Bye bye adfarmers?

Freedom of Speech isn't rubbish, it's when it's applied to things where it shouldn't be applied.

...But I *want* to yell "FIRE!" in a crowded theatre - if you don't let me, then you have infringed my right to free speech.

I want to thrown broken glass shards out of my car window as an artistic expression - if you don't let me then you are stifling my right to freedom of expression!

Assume that the land owner is a legitimate advertising network - a kind person and not in his/her heart an extortionist. And assume you are a neighbor that hates advertising in any form.

Presumably, if they have an ad space in a prime location, they would indeed rightly ask for and deserve a high sales price. They would quote you a price they felt was fair compensation for the loss of their location, but do so trying to address your needs. You use this conversation log as part of your evidence in an AR.

Who is abusing the process here?

</devil's advocate>

Assuming that there are no local laws prohibiting such "expressions" as you described, you also have the "right" to experience the consequences of your actions, such as being trampled by a crowd of frightened people, or ruining your tires as you drive over the broken glass

But back to the original topic - the whole issue here is about *extortion* - not simply about whether a land owner has the right to put whatever they choose on their land (thereby expressing themselves), or whether someone likes the looks of someone else's property.

this is a stupid fucking argument.
we are talking about _ADFARMS_ not 'art', freedom of speech, or free expression.
we still remember what adfarms are, right?

Yes, Nina, that is what we are talking about. Some folks still want to make it complicated.

Ah but some people feel that if they can't put whatever garbage they want on their little 16m lot and set the sales price to "extortionate" and then harrass their neighbours then their right of freedom of speech are being violated.

Boo-hoo.

Nobody. If their sales price is justified by the location, or by other market demands, then it is not, by definition, "extortion". The neighbor will probably still AR them, but it's up to LL to determine if the situation is extortion or simply good business practice.

Hmm that will work too.

It's not rubbish when it's legitimate, but those who think a commercial entity, or anyone else, is obligated to pay for or transmit their speech have no clue what freedom of speech means. The first ammendment is really, really short. People should read it. All the words. Including the ones that explicitly state who it applies to.

Of course it may mean something else somewhere else. Maybe somewhere else "freedom" means "at no cost" or "access to any equipment whether you own it or not".

I used to own an advertising company in Second Life, and used to advocate strongly for landowner rights. The ad company was one of 35+ companies I run in SL. I removed all of my ads, which were some of the less offensive ones, several months ago. I am not a "reformed" advertiser, I just found more profitable uses for my land tier. So I am not going to speak out for or against the advertisers at all, I am going to speak out to each and every one of you that owns any size parcel of land on the mainland in second life.

While I applaud LL's efforts to remove those that try to extort high prices for land from neighboring landowners, I will warn you all that many of you, based on previous posts here, are reading some things into the new policy that just aren't there, while ignoring much of what IS there.

The main crux of the policy is written thusly:

"Advertising on small parcels is fine, we are not outlawing the use of small parcels for this purpose.

However..

Using content, particularly advertising, to deliberately and negatively affect another resident’s view so as to sell a parcel for an unreasonable price, will be deemed unacceptable and dealt with as a violation of our community standards."

I assume the policy is aimed at those that attempt to use visual, audible, or particle based scripted or non-scripted content as an annoyance factor to increase the sales price of their land, causing people to pay a higher than "reasonable" price to remove said annoyance.

This does not mean the end of ad farms...this does not mean that billboards will be removed from second life, this does not mean that you can AR any billboard and have it removed...This also does not mean that the price per meter of land for sale will be regulated, or kept at a "reasonable" price, because that is not what the policy states.

Linden Labs has not answered a great many issues concerning this new policy, some of which I will delve into:

1. The policy does not limit the reportable content to annoying ads..but to any content that negatively affects anyone's view, anywhere, anytime, no restrictions.
This is entirely subjective, with the Lindens falling back on "I dont know what defines "Using content, particularly advertising, to deliberately and negatively affect another resident’s view, but I'll know it when I see it". My question is, if you can't define it, how can you enact and apply the policy with anything approaching even-handedness?

2. What is considered to be an unreasonable price?
Exhorbidant or unreasonable prices for small (or large) parcels is relative. If an advertiser paid L$800 for a prime 16m ad parcel, and it will take him a reasonable amount of time to find a parcel in that same sim, or another that is as well placed, then charging L$1000 is not extortionistic at all. It is making a reasonable profit (or perhaps not even making a profit, merely just paying him for the time he will have to spend to find another spot)...And, as you can see from the policy, it is not aimed at legitimate advertising businesses. What if he paid L$3000 for that parcel a year ago, when land prices were so high?...will Linden Labs force him to sell it under his acquistion price, because they arbitrarily judge it is too high in todays land prices? Many of you own mainland waterfront...would you like to put it up for sale for L$20/meter (a reasonable price for mainland waterfront), and be AR'd just because someone could now say you are pricing it too high, because it is more than twice what some other mainland parcels are priced at, and they dont like your house? Remember, the policy does NOT limit it to ad land, nor to any particular size of parcel...or to an advertisement...it says "view", and "content".

Please also note that the "unreasonable" price is contingent on them having something that can be considered to impede your view. There is nothing in the policy that states they can't list their parcel for any price they choose, as long as it does not use "content" to negatively affect another resident's view.

3. Since my "view" may differ from others....based on draw distance...what is considered to be "another resident's view"? I can set my "view" anywhere from 64m to 512m, and if I disable my camera constraints I can remotely cam a lot further than that. What defines another person's view? What if the "view" I expect is an unencumbered view of the sunset with my windlight viewer, does your house have to go?...do you have to ensure what I deem my right to my view over your land? According to the policy as written, you do. What makes my right to my view anymore important that you using your land as you wish?

4. Since the policy does not state that the reporter of the abuse has to be a land owner anywhere near the offending view....can we assume that anyone can report any offending content anywhere on the grid?...as long as it affects their view at any particular moment?
Is this appropriate?...Should I be able to AR your neighbor in your sim, because I dont like the looks of their house, or garden, or statue, just because I think they are trying to sell their land for too much?

5. Since the policy specifically states that it is only "Using content, particularly advertising, to deliberately and negatively affect another resident’s view so as to sell a parcel for an unreasonable price" that would be considered a violation of the TOS. What if the parcel in question is NOT for sale, then it follows that there can be no reason to AR. This means that those who wish to keep their ugly, spinning, particle spitting, annoying <insert name of content> on their land, can do so without repercussion. This is why I state that this won't remove advertisements, they will just remove the small parcel land from sale...and since advertisers will not even discuss selling it, while it has an ad on it, you can forget about purchasing it for any price, anytime.

5b. Since the policy specifically states that it only "Using content, particularly advertising, to deliberately and negatively affect another resident’s view so as to sell a parcel for an unreasonable price", then it also follows that the owner of these parcels could very well, and within the boundries of the TOS merely remove their "content" and replace it with ban lines. The ban lines will be almost as visually unappealing to you, still ruin your "view", and not be against the TOS in any way, because it does not ruin your view with "content". The ban lines will give neighboring landowners the added difficulty of not being able to fly through the air space. Imagine having to weave through a maze of ban lines...

6. Since the policy defines "content"...giving advertising as an example, but not limiting it to advertising...are we to assume that an ugly house or statue or windmill...or anything else anyone else deems to be negatively impacting their view of the moment on a parcel that they also feel is too expensive is able to be ARd? Do you realize that with this policy that so many of you are cheering for, that you are also the landowner that is on the other side of the property line from the owner of the 16m parcel? That you now are just as vulnerable to having YOUR land price, YOUR content arbitrarily judged for anything that "negatively affects another resident’s view so as to sell a parcel for an unreasonable price" This means that when you decide to sell your land, you are limited by what you have on the land, and for how much you may sell it for? What if you purchased your land a year ago, and paid 20L/meter? Will you be willing to take a loss on it, since by today's prices, that is "unreasonable"? When you advocate the abrogation of ANY residents rights to use his or her land for whatever use they wish, regardless of the size of the parcel, you are giving up your own right to do the same.

7. There have been groups that have put up ad blockers around billboards…these individuals and groups have often told advertisers that they will not remove the blockers unless the ad space owners sell the land to the groups at "a reasonable price". Is this not just a reverse form of extortion? Should these residents now be subject to the same punishments that a small parcel landowner will be subjected to? They are, afterall, extorting the rightful owner of that land to sell it below his price, for their benefit. Is that not as onerous to you? It should be.

8. Historically, on the mainland in SL, one has always "purchased the land, not the view". A policy of "you dont pay my tier, so you shouldn't be able to tell me how to live on my land". There has never been a "zoning law" on the mainland regions. Now it seems that there is a reversal of this policy. Now those that share your view, and those who's view you share, by right of your own land ownership (or by not owning any land at all, it seems), can now determine what should or shouldn't be allowed on your land. Do you realize you are giving up your right, the right you PAY for with your tier, to use your land as you wish? Is it worth owning land in a system that allows any other resident to mandate how you can or cannot use what you pay for? I agree with the right of "eminent domain", a governments right to acquire private property for public use. But this is not the case here, this is a case of a bastardization of "Public Domain", a government forcing it's citizens to allow public use of privately owned land....and if you own land in second life, it is taking away your rights too.

Last but not least...the motto of SL used to be "Your World, Your Imagination" Perhaps it should be changed to "Your world, but only so far as it is limited by anyone else's opinion, anywhere on the grid that might happen to see your property."

I agree wholeheartedly with your statement Anya...so tell me, since you agree that freedom does NOT mean "at no cost"...and/or access to any anything whether you own it or not...but you seem to expect the freedom to enjoy an unimpeded view over someone else's land...and you seem to expect access to the view over another person's property without ownership....exactly what part of your neighbor's land will you be purchasing, so you MAY own it...and/or what part of their tier will you be paying to enjoy the freedom of looking out over the land they do pay for?

and last time I checked...the residents that do own the 16m parcels DID pay for them, and continue to pay for the access to them...

Last time I looked, SecondLife was a virtual world run by a private corporation who can allow whatever they want, or not, at their sole discretion.

I don't see where freedom of anything applies in any way here. Linden Lab makes the rules, provides the Terms of Service and Community Standards and they can change those to allow or deny anything at any time at their sole discretion.

So, please, stop whining about freedom of speech or expression where there is no such thing.

Whether or not Linden Lab chooses to listen to the residents of their world is strictly a business decision and how they go about handling the ARs filed against ad farmers or anyone else is up to them.

If I see something that appears to be in violation of this new rule then I will report it as such. But I will not report my neighbor's house just because I think it looks ugly.

Your post actually contains more verbage directly about the ban language than the blog post outlawing the practice. Which is in itself amazing.

Try as I might I couldn't help but think it translates to:

<I'm not a lawyer, but I play one on the forums.>

The Lindens purposefully - On EVERY subject make all the rules with a lot of gray area. So I'm not sure a strict interpretation of the language used is going to matter much.

I am glad the rules are grey...

...Means that the Lindens can use some common sense for once.

Anything less than gray means the rules would have to be rewritten every week while the slippery slime found a new loophole to work around.

I think that there are some really obvious cases of people adding junk to their land with the goal of harassing the neighbours to the point of having to spend ridiculous amounts of money to get rid of them.

A lot of the cases that Temporal laid out are going to be things that LL don't (and shouldn't) do anything about. This is why they have not spelled out the "rules" in lawyer-proof terms, because the people who are doing this maliciously will just look for ways to twist and bend those for their own purposes.

So you're not going to get any "clarification" on this, I don't think.

Someone else asked how the proponents of this business model should know how to act, when the rules aren't black-and white and I am going to repeat my answer here:

Do not buy a small piece of land and put junk on it with the purpose of harassing the owners of adjoining land into paying more than the fair price for that land. It's really quite, quite simple and should be simple to follow.

Anyone that is asking about clarifications means (to my estimation) that they are just trying to find a loophole to keep doing that same thing and not get kicked out.

They should post that in the Blog, add it to the Community Standards and be done with it.

Damn, I love simplicity.

Though not actually very many. In fact I suspect this might be the most popular piece of Linden Lab Fascist Anti-Business "Hitler Would Have Done That" Big-Government Freedom-Hating legislation ever.

We'll all be sorry when we're shipped off to concentration camps though! Slippery slope!

I don't think it is purposeful; that's a hazard of making rules, or laws. There is ALWAYS some grey area, because no single simple verbiage is infinitely varied enough to cover every possible contingency and interpretation where it could be applied.

Some rules are more grey than others, though. The best rules where there is corruption and incompetence in enforcement have little grey. The best rules where there is egalitarianism and fairness in enforcement (a la "benevolent tyrant"; e.g. Desmond Shang and Caledon) have a lot of grey.

Ultimately, it is a balancing act, and as along as the rules are organic, and can change to meet the challenges faced in their enforcement, for the betterment of all, I think they are the best they can be.

Ohhhhh Brenda, get over here, Hun.

dang it Ordinal you were supposed to wait for the - "When they came for me" protest thread.

Now you have the schedule all mixed up.

And why the hell hasn't anyone started the Adfarms and SL prostitution thread yet anyhow?

DING! DING! DING! We have a WINNUH!!!!

Ordinal wins the prize for the first person to Godwin a thread on Adfarms!

Come on, dear, give us your acceptance speech...

Oh come on, surely I _can't_ have been the first. At the very least, somebody has posted Pastor Niemoller I'm sure.

nope not yet. Yours was the first Godwin.