What should LL do? [Eek! An SL kid thread!)

I don't watch much TV, but happened to surf by MSNBC the other day in a doomed hunt for that elusive "real news," and was astonished to see that Chris Hansen is *still* milking that "To Catch a Predator" thing that's been airing since 2004 with the same exact storyline in every episode. If it were a sitcom, this would be syndicated reruns by now, but it's "news" somehow. Just more evidence that this particular subject panders to some strange interest of the public; one rather suspects that there's something Not Quite Right about that interest, frankly.

I think a lot of it is because many people entrust their children to strangers or near-strangers for most of the day - day care, pre-school, grade school, organized kid activities of all kinds...and of course there's the latchkey kids, and whatever the hell the kids are doing on the Internet when the parents aren't watching. Simple, plain old fear, I think, with maybe a little guilt thrown in for good measure. You don't have to be a perv to be afraid for your kid. And it's just the kind of ill-defined but scary threat that Actually Does Happen that's perfect for yellow journalists to pander to.

Whatev. I'm still incensed that this reporter and his network so gleefully gloss over the fact that he had to break rules in order to expose the breaking of rules.

Doing an expose' by finding places where this stuff happens and taking pictures and such, is one thing - perhaps a good one at that, as long as it isn't stretched too out of proportion. But think about it - this guy created an avatar for the sole purpose of trying to convince other people to simulate sex with it, and then went about soliciting such activity. That's at least as gross as the people who said "OK".

I mean, if a reporter did a story about how he infiltrated a notable street gang by joining undercover, and then exposed the nefarious activities of the gang, should we ignore the fact that he had to savagely beat a homeless person as part of his initiation into the gang? He just gets a free pass because his "real" intention the whole time was to "expose" this evil group? Of course not. The guy would be a first-class creep. Same situation here.

Does kinda sound like a TOS violation of the worst kind, doesn't it? We weren't there, so we can't be certain, but if it was what it sounds like those who were there should be ARing his weasely little ass right off the grid.

How about it, gang?

I would prefer something with real world effects, like dropping his name to Interpol or something.

There you go. Let's just try to think about what Eliot Spitzer would do...

Hire an over priced prostitute?

ya know, I was encouraged to AR the reporter during the governance meeting a week or so ago.

Mari

Here we go again..

The world turns and some talentless journalist looking for a new gig waltzes into SL and within a few days turns up an instance of at least "sexual ageplay" at worst a peodophile acting out.

And the same old forum members jump up and down claiming it's a fix, the world outside of SL is bad, and the journo in question is symptomatic of a hystrionic press.

Yet .. as discussed and shown at mind numbing, ad nauseum length on these boards, everything they say still has a basis in fact.

We've discussed the impending legal changes in parts of the world.. none of you want hear.

SL is panned almost on a daily basis.. sometimes admittedly by the junk press, but sometimes, it has to be said, by otherwise credible sources. Again, no fault here.

Whatever you guys think, LL actually does have to survive in the real world. The fact that it remains your own little backwater fantasy playground is actually seen as failure by LL and the rest of the world.. not success.

It isn't anywhere near successful enough yet to survive on it's own in the medium term, and those that think they can extrapolate a successful stand alone future for SL based on a past where someone else was paying the bill are .. well not too bright.

You see LL came into this to build a business and make money, the investors invested to make money... not really to provide you with a safe environment to play at being 9 years old again.

If you like SL, if you want it to succeed and grow and remain what you want as well as catering for the other stakeholders necessary to pay the bills and pay the investors and guarantee the future.. then stop acting like tantrum throwing little children.. just for a while.

Let's get together and deal with the issues as they arise instead of pretending they don't exist. God forbid, as people who say time and again that we know the "truth" about SL.. let's actually use that knowledge and help LL secure the future.

Seriously.. I read posts on these threads by intelligent, articulate people and I think if only all this energy was directed in a positive way to dealing with the issues head on, rather than proving to each other why they don't exist.. SL would be in a lot better condition.

LL has already banned Sexual Ageplay between avatars. Even those Avatars that are being controlled by RL adults.

In Excess, I will point out, of US and California law. Thus there is no way to compel them to implement costly proactive enforcement.

The prices we pay for land/teir/memberships are already high enough.

How do you propose LL increase enforcement on material they already have banned (and will remove) without increasing their own costs?

What baffles me is this focus on child avatars. The danger of children being exploited would come from actual children hooking up with adults through whatever social networking site/world, and I find it highly unlikely that an actual child would sneak into SL to create a child avatar.
So unless you subscribe to a "gateway" point of view where fantasies and play leads to you doing it RL, I don’t see a case at all. And if you *do* subscribe to that... your energies would probably be better spent crusading against, say, combat sims and the wars and murder they cause. (<- Sarcasm, in case that didn't get across in text. Though it *does* open up a whole other discussion why fantasies about violence and killing are perfectly acceptable, while fantasies about other illegal acts are reprehensible).

OMG (rolls eyes) not again

I think we should just ignore the stupidity of this news agency and I think LL should do the same. It's just a great story to sell up.

Well said!

QFT

Sounds like time the "children" of SL had a voice. I definitely am not the one to organise this.

There are anti-pedophile groups active within SL I understand, defiitely I knew of one German one.

Stephen, people might be more receptive to your ideas if you didn't feel the need to lecture us as though we were recalcitrant children.

No one denies that there is still sexual ageplay on the grid, what we object to is the overstatement of such occurrences...it's not happening around ever corner, as news reports such as this one seem to imply. In any case, these are not our issues to 'deal with.' If we see someone engaging in those activities, we can AR them, eject and ban if they happen to be on our land, but beyond that, it's really up to LL.

You may have missed, in my original thread, where I asked what LL should do about such an issue? I'm not simply wringing my hands her -- I have a stake in SL's success too, an am curious if they are doing _enough_ in countering negative press.



I do what I can to keep up visibility an stuff. I know other kids do, too. I Do sometimes with there was more of a "got your back" from LL.



Yup, yup.

Mari

Hello Ann,

I'm sorry for lecturing, mainly it's exasperation, which is slightly different.

You know, I actually don't even have a particular axe to grind in this area. In SL I'm pretty much the same staid boring small businessman that I am in RL...

I do though love the interesting and eclectic mix of people and interests I meet in SL every day and I'd hate to see that obliterated because we refused to accept that for SL right now, perceptions are key to its future.

Whether or not these "journalists" exaggerate the situation in SL, it is probably quite telling that even the most useless and crass of them manage to identify and then infiltrate the "news worthy" minority so easily.

In my mind there are two possible reasons for this:

(1).The "journalists" actually know what they're doing.

or

(2).What they're looking for is a bit more widespread and near the surface than we care to believe.

To be honest, I don't even agree with the idea that it's a matter of degree. At any given time there are only about 45,000 concurrent users logged in, maybe about 500,000 real unique active users in total.

Even if they find only a few people breaking the rules, in such a small population that turns out to be a % which is too large for my comfort.

Who knows, really, how "easy" it was. Certainly, Mr. Farrell would seem to want you to think it was going on at Orientation Island. The breakdown, as best I can put it together, is this:

1. Some months ago, Farrell, within an organization known for doing "teh Inter-tubes is a skery place" stories and other similar stuff, investigates Second Life. His interest *likely* comes form an anonymous tipster. This led to his piece on the Wonderland location.

2. This last month, Farrell was again inworld, again likely due to an anonymous tipster (I will not release any names, but I have credible information on this). He created a child avatar and starting soliciting in a location owned by the former owner of Wonderland.

Bear in mind that no other kid spaces in SL have ever reported any contact from Farrell: many of us would *love* to talk to him. It is likely he had no need to go to any other spaces. To the best of knowledge, his was a planned event more than a random "stumble upon."

Mari

I'm going to defend Stephen here. I didn't read anything patronising into that. I think it's a cross-Atlantic cultural "internet voice" thing perhaps - I thought it was a very germane argument personally.

/me scratches Ann's ears.

Ok, well this is going to raise all kind of hell..and to be honest that's a little of the reason I'm suggesting it , but what if LL made everywhere PG and enforced it as standard?

What would SL actually lose?

To be honest, if SL crumpled as a result then the hyperventilating press were right.

The fantastic creativity would remain, the ability to live out fantasies (albeit not graphically sexual), the business and social opportunities would remain.

Ok, we all know that we'd still pursue our own private lives in private, and that the scope for misuse would still be there.

Everything would however certainly be more transparent to a degree and LL could actually stand up and say they'd done something proactive and were taking the issues seriously.

No partay, No SL

I think it's been proven well enough that it's the fact that SL is *not* wholly PG that makes it alluring. An entirely PG Second Life could not be lived, by me or others I care about.

Proactive rules enforcement? (o.o)

/me shudders at the thought. ((>_<)

Why can't they just update the TOS? Would that be proactive enough? (T_T)

Okay, so addressing this is a bit like designing insecticides: finding the links in the lifecycle to interrupt.

Probably the least effective approach would be to reduce the frequency (whatever it may be) of sexual ageplay in-world, since if it didn't exist at all, an "anonymous tipster" could easily arrange for it to occur, on demand, for the benefit of our journalist visitors.

Presumably most effective would be to get rid of the journalists, but unless done well, it looks like suppression of the press. It's just very difficult to catch all the journalists fondling their RL nieces, but this would probably be a good deterrent.

Then there's the "anonymous tipsters" themselves. What's in it for them? If they actually gave a damn about inappropriate in-world behavior, they'd go to LL about it, not the media, so we know for certain that they're in it for the sole purpose of damaging SL. Competitors? (probably not) Disgruntled former employees? Embittered erstwhile casino owners? Lots of possible motivations--possible enemies. So "fixing" their grievances isn't really an option. Maybe the disincentive of an IP ban would work, assuming their anonymity isn't that perfect; they have broken ToS, too, if they've identified residents with their "tips"; record of IMs between them and the journalists might well exist on LL's servers (not the initial "tip" presumably, but perhaps a smoking gun).

I'm admittedly not at my most tolerant first thing in the morning, but it was these bits which caused that reaction:



It basically all sounds like 'Stephen knows best,' and we're just being stubborn by not admitting it. And the bits about money and investments...well, duh! But, again, not our issue to deal with; LL is responsible for their own business strategy, not the Residents.



*demands tuna*

Sounds like a set of cover up tactics, to cover up something we say doesn't need to be covered up.

So basically, in a virtual world which prides itself on freedom.. well of everything, we're going to ..

Ban where possible any journalistic investigation of our activities, except of course where they are prepared to report what we want them to report.

and.

Eject anyone who "informs", regardless whether their motivation is malicious, misguided or actually based on some sort of moral need to act.

Oh, and the one tactic.. that of actually trying to stop that which is illegal anyway.. too difficult so lets not bother..

Sweet..