Okay, this might be completely out of left field. From scouring the forum since joining Second Life I've noticed a slight trend of distrust of events and/or products. It's been said that sometimes you don't get what's been advertised. The owner or proprietor may advertise something to get traffic that's not completely true. To that end I suggest a modified version of the Truth in Advertising act. Here's how it works in general.
(Taken from the Federal Trade Commision's website)
- Advertising must be truthful and non-deceptive;
- Advertisers must have evidence to back up their claims; and
- Advertisements cannot be unfair.
An ad is deceptive if it contains a statement - or omits information - that:
- Is likely to mislead consumers acting reasonably under the circumstances; and
- Is "material" - that is, important to a consumer's decision to buy or use the product.
An ad or business practice is unfair if:
- It causes or is likely to cause substantial consumer injury which a consumer could not reasonably avoid; and
- It is not outweighed by the benefit to consumers.
Granted, these are particularly strict and probably can't be well implemented as they stand. A modified (read: simplified) version of these rules could make the consumer much more at ease with letting go of the Linden Dollars. A function similar to abuse reporting could aid in keeping tabs on unethical business practices. The question comes when trying to right a violation of Second Life Advertising Laws. It could be hard to pin down who was wronged, when, and what should be done. These are valid points that need to be identified and ironed out before such a radical change could be made. I think this topic should bear out the pros and cons of this idea and possibly run up an outline as to how this could or could not be implemented.
If you're genuinely interested in the Truth in Advertising act, I can provide a link.
Welcome to the Second Life Forums Archive
These forums are CLOSED. Please visit the new forums HERE
