Are We Citizens or Children?

You missed the "Where did all the Jerks Go?" thread. That one had offensive material removed and was locked for personal attacks.

As far as I know, Coco, it looks about right, though it's too trivial for me to go check out the details. Only one thing to correct:
"protesting the removal "

I was not aware there was any re-moval. Just moval.

Sorry for the delay in replying, RL is so busy for me lately.

Since there seems to be three general kinds of replies to my original post, let me reply to them each in turn and then restate my thesis.


Get Over It

The content, location, and state of the threads are irrelevant. In this specific case, I'm not invested in their content (poking fun at popularity lists), their location (moved to other forums), or their state (edited and locked). What I do care about is a principle. Specifically, our right to discuss, protest, and seek redress for grievances associated with in-world or in-forum discipline.

I was startled when I read the following, placed by the moderator at the end of the locked thread:



It struck me that our virtual government is actively banning dissent. This is precisely what the 1st Amendment in the U.S. was created to protect -- our right to publicly question our government (it later was expanded through judicial interpretation by "activist judges" to include all speech, not just dissent from the views of the government).


LL Should Eliminate the Forums

I feel that LL should maintain its forum, as it is a critical political tool that allows the citizens of SL to exchange ideas, build consensus, and lobby for change among themselves and with the Lindens. In a corporatist oligarchy (a government ruled by the few with a corporate structure) such as the Lindens, the only method those outside of the oligarchy have to affect change is through lobbying. Despite the addition of a democratic lobbying tool (the feature voting web page), the forums remain the primary method of seeking redress and change in our virtual world.


SL is a Game

An oft-heard argument when one seeks rights for virtual citizens, is that the argument for rights is moot since those who create and enforce the laws are a real-world corporation. Instead of arguing that SL is a virtual world and not a game through examples, arguments, and quotes from the Lindens themselves, let me address the issue from another perspective. Namely, there is no intrinsic reason why either a corporation or a government should protect a citizen's right to dissent -- it is a choice that must be made because protecting autonomy (freedom) is a moral obligation.

To restate, governments are no more obligated than corporations to provide or deny citizens, either real or virtual, with inalienable rights. It is a choice. It is my belief that maximizing freedom is a moral obligation and governments and corporations alike must provide and protect that right.


The Lindens should recognize that their forums are a critical tool for communicating with their citizens and extend to those citizens the inalienable right to free speech therein.

~Ulrika~

Oh for f*cks sake.

Am I the only one who thinks this kind of stuff is, being kind, looney?

Here's a clue Ulrika: Despite all of this bleating about "rights", inalienable or otherwise, the fact remains that SL is a service provided by LL. No more, no less. And as such, the only rights you have are those with LL considers in it's best interest. Something we all both explictly and tacitly agreed to.

If you don't like the "rights" you get from LL, you are free to start your own message board and run it as you see fit and you are free to find another service more to your liking.

The forum moderator posted a direct quote from the forum guidelines. Why would this startle anyone?

Read the forum guidelines and the community standards and abide by them. Do that, and you won't have any trouble making posts. Repeatedly break them and the forum moderators and abuse staff will take appropriate action, and ultimately you will forfeit your land, inventory, inworld assets, and linden dollar balance, and lose your Second Life account permanently.

Posting in an acceptable manner is very easy. I cannot see why it seems to be so challenging to some.

Really this is pretty simple. As a note, censorship is also one of my biggest "pet peeves," and was the reason I left one of the earlier forums I used to frequent.


This boils down to how Second Life exists at present. A virtual world and platform in the guise of a game, two distinct schools of thought have formed. The first are the major proponents of the Terms of Service, who agree that Linden Labs owns Second Life and its data, and that we are mere pawns in that mold. And the second, virulent proponents of free speech, who fight tooth and nail for simple rights and an open world.

It is my belief that this cognitive dissonance exists in Linden Labs itself. There are simply those that like the "game" aspect to it all - a closed system that can be managed and "played" - just as there are those who admit to Second Life's platform nature and the existence of real people therein.



The result has been polarization of thought, which I dislike. In discussion on ultimate plans, Andrew Linden said the following, and I quote:


So it's safe to assume they're playing this by ear. (context)




Put very simply, there is no formal policy relating to free speech. Several posters have relayed their concern on this matter in attempts to formalize a Bill of Rights, but that's just plain sophomoric.

Nor is free speech really free. The Internet itself may be free, but often we must adhere to the groundrules of systems we use, just as sources on the Internet can be used in real-world law. Similarly, United States Law has a clear and present danger clause for the "yelling fire in a crowded theater" scenario. Email systems can be subpoenaed, while countries like China can be far worse than the US.




So where is all of this going?

Simply, speech is not expressly free, nor should it be. While the channels should remain open and generally free of censorship, Linden Labs has two obligations to its members: First, to provide an open (PG) forum that generally serves its function, and second to not censor matters to the point of stupidity.

And frankly, while I don't agree with the moves, I agree with the locking(s). To dilute others' right to post their opinion by filibustering your own is simply a clear and present danger to other posters of the forum. To be fair, the locked threads in question were not yet to this level, but I believe the policy is to prevent this scenario before it starts.




The remaining text has been marked as inaccurate by the author.
See explanation here.
------------------

Now, coming back to this issue, please don't thinly mask your anger at being censored behind an ideal, Ulrika. This is a false martyr, and tends to be treated as one by other posters. Attacking censorship itself, on the other hand, would make waves toward solving the problem.

Are we residents or children? I'd say that depends on the intelligence and communication skills of those behind the keyboard. I have yet to find the policies currently at play to be that restrictive, though I'd like the system to be more open for other reasons.

Your supposition is flawed. I am angered by being censored and even more angered by having my dissent censored as well. That was the whole point of my post.

I'm actually quite surprised by your reply. It lacks a demonstrated comprehension of my points, autonomy in general, and is poorly written. Usually your content in the forums is of a much higher caliber. Tsk.

~Ulrika~

My apologies. I skimmed the "Get Over It" section of your previous reply, because I expected it to be more direct to certain posters than it was. To restate the topic, here's what I have been going on:


... which comes off more as veiled anger than it does expressly addressing the idea. This is moot at this point of discussion.


To address the section I glazed over in more detail:

My mistake in bold. Continuing happily:


I disagree. More likely Jeska falsely assessed, as I did, that the thesis was simply restating the argument at play. If so, and you can prove that the matter was incorrect, she has been fairly lenient in the past when a good argument is presented.

A good example being an older thread on Adobe Photoshop in General that was moved to Off Topic, and upon further discussion, was moved to its proper forum (Design and Textures).

Thesis being: Moderators make mistakes, as do select posters.




Which raises an interesting issue: Should these (discussion) forums be moderated by Linden staff members, if at all?

Unfortunately, I feel that is a necessary evil to curtail the level of trolling these forums (especially this forum) sees. It is very interesting that we don't bring up the option of other forums, largely because they are invisible to the public eye.

I feel for this matter to evolve, the option for visible alternatives should remain open, just as the GOM-versus-Linden Labs debate tried to assess. We work within the boundaries of a closed system. Therefore, our only option at present is to appease those with power (the Moderators) or work toward an alternative.

Ugh, this tired, inaccurate statement all over again. First, let's refence the wording of the 1st amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.


See the first word in that quote? It's Congress. The right of free speech applies only to congress and limits what it can or can't do in relation to free speech. Last time I checked, LL wasn't Congress. Therefore a person's right to free speech is irrelevant and not applicable to LL.




On that same note, it's not LL's responsibility nor decision how to spend your hard-earned money. That's your own choice. If you dont like how a business runs their business, then take your hard-earned money and spend it elsewhere. That's how the open competitive market works.


Personally, I agree 100% that LL should be respecting one's 'right' to free speech. It makes for good customer relations, and therefore good business sense. Having said that though, LL's obligation is spelled out in the TOS. That's essentially the contract stating what they are providing for one's money. If one doesn't agree to those terms, then one simply need only stop handing over their money.


- Newfie

Ugh. Not someone with poor reading comprehension again.

I did not say the 1st amendment is a rule that MUST be followed by LL. I said it is a rule that SHOULD be followed.

See what I did there? Come on --it's not hard --think.

LL does not follow the first ammendment because:

1. Not all of us live in the US! ^_^ BIG NEWS FLASH.
2. Free speech is more trouble than its worth.
3. Continuation of 2, if they did they'd have to allow bigotted, prejudiced people who hate minorities to have their say and you know what? When people can openly be harassed under the pretense of "free speech", LL loses paying customers, and thus ching ching.
4. LL does not want to and cannot afford to lose ching ching.

For gods sake, this is a privately run forum by a company, you agree to rules and regulations for moderation when you start coming here and posting here, if you want a completely open forum, go make one. Good luck. There isn't a single one that's survived the idea and doesn't moderate exactly like LL does. In most cases forums tend to moderate even more rigorously.

1. Duh
2. I would die if it meant protecting free speech
3. That is pure speculation on your part.
4. How many do they lose by treating it's adult customers like children?

I don't understand your hostility or your patronizing tone. If you had bothered to actually read my posts you would see I am demanding nothing. I am suggesting that LL consider how their forum policy is in stark contrast to the world they seek to create with us.

Nowhere did I imply you're demanding anything. I'm pointing out why LL won't comply, and probably will never comply. Plus, I wasn't specifically targetting you in my post.

And no, point three is not pure speculation on my part. There are a lot of people saying a lot of utterly disgusting things and getting away with it in real life thanks to free speech, if you're saying you want it on these forums then you have to agree that free speech has it's downsides as well as it's good points. And if you won't take my word for it, turn on the TV, zap to a news channel, and I'm sure something will crop up. Someone saying their piece, offensive to a lot of people, and getting away with it.

How can you even ask for free speech without considering that it'd make the line between what's acceptable to openly say and what you can't very blurry, and very indistinct? Because, it does, if anyone can say their piece how do you determine what is too offensive and what isn't? How many people need to be offended before LL takes action against a thread? Etc, etc, etc.

If you think the failings of the "free speech" principle won't apply here, then you're just kidding yourself, if you ask me.

As for my patronizing tone. Sorry, that was probably out of line, but I fall into that when things get me riled up. As for hostility: I've attacked no person on this forum, only their points in this debate. That's, from what I was taught, what you do in a debate.

Where was Ulrika's righteous indignation over free speech when she was trying to campaign to get Cocoa removed from a thread? Or when everyone was trying to get Prokofy removed from the forums?

Does that free-speech ideal apply to everyone? I only ever see Ulrika mention it when she has personally been censored.

Thank you for illustrating my point.

The speculation on your part is that LL would lose "ching ching".
You have no data to back up that claim.

Ugh, someone who thinks a sarcastic tone adds validity to their argument.

See what I'm doing next? It's explaining how I actually did think before posting. I went past the words used and spent some time thinking about the intention and context of the sentence, rather than just the shallow top level of wordings. In this case, it was the expression of one's claimed right to free speech, then making an implied reference to spending one's hard earned money. All that adds up to not a case of a neutral tone of 'should', but a more emphatic tone of 'must'.

See? Sometimes thinking about how one words things before writing them down can help reduce the occurance that one may end up expressing far different than they intended.


- Newfie

If people can freely harass me and my friends and say hurtful things, I would not be here. That would cost them $18 a month. And yes, I have left online communities before for under-moderation and being targetted by the resident jerk-clique. And if jerk-cliques are allowed to be here (free speech) they inevitably will be here. After all, the internet has no shortage of asshats.

While I wholeheartedly agree with the statement, asking corporations to act "morally" is pretty much against all corporate history and antithetical to capitalism as a whole.

In the particular day and age we live in, I think the only correct response for this situation is ...

good luck!

(you'll need it )

Ghod I love that word

both presumptive and incorrect.

If so, then by all means, please take a moment to explain. I've explained my thinking on it, care to do yours?

- Newfie

My explanation is in my first post on this thread. If you cannot understand the simple point that it makes, I simply can't help you.

I seem to understand it perfectly. However, I hope that I've helped you in understanding basic concepts as sentence structure, tone, and general argumentative techniques.

If not, then I must presume you are beyond help also.


- Newfie

Some people here seem to think SL is a country government and should be run like one. It's not. It's just a business and they will pretty much do as they please.