Support for the "Impeach Bush" Guy

It certainly can, but it can also fall flat if the action or principle the consumers are lobbying against is one that the company holds dear. Consider the boycott of Disney by the Southern Baptists over Disney's gay-friendly theme park policies and employment benefits. The boycott was strong, vocal, well-publicised, and one would imagine had some effect on Disney's bottom line - but Disney didn't budge.

Linden Labs has long expressed a vision of a "world" where imagination and creativity are free to explore for all. One of the fundamental tenants of that vision is the right for each user to create what they want on their own land, as long as its within the TOS (no hate speech, etc.). I sincerely do not see LL changing course to crack down on the Impeach Bush guy, especially considering the following:

1. There have always been controversies about what other people build. And LL has always taken a hands-off approach.
   
2. There are numerous options available to people that want to keep the skyline clear of these boxes, including moving to a zoned sim, purchasing the neighboring land, etc.
   

Robin Linden apparently thinks so.

/invalid_link.html

Just went over to take another look at that poll.

The poll is now running as follows:

-------

81.94% in favor of removing all or some of the signs.

56.49% wanting them removed entirely; 25.45 percent wanting them limited.

14.50% says keep them, they're free speech.

-------

Here's a new poll question for ya's: How many of y'all saying that this poll is meaningless voted to keep the signs?

And what would you be saying now if keeping the signs had 81.94% support?

coco

I've already argued the definition of extortion in another thread, but people love making the definition of a word fit their purpose, so I'll let it go with a link. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extortion




If that's what Lazarus is doing, then AR him for griefing. That might get you further. Maybe.




Maybe. But if you're bored some afternoon, check out The Corporation, a highly informative film about where a corporation's loyalties truly lie. Not saying Coke would or wouldn't do any of those actions, but its an eye-opener to see what companies really DO do that make ugly signs in a virtual world seem pretty silly.

Frankly, I get sick of constant advertisements in RL much more than I do in SL.

If you'll link me, I'll vote. I've been wondering where this poll was that everyone was talking about.

I can only answer for myself on the second part of your statement, but I'd say "Meh". Pretty much what I'm saying now. 84% of what's probably no more than 50-60 people is still a far cry of an accurate analysis of the total resident population, and in my opinion it wouldn't matter anyway since LL has already stated that the signs are staying, poll or no poll.

It's hard to get an company to go against its perceived interests, procedures and whatever principles it retains, certainly, and LL is still small enough to have principles. (I'm a little cynical about Disney's decision but that's something for a different thread; in any case they did the right thing as far as I'm concerned). Small companies are more vulnerable to pressure campaigns like mass incident reporting and in-game civil disobedience because there are a smaller number of people to annoy, uh, make the problem clear to, but I've always thought it unlikely that LL would do anything in this case.

I think that there is a principle involved here and I'm much more interested in user action to avoid or reduce the impact of the problem - it takes effort, communal action, it's not an easy "get daddy to ban it" solution, but that's the sort of attitude that people are increasingly going to have to take online. I would prefer to see that LL clearly appreciate that the principle is being gamed but it's more important to uphold it than act in this instance rather than baldly say "it's just free speech", but whatever.

That's not going to stop me taking the piss out of the situation of course.

Excellent post. I personally think LL knows the principle is being gamed - but it takes time to work out a solution that still upholds the principle while removing the ability to game it. I personally like adding the ability to not view others builds from your parcel, and there are other suggestions floating about here and in the voting section of sl.com which might prove to be workable solutions.

This problem is one that has existed in SL for as long as I've been a member. Whether it's ugly builds, for-sale signs, or political signs, the problem stems from the fact that users have complete freedom to do on their land what they desire as long as it's within the ToS. The reason things are they way they are is that these limitations can be simply implemented using a permissions-based system which doesn't require Linden intervention. Building limits are part of the underlying SL technology.

To modify this, one can bluntly extend the technology to limit what texture an individual can see either by parcel (structures winking in and out as one flies) or by avatar (some users will see ugly grey blocks about). It must be a technological solution because LL is a hands-off government, choosing to reduce overhead by coding general limitations into the system and providing users with a built-in emergency call box for especially nasty crimes.

What must be particularly unappealing for them is that they would have to convolute a relatively simple underlying code to allow for individuals to create a per-parcel or per-avatar virtual covenant. The optimal solution of course, is to simply create global, real covenants, however those require government or more specifically user-run government (since the Lindens are averse to the overhead associated with hands-on government). Examples of successful working user-run governments with covenants are Luskwood and Neualtenburg, which even has a fledgling legal system.

In short there are very little clean solutions for such a problem. The Lindens have never taken any step towards curbing the power (and audacity) of land barons nor have the ever varied from the principle of liberty within the ToS on one's own land. My recommendation is that individuals form or join communities with true deeds and covenants, if they dislike these signs.

~Ulrika~

Just becuase its a majority opinion does not make it right. Sometimes the enabling authorities, like LL, will have to protect the right choice from the one most would make. Because sometimes "unconsitutional" laws are passed by a majority. In this case LL has done the right thing, its just not the thing you want done.

Well said Ulrika. While those signs ruin the view on some of my team's builds, it is that fundamental freedom to build whatever, however, whenever that is so appealing about SL. Endorsing content censorship is a slipperly slope.


I think the best solution is a player-run land/griefer insurance. Pay an insurance company X $L a month based on the value of your land and when you feel something horrible has gone wrong with your land purchase (such a griefer or generally unpleasant structure), use your policy to reclaim your original investment. Shaun Altman has some great ideas on a business like this.

Excellent post.

Exactly! Democracy is mob rule and it can be an ugly thing.

~Ulrika~

Too many people forget that slavery was supported by a majority of Americans. Or that segregation boasted a wide amount of support in the South. Excellent post, Jake.

Yes, well, I never said that just because something is a majority opinion it makes it right. That would be a rather stupid to say, wouldn't it?

LL has not done the right thing, even though it is the thing you wanted them to do.

coco