedophiles is just going to continue and get worse if everyone pre-emptively gives in to it, rather than simply saying "we will act as appropriate when the law indicates that we should";

2. With an open platform like SL, it is impossible to properly prevent its use for distasteful actions. When it comes to actual illegal actions such as distribution of RL child pornography, those can at least be investigated and dealt with and will be rare enough that it is practical to do so - but in terms of things which are legal but just not very nice and don't look good on the evening news, this is much harder to do. LL have trouble coping just with the ARs that arise at the moment - the idea that they can stop journalists finding nasty stuff on the grid if they want to is silly, and clearly residents aren't going to reliably help them do this, as residents often have very different ideas about what is acceptable.

Thus initiatives like this are not Cing their A; what would C their A would be to work towards common carrier status of some sort, which was what previous statements led me to believe they were doing, with all the talk of greater control by sim owners and so on. This actively goes _against_ the idea of them being common carriers.

Posted at 3:50PM on Jun 1st 2007 by Ordinal Malaprop

18. I think they need to do things like this while they still have control of the world. Once the open source server is released and widely used then no one company will be held liable. Until then, LL has to take measures to keep the world away from the claws of the overly-litigious.

Posted at 4:19PM on Jun 1st 2007 by Vaughn

19. Here's my response to the latest blog. I sent it off to Linden Lab, and thought I'd share it here too. I hope everyone who cares about these morality police missions, which are not just striking SL but all over the web, will consider making their own positions clear to the people we depend on for our online lives.

Also I see Myrrh's name above. I hope we will get in contact again, sometime or somewhere. I hated to see you leave, when we never got to finish those projects or conversations...

------

Daniel, Robin:

To date I have been ignoring the rumblings about illegal activities, verification and so on, despite seeing several friends bail out of SL in response. Unfortunately, I just can't let this latest blog entry slide by. It is rather vague as usual, but what it does say is quite offensive to my moral values, and completely in contradiction of the previous SL Community Standards. And contrary to the "safety" mentioned, I have never felt like my time and adventures and friendships in SL were more threatened.

I am sure you are getting lots of angry letters, and lots of explanations for why this is a bad idea. I will therefore just say that I have absolutely no intention of participating in this moral pogrom against my fellow SL residents, no matter what my personal feelings about their activities. I will not be deputized as your secret police force, I will not spy on or inform against my neighbors, nor engage in other intolerant behavior however sanctioned. I will not Abuse Report any activities I do not find to clearly hurt others or interrupt their ability to use SL. I intend instead to hold true to the spirit of community standards which have been in place for the previous four years.

I would make one recommendation if you intend to go forward with this fundamental alteration of our SL community: Prosecute zealously against any and all false and defamatory reports, and people found to be making them should be immediately penalized with the same consequences as those for the acts they accused others of. If you do not publicly announce this policy and enforce it, the abuses of this new system will surely destroy all that is good and free about this community you are trying to keep "safe".

Sincerely,

Ananda Sandgrain

Posted at 6:09PM on Jun 1st 2007 by Ananda

20. *speculatively eyes the OpenSim project pages, for progress reports.*

Posted at 8:10PM on Jun 3rd 2007 by Marcus