Words from Chairman Kingdon - Adult Content

Very good question, Nikita, and maybe someone with insight to the new search engine will happen across your question and provide an answer.

My cynical facet says that if picks aren't G rated, profiles will be blocked from the search engine. Say it isn't so!

Regardless of any religious leanings Kingdon may have, it did seem curious to me that he picked on Howard Stern [see my opening post] as an example of adult/mature opt in material. Is Stern really afraid of the FCC? His contract at Sirius, at one time, was worth over USD 500 million, and Stern would run from piddly FCC fines? I don't think so. Stern is an easy target because of his in your face approach and is, most likely, detested most by those of strong religious leanings. Kingdon's stand on Stern places him staunchly on the religious right wing side of the fence.

There is a logical fallacy in saying that if many intolerant people are religiously devout, therefore many religiously devout people are intolerant.

Unless the religion(s) in question preach(es) intolerance.

Though the point about gross generalizations is a given.

That's why I said "in my experience".

Well, I think my point was that it depends on the religion.

Devout Buddhists, for example, rarely have issues with intolerance.

If the majority of your experience is comprised of believers from those religions which preach intolerance, then yeah, you're likely to see a lot of it. You're right that, in those cases, it is the rare individual who is a "devout" follower who so happens to be very tolerant, simply because to be considered "devout", one has to follow the preachings of the religion fairly closely, of which intolerance is prominent in many.

It's a good thing I didn't say that then.

I realize we're dealing in hypotheticals here, so I'm just playing around with various going-in assumptions. I think M probably does expect to make more profit by splitting the world between something like "mainstream" and "hardcore" than he could hope to make with them all mixed up together. Personally, I think that's wishful thinking (or premature), and that there won't be enough people attracted to sub-Adult Second Life to keep it viable. (I also suspect that this is why the definition of "Adult" keeps getting pushed off to the edge of the charts: M, too, is afraid nobody will want to give up "Adult" abilities unless "Adult" can be cast as freaks and felons.)

But right: if we assume instead that both survive, will the sub-Adults put up with the fact there are Adult happenings across yon void? I'm cynical enough to think they'll be more than happy with that arrangement as long as the money is good--and eager to rid the grid of those sinners as soon as they can be seen as a threat to God-fearing revenue. Unfortunately I'd expect that to start the day Ursula opens; it may or may not be a real threat, but it will surely be a convenient scapegoat.

Speculating on the CEO's religious views is pointless, at best.

Jerry Falwell wasn't evil because he was a right-wing Christian evangelical. Jerry Falwell was evil because he, with his own words and actions, encouraged hatred and bigotry in anyone who will listen. His actions were wrong, no matter what religious flavor they have.

Rosedale wouldn't have chosen Kingdon if Kingdon's views on Second Life were too divergent from Rosedale's. And we all know Roledale was the leading force in the choice of Kingdon, the board of directors is pretty much on board with Rosedale's vision (though probably more focused on the bottom line), and Rosedale probably exerts a lot of behind-the-scenes influence in Linden Lab still.

I don't know Rosedale's religious or politcal values. When it comes to his idealization of what Second Life should be, it's quite a socially liberal vision. I don't believe he chose a successor with a radically different vision, nor would he and his techno-hippie board allow the new CEO to operate outside of that socially liberal vision (unless it meant more profits).

Second Life is about the most "Adult" virtual world there is out there. (I guess I've heard of a few devoted entirely to sex, but I bet they are nowhere near as complex environments as SL. Otherwise, I probably would know more about them and be there right now instead of making this forum post.) The new "Adult" policies are bad policies. But even after the polices, SL still probably remains THE place to be on the internet for virtual interactive "Adult" fun.

If the goal is really to sanitize SL of "Adult" content, the new policies are a convoluted way of getting rid of it. (Of course, even if LL's goal was to get rid of "Adult" content, they still may, due to incompetence, chose the most convoluted way of getting rid of it.)

That LL is attempting to simultaneously sanitize SL for the public relations benefit, will retaining all the money that comes from the "Adult" activities, remains the most plausible explanation. There is plenty wrong with LL's new policies. But I think looking for the vast right-wing conspiracy behind them is pointless at best, but at worse, a distraction from the real issues.

Associating the critics of the new policy as a left-wing collection of right-to-porn activists detracts from the credibility of the good, legitimate, and quite correct arguments against the new policy.