Aristotle - the Finale :)

I guess it's progress that the 3rd episode of Aristotle was moved to somewhere where we can't see it, instead of locking it. But then again, locking it would have left it for all to see so maybe it's worse.

So what do we have now? Censorship? There was nothing untoward in the thread - no flaming, no vulgarity, no divulging of other people's information, no outing anyone, nothing along those lines. So does it mean that we are not now allowed to discuss Aristotle's shortcomings? Are we being censored? I opened that thread, and I haven't been informed as to why is was moved, or by whom, so it looks like censorship to me. Either that, or it's been quarantined until a higher power decides whether or not the topics we discuss here are to be censored.

I'm not going to start that thread up again, as I think that everyone who wanted to contribute to the topic already did so.

Phil, I agreed with the mod that telling people how to commit identity fraud wasn't really appropriate for a game forum.

Identity theft (including of a deceased person) is illegal.

Also the last part of the Aristotle form is an agreement that the form can be sent to the user's government - so the person would be in very hot water were that to happen, if their info was not their own. JMO

Yep.

*sighs*

I didn't agree with Millie's stated rationale, but there's a better one. Forum guidelines forbid reopening a locked topic.

You're doing it again.

IBTL.

I am (so far) able to access Zindra and did not use Aristotle, fwiw. I do not like the idea so I did not use it. As for the idea itself, the main idea was likely to protect LL legally (due diligence). No one's said that it absolutely protects actual children from accessing Second Life. That part's been debated to death (guilty of said debate filibuster, myself).

Well, the idea may have been to protect somebody but that's not what they actually did..

Once they declared that it was searchable content driving who would have to move, their entire plan fell apart as far as I'm concerned. They've done nothing to make SL better or safer for anybody. They have, once again, gone way out of their way to make things worse.

Meade, there is a difference between legally protected company and actually protected user base. That was my point.

Any judge that looked at this 'best effort' would not be impressed. They still let totally-unverified people in and give them access to mature sims and it's still perfectly sl-legal for them to peek into your bedroom while you're doing the wild monkey thang.

Also, I think Legal Linden came out and said that this was not being driven by any legal requirement or action.

IBTL

.

oh

Well this has all been discussed/debated endlessly.

None of us out here (that I know of) are privy to exactly why the recent changes regarding 'adult content' in LL. We can all talk ourselves blue in the face.

SL has its TOS and no one is supposed to be in world who is under 18. Nor are they supposed to harass others by spying on activitiy in their houses. Even if SL physics makes it possible to do so.

It's possible to peek in your RL neighbors' windows too but not advised by law. It happens anyway because police cannot be all places in the world at one time.

Anyway are we a bit off topic here?

There's a topic?


(IBTL)

They do? I didn't know that. However, I'm not doing it again with this thread. This thread is about censorship. Admittedly, a few people have gone back to age verification, but that's not my doing. I started the thread about censorship in the forum. Having said that, nobody has talked about Aristotle's shortcomings in this thread - just age verification in general - and surely nobody can object to that being discussed in the forum.

That wasn't the reason why the first 2 threads were locked, and they are the ones that contained that sort of thing. I wasn't in the first thread where the step by step instructions were apparently posted.

My concern is about censorship in the forum. These Aristotle threads are not the only ones in the last few days where censorship *may* have come into play, although I think the other one was just coincidence.

It is their playground, Phil. They pay for the forums. They pay for every single fucking word published here. They can decide what they want us to say or not say. It is not your god-given right to demand free speech in these forums.

Yes it is, and they can, but I've never seen censorship here and, if it is really happening, then I am certain there'd be a huge outcry here. It would be right to prevent posts that suggest breaking the law, but the reasons given for locking the first 2 threads were nothing to do with that, AND those threads are still here and readable.

To be honest, I don't actually think it's happening. I think we have seen a demonstration of wounded pride, but that's just my opinion, which may be wrong.

The fact that one can use the information of a dead person to age verifiy with Aristotle is not an "exploit."

The many, many databases available to credit agencies, banks, debt collectors, private investigators, etc. have information on whether people are dead or not. It may not be perfect information; various states have various rules about what vital records are available to the public. But the information is generally available.

So why doesn't Aristotle have some sort of check for whether the information it receives belongs to a dead person? Probably because they don't want to spend money to get the information.

If Aristotle had a real database, it would be much harder to find dead people whose information would pass. Not impossible, but hard enough that some people would give up on trying, and other people could potentially be caught from having to try too many identities of dead persons, or one particular dead person being used to identify a lot of people from a lot of different IPs.

So the reason the issue deserves discussion is because Linden Lab is trying to lie about what the Aristotle service does.

Remember that the point of Age Verification is for the benefit of residents who want to exclude minors from seeing certain content. They deserve to have the choice of providing their content on SL, or choosing another place to put that content that may have adult controls more to their liking.

But this isn't an exploit. A defective lock is a defective lock.

This thread isn't about that, Amity.

i don't like being censored either, Phil. i totally get why you are frustrated about 'that part'.

If we are being censored, then it's a resident who is doing it, and *that* is unacceptable. It would be unacceptable if LL were doing it, but it's their forum and I am free to not use it. But I don't think it's censorship. I've already said what I think it is.

Phil, it seems from your OP that you didn't see the message about the thread move, so here is what I saw:

Oh and IBTL.

Ty, Gabriele. I take it that Millie posted that in the thread right before moving it? That explains where it is now.

It's interesting that Millie gave a 3rd reason for her actions. First it was because the topic was vile (first thread), then it was because the topic was about an exploit (second thread) and finally it's because the topic was about using a particular website, which it wasn't (the third thread). I wish she'd make up her mind

This thread shouldn't be locked as it's a different topic. It's about censorship, and not about Aristotle's shortcomings. It briefly drifted onto age verification but that's fine.

The subject of the moved thread is tied to the moving of the thread.

When someone sues Linden Lab because the person's child accessed some sort of naughty content, Linden Lab is going to respond, "Don't sue us, sue the resident who didn't use this great Age Verification tool we made available."

Linden Lab's interest in stopping discussion of this issue isn't about hurt feelings. It's about potential legal liability that they want to avoid and kick to us.

In my mind, it is more justified for a thread to be deleted if it were a matter of hurting someone's feelings. But when the reason for the deletion or locking is to prevent discussion of a bad product they are trying to sell us, that's a completely different issue.

Wait this tool will block us from lawsuits? Last I checked we were told to speak with lawyers about it. It protects LL only and even that is up to debate.

I didn't see orgional thread but step by step guides agree is no no but it does bing a point/ I think it was mentioned last year when they tried this the first time with verifaction. They not only used Tupac but Paris Hilton as samples.



I believe you did without consent. LL has your CC on file likly and just used that info to give to them. I'm in the same boat though I am 99% sure (short of a never before had drunken stupor) that I have not registered with verification either.