SL Discrimination

Does any one else see possible discrimination problems with the New 'No payment on file" , "Payment info on file", and "Payment Info used".

Not to mention the Privacy issues it might raise?

I agree; this seems very odd. I would like an explaination to its purpose.

Just file an abuse report wherever you see it... I certainly will be.

From what I understand, that is the purpose of those items, to allow discrimination based on the credit card info... According to the release notes at http://history.secondserver.net/index.php/Version_1.10.5:
"We plan to provide features in future updates to mark specific parts of the Second Life world (or allow residents to mark their own land) as accessible only to accounts with payment information. "

Ok I dont think other players are gonna care that much about your payment info being on record or not. But that whole thing about restricting parts of Second Life based on payment method is a lode of bullshit!!! This is Second Life not Runescape! This place is unique because of the absolute freedom it embodies. If the Lindens ever do start restricting places to paying residents there will be major consequences for LL.

i think most mature places will not allow unverified to protect theyr ass again the whole child thing.

SL isn't democracy, SL is a game/platform and LL is here for doing business, not to offer free candies

If u had sons or daughters who were under age would u want them getting into a game where they are at risk to be emotionally, verbally and possible in a round about way sexually abused by someone who does not care how old he/she is. Granted kids today know alot more then kids did 30 yrs ago but do we really need to promote it. In rl they have a heck of time getting adult videos but now there will be no problem. I for one see major problems with allowing underage in.

I don't think the plan is that Lindens will be restricting places -- other residents may well be. For the most part, the Lindens provide the tools; we decide what to do with them.

Similarly, though, the web at large offers the same risks and access for minors.

I conclude the only purpose in Linden putting the payment info up is to try and foster some kind of ideals of superiority discrimination in the minds of residents - ie, those that have given credit card details = cool cats, and those that have actually paid some money with those credit cards = Super Cool Cats.

You can see why they'd like that.

Then they should probably stop pretending otherwise and get rid of the proposition section of this website. :/

They need another flag on the website for LL's reponse 'Won't Do'

Can't do is misleading. When I saw 'Can't Do' on proposals that were just rolling back functionality it made my blood boil.

On the other hand, parents should actually parent their children, and not give them unlimited access to the internet and all it's perverted ways.

No minor should have access to an internet enabled computer without responsible adult supervision.

As a mother of three, I agree. My kids won't have access to my computer (or any computer with internet access) until they show me they're mature enough to handle the net; even with net nanny (which I despise) you can still mistype an URL and get some very, ah, /interesting/ links.

The whole "censor adults to protect the children" doesn't carry a lot of weight with me.

Now this I agree with. (Even if we disagreed on another thread ) Too many irresponsible parents around these days. Having said that, I still think there are some adults who shouldn't be allowed unsupervised access to an internet enabled computer either.

God knows I shouldn't.

So you're going to stand over your kids shoulder every minute they are on a computer? While they are doing homework? Playing a video game? You must have a lot of time on your hands.

As someone who has learned over the years how to cover my tracks and avoid being caught using my employer's computer system for things other than "work related" endeavors, I can tell you if your kid wants to get in to something, and they have a brain, they will.

Giving land owners some ability to restrict their content to users they have a reason to believe are of age is smart, and has nothing to do with discrimination. It's not absolute proof obviously, but it is a reasonable step (among others) to take to prevent minors from hgaving access to adult orientated material.

It's also a tool to use against griefers, the vast majority (if not all) of whom use alt accounts, which would be unverified.


------

We diminish the word discrimination by using it in this context. Discrimination has to with age, race, sex, religion but nothing to do with economic status.

Your account status as either verified or unverified is a choice you made, you can not be discriminated aginst for a choice you've made. Discrimination can only occur when you are being denied access to something solely because of your physical characteristics that are beyond your control. The exception being religion which is a choice but a choice gauranteed to us by the constitution and one that our lawmakers have decided can not be used against an individual in hiring or offering services.

Is it discrimination to you then that if you don't have the $20 cover charge to get into a popular nightclub or the $150 to go to a big concert in RL, you don't get in? Do you stand outside the arena protesting that the performers are discriminating against you because you either don't have the money or simply don't want to pay to get in?

If I go to Launchcast on yahoo and want to listen to a radio station, it may be available to me if I don't have an account, or it might not. Some stations require me to register with a credit card and pay a small monthly fee to access them, this is no different. This is one example of millions all over the internet. LL has adopted the attitue that what is good for the internet is good for SL, and I for one do not disagree.

Actually yes. My daughter's safety is worth every second of my life if need be.



They key isn't simply to stand over her shoulder and say... nope... nope... nope... It also involves educating them as to why such things are dangerous. It is my responsibility as a parent to take the time to make sure my child is as safe and educated as possible. People who can't handle that should not have kids.



I agree with you here. While parents should be able to watch their kids, many don't. While it isn't *our* responsibility to do it for them, people in SL who participate in *the naughties* might want to have a tool to ensure the person they are pose-balling isn't 9 years old. Or, that the person they sold a VibroCumber 9000 to isn't 11 years old.

My point was that even with the best parenting in the world, your kids can and will do things that are not good or safe for them. This isn't about depending on others to make your kid safe, it's really just about legalities and commerce.

LL wants to open the floodgates to new users while providing REASONABLE tools to content providers so they can cover their own but against a negligence lawsuit. Remember, these tools need only be reasonable in the eyes of the law, not your's or mine. Years of legal precedent have determined what is a reasonable attempt to prevent these things and what is not.

If you run a brothel in SL, and a parent catches their 10 year old's avitar getting sodomized, you had better have taken these reasonable steps to prevent it or you are susceptible to a lawsuit. LL has provided the tools to do so and are therefore covered against any such lawsuits.

Not rocket science IMHO. Makes perfect sense.

I am certainly not discounting your point...

I was simply pointing out that parents also need to take steps to protect their children. The two tools together should be utilized. Good parenting should never be replaced with "net nanny". But using them together isn't exactly a bad idea.

I do agree with what you are saying, I am all for the verified/not verified flags, and any additions to LSL that will allow scripters to prevent unverified accounts from using items that really should be for verified accounts only... like adult items.

The more difficult it is for kids to access adult material, the less kids will access adult material. Adults should have no issue with verification of their accounts if they want to access adult content / areas.

Then we seem to be in total agreement. =)

It appears that we indeed are!

There's another purpose to the planned feature, I think --

If you look at the current issue of the Metaverse Messenger, there's an article about this: griefers using short-term alts that they can bring in world without supplying any personal information. The new no-name signup police is defended by LL as a way to get more people to see SL -- exhibits, activities, and like that.

*But* -- that kind of avatar is a griefer's dream. Create it, do your dirty work, terminate it -- and do it all over again next time.

So, if I have anything odd going on around my property -- home or business -- I'm going to use that verified-identity-only filter, when it's available. If I have any reason to *worry* about griefing, I'm going to use it.

If SL is going to allow avatars that can't be traced back to real people, I want the ability to keep those avatars off my property.

That isn't discrimination, any more than locking your front door is discrimination.

It was only, what?, last Aug/Sep that SL was opened to free accounts -- before that ALL ACCOUNTS WERE PAID ACCOUNTS, so LL has already proved it's a viable medium WITHOUT FREE ACCOUNTS.

Get a brain, dear. It's a business, run by LL as a business, not a public charity. Those of us who DO pay for our accounts should have rights to certain things -- like not being harassed by griefers, privacy on our own land, the right to protect ourselves against attack, and the right to know whether someone else is a "citizen" rather than just a tourist. Free accounts, as far as I'm concerned, are tourists -- probably alts, potentially griefers. I'd love to be able to verify who I'm dealing with.

Allowing anonymous accounts to begin with is a mistake. Why do we want people in SL who won't put up a valid payment method? It only serves to reduce the quality of SL's population to that of Yahoo Chat and such.

I agree wholeheartedly. All accounts should be verified, whether they are free basic accounts, or premium paid accounts.

This isn't exactly World of Warcraft... kids should NEVER get into SL, and the more difficult it is for them the better.