Feeling Betrayed by the Lindens

Companies don't have vision. Only individuals have vision.

The vision in this case was Philip's. He had the vision for something quite amazing and extraordinary, something very different to everyone's first life, and he quite appropriately called it Second Life.

Philip needs to explain why he has thrown that vision in the pan.

And while he's at it, perhaps he could give us some idea of how many more of the restrictions, regulations, taboos, and other limitations he will import from first life before he renames this world accordingly.

If one wants to age play or roleplay having sex with children then that still suggests that person has an attraction to having sex with children which is still sick no matter how anyone dresses it up.

But I am against the whole age play and multipile avi thing, but here is a thing from an unbiased view, as the poster Morgine said isn't a lot the appeal of SL to many people the very abilty to be who and what you want and many would claim what represents them more truthfully than the role that offline society or so called first or "real" life forces on them and without anyone really ever having much of a confirmed clue to their Offline personna that society has enforced on them not even Linden powers that be , so won't such people want to leave once SL insists on people having to reveel and confirm such personal details?

And on pratical levels if SL is going to allow people to use several avis on a single adult check wouldn't it be more than possible for a single person to age verify and then create a alternate avi for secret useage by a third party ?
How is SL going to set about that I have several housemates who use sl from the same puter (at different times) so we probaly look like a single person with alt avis to LL and likewise a single person who surfs from home and work could look like more than one individual.

It seems like the whole nazi thing over again and politicians and politics in the offlne world in general, when people stood by and allowed the governing powets to start inducing one freedom restricting law then the governing bodies started introducing even more freedom restricting laws.
Soon you may find SL laws preventing adult language adult references certain political views cetain life style choices certain religions and so on .
Especially since this whole age verification thing seems to have been induced in panic without real thought to prevent something that age verification will do nothing to stop as in adults simualting child sex as shown on German tv.
And of course also because SL has a lot of "respectable" Businesses signing up to SL and LL is probaly worried about losing their trade if there is too much sexual freedoms here, but maybe LL hasn't realized most of those companies are only intreasted in SL world due to its large population and the mass publicity they can gain here, and once SL induces these restrictive laws that make its world no more free or grown up than other virtual worlds like sims online and Kevana (sp) that most likely don't have all the tech faults that SL have then its population will decrease massivly and those companies will soon leave.

And contary to what has been suggested that putting in rules like age verification will increase the population or traffic here the opposite is true .
because a lot of Sl population is made up of those "newbs" and others who come here only due to the freedom and adult nature of SL and such people will not come to SL once it becomes little more than a poor imitation of Sims online, they can't even be bothered to pay or go through the incovience of making themselves look good much less pay for the "privilage" of and going through the hassle of haing to prove themselves, so the age verification is not only bad for business in SL world but also for Linden themselves offline.
SL is liked over its rival`s in large part because its more than the pg or messenger games/services/worlds like Sims online IMUV ect it really is a life and a world freerer and in many ways more real than the offline or so called real one, once SL loses that it will lose much of its population too.

And lol morganine thats funny because it depends if you compare "Avi sexual activity " to media sex (pornography) or actual offline flesh and blood sex.
Because if you compare it to Flesh and Blood sex then it will actually be less free than offline flesh and blood sexual activity, because offline wether a person is adult enough for sex is generally judged by looks and behavior most people are not required to produce driving liesences and passports by the autorities or the individuals having sex with them before they are allowed to engage in sexual activity.

So its crazy but there will be more morality and age/identity proving laws and measures in place to get in the way of "Avi sex " in SL than there is in the offline world to prevent Flesh and blood sex.

And its funny to think how those in favor of age verification are most likely insisting on everyone being forced to prove their ages/identies before being allowed to partake in sexual actitivities or see them here in SL than they most likely insist on from their offline sexual partners dispite the ease with which many "minors" can pass for adults in appearence in the offline world and many can even disguise their gender identies.
Then again these types of moral standards and laws are crazy anyway were the law is more concerned in governing sexual media than actual flesh and blood sex and in The USA the powers that be will even send people off to kill and be killed in war while not allowing them to drink or view adult material material lol.

I think Godwin's Law applies here.

Or to use another Colloquialism....This thread has Jumped the Shark.

damn you I had to google that Godwins law LOL
anyway to lighten the mood a little while I was shopping in SL world I saw avis for the South Park characters (for those who don't know South parks characters are badly drawn aminated characters the four main ones are 9-10 year old boys with a very "adult way of cursing .
since the characters are 9-10 year olds would a person using them be considered to be age playing lol?
( semi joke and semi serious)

Only if they have sex with an adult female av that loved them for their dirty mouths.

While on the topic, how is rape even possible in SL? I didn't know that someone could take control of another person's computer and click, "sit" on sex sphere thus making the other partner get into position.

The German reporter that started all this nonsense had sex with an av in a child avatar thus making him just as guilty as anyone else. Was his account banned?

Finally, avatars that have sex with super human avs..can they plead that it was rape because the super human av overpowered them forcing them to "do it"? No, that would be copyright violation as Superman, Superwoman, and Tigger all are owned by an outside company. Advice #345: Do not have sex on a park bench and hope for privacy in SL or RL for that much matter.

The ramblings here are not representative to the ideas presented by Linden Lab employees. They are just too darn busy having fun. Are you?

I think Linden Labs lost their whole sense of fun and freedom of vision when they started getting so worried about bad publicity and big business that a report by a perverted German reporter who boosted about having sex with a child avi threw them into such a fit they decided to induce a law that will destroy a lot of business here and will put an end to a lot of freedoms here.
Bet those companies that make in world adult products find their trade way down after that law is induced so they will leave, especially that big in world sl company.

Age play doesn't have to be sexual does it? it would be the desire to Role play being a child which can often just be a behavior pattern correct?

Indeed, and that's the part about which I was commenting, the rest being largely immaterial to my point here. In particular, I'm saying nothing at all about people's beliefs or actions elsewhere.

In Philip's original vision, the horizons were endless, the opportunities unlimited, and the freedoms unhindered. Second Life wasn't just a 3D version of the web --- that would have been pretty non-visionary, given all the prior art.

Instead, he delivered us a vision of something quite different, genuinely a new virtual existence which aimed at leaving behind the old constraints. It was well named. And that's why so many thought that it might be the seed that would sprout into the metaverse.

But that world of the vision is not the Second Life we see today. Not anymore.

And that is where the sense of betrayal comes from. It is sad to see so many people meekly accepting it.

Or perhaps Phil is just Harold Hill reincarnated.

*Refer to "The Music Man" for explanation.

Harold Hill was a con man. I see no reason for advancing that particular idea in this thread, unless you know otherwise.

I think the general arguments have been lost in a “freedom to choose” debate that doesn’t actually exist. I do not understand in what way Age/identity verification will "end a lot of freedoms" in SL. Therefore following on from this what are we meekly accepting?

I believe Phil continues to offer us something quite unique with endless opportunities to be explored and developed. However when “leaving behind the old constraints” LL must continue to observe the legal constraints which they as a company must operate within and we should be more sympathetic to this.

Yes, he offers us something, but it's no longer the breathtaking concept of the original vision. It's not a new world evolving its own rules rather than importing them from the tired old world of the past.

In fact, the something he offers has turned from quite awe-inspiring to almost sordid. The something consists of business opportunities, lots of them. All those currently available on the web in fact, but now with a 3D flavor.

Hence my initial remark: Welcome to First Life (again).

And as regards sympathy, I reserve that for visionaries who fight for their ideals until the odds are overwhelming, instead of abandoning those ideals at the first hint of disapproval.

Laws can not be ignored just because you have created a “new world”. The “rules” are not being imported, LL have a duty to implement the relevant laws of the countries in which they operate. Also LL can not pick and choose which laws they adhere to.


I disagree that SL has turned into something quite sordid. I think there is a great deal of content to be proud of in SL. It has enabled a great many people to unleash their creative abilities. Just because a very, very small minority of people may participate is activities which are unpleasant to the majority it does not make the whole world sordid.


You must remember that Uncle Phil is only giving us the platform. What we fill it with is up to us. Do you want SL to bring in zoning laws to stop business popping up or do you want the freedom that allows SLians to choose what they want to doing world to continue?

Hence my initial remark: Welcome to First Life (again).



You can reserve it for who you wish, but I see Phil as being no less visionary than before, and I do not see how they he has abandoned his ideals. Everyone must abide by the laws of the land in which the live. I have not read anything by Phil or interviews he has given in which one of his ideals was to break the law.

You are taking a very narrow and lay view of the law. It did not come down on tablets of stone. Courts have the role of interpretting law to fit the situation, and it's a normal daily event in court to challange the applicability of a law as presented by the prosecution.

And the law itself evolves, especially with regard to anything and everything online, where it is extremely threadbare. This certainly applies to actions taking place in virtual worlds and to alleged pixel abuse. Very few things have been tested, most issues follow the path of least resistance, and even the most regressive of viewpoints will win when unopposed.

There are plenty of defenses that could have been mounted, from claiming safe harbor, to defence of privacy, to simply ignoring a reporter seeking a scandalous story, and all the way to getting representation from the many organizations that are still willing to fight for freedom.

Many things could have been done, if there had been a will to fight for an ideal.

There was no will.

Second Life is now First Life. You can't claim something new when it's the same as the old.

There is a misconception that just because something is online that legislators and regulators have “difficulty” in interpreting laws in this environment. The internet is just a medium like any other and the laws equally apply here as they do else where.

You are right the courts do have a role in interpreting laws, however some laws have very firm foundations which are difficult to challenge. Such legislation for example is the anti-laundering legislation in the countries in which LL operates and the “Know Your Customer” guidelines.

You continue to refer to “alleged pixel abuse” (I do like that term) as the reason for the introduction of age/identity verification. I agree LL have implied as such, however I think their intention of attaching it to this “issue” was due to the belief that it would help residents accept its adoption. I think KYC and opportunities for increased gambling and other commercial revenues have had a larger bearing in the strategic decision making by LL.

Finally I am still unsure what ideal they should be fighting for. I have yet to see evidence of how the use of verification will reduce people’s freedoms within SL.

You've hit the nail on the head there, but perhaps not as you intended.

Legislators and regulators have no "difficulty" whatsoever in applying their laws to anything and everything, and lack of understanding has never been a barrier to legislation. In fact, the malaise runs even deeper than this, because legislators almost universally reject any attempt at removal of their jurisdiction over any issue.

To put it another way, any true-to-the-name "Second Life" with teeth would be anathema to most legislators and even to your friendly neighbourhood legal practictioners, because their entire worldview is based on control of others. And that's why fighting the introduction of bad laws and bad judgements based on those laws is so hard.

If everything is the same as everything else just because it hangs off the end of an Ethernet cable, then yes, you're right, and the concept of a Second Life is non-existent.

But the premise that legal jurisdiction follows the electrons into a virtual world is flawed on numerous fronts, and that most certainly wasn't the vision on which SL was founded. It was a vision in which community laws would evolve from within, and it was working quite well, and establishing new precedents for virtual worlds. But no more.

We are now exactly where you say. SL has turned quite suddenly into just a 3D version of the web, and is no longer a social experiment and frontier in virtual worlds. Which is fine if that's what you want, and sad otherwise.

Why are anti-money laundering laws bad or have any signs of bad judgment by legislators? Can you give me examples of bad laws which you feel do not impact upon SL that LL have implemented?



Can you please give me a link to the vision upon which you believe SL was founded? I think you may have came to the wrong metaverse because a quick trawl through the LL website provides links to three documents which highlights LL vision for SL and what they are trying to achieve.

Linden Labs Company Mission Statement: “Pioneer an online space which harnesses the power of its users’ creativity to build a digital world as rich and complex as the real world” (1)

“Founded in 1999, Linden Lab® is a privately held company established to pioneer a digital space as rich and complex as the real world” (2).

Cory Linden Wrote in 2005 that “digital worlds enable easier and more powerful forms of creation and communication, allowing digitalworlds to be more innovative places than the real world…Ultimately, entertainment and economic incentives will integrate digital worlds into everyday life”(3).

(1) LindenLabs Company Fact Sheet. http://static.secondlife.com/corporate/LindenLab_Facts.pdf
(2) Linden lab Corporate Background. http://static.secondlife.com/corporate/LindenLab_Background.pdf
(3) Ondrijka C., 2005. Changing Realities: User Creation, Communication, and innovation in Digital Worlds. LindenLabs Whit paper. http://lindenlab.com/whitepapers/Changing_Realities_Ondrejka.pdf

Check my join date versus your join date. You're not only late to the party, but have missed an entire previous generation's worth. Welcome, newcomer.

Be that as it may, you and your legalistic brethren who have belatedly discovered SL have won, and this world now works as you want it to, as per your old-world rules.

For what it's worth though, "the vision" behind Second Life had nothing to do with Linden Labs' corporate mission statements, and even less to do with their manifest business plans --- you simply don't write that kind of thing in company documents.

Instead, it permeated Philip's numerous statements and articles and blog posts and townhall chats ever since launch, hundreds of them. The name given to this new world was highly appropriate, and Philip's consistency in his written views about "the vision" was remarkable. And, we believe, entirely genuine.

But if you choose not to see and comprehend any of that history, of course you won't. Plenty of other people here have the same historical perspective as I though, and the memory of the old vision lives on, despite its demise in-world.

I fully accept the validity of your argument. I am embarrassed in myself that I hadn't even noticed your join date. Living through something and believing that when you come out the tunnel at the other end things will be different must be disheartening.

I do however believe that there is room in SL for both the socialisers and the creatives to live.

From: Morgaine Dinova

Instead, it permeated Philip's numerous statements and articles and blog posts and townhall chats ever since launch, hundreds of them. The name given to this new world was highly appropriate, and Philip's consistency in his written views about "the vision" was remarkable. And, we believe, entirely genuine.

But if you choose not to see and comprehend any of that history, of course you won't. Plenty of other people here have the same historical perspective as I though, and the memory of the old vision lives on, despite its demise in-world.

It ain't dead yet. I don't think verification, per se, kills the party.

*How* and by *whom* it is done might kill the party, but not so badly that a group of dedicated residents couldn't keep something going on their own.

Most of the mainstream people coming into SL won't "get" the old vision anyway. A lot of this is the mirror effect... what you see in SL is what you do with SL.

I recall when AOL came into Usenet, the older and more useful version of it died, but the functionality that was once in Usenet was re-created somewhere else. The challenge for LL is to make sure that RL laws and mainstream values don't lock them into being the provider of a generic commodity.

The vision of a Burning Man in cyberspace is easy to grasp IF you are able to get it, and it's not dead yet.

That's quite insightful, Brenda.

Yes, it won't kill the party, as the heart of the vision wasn't completely torn out, and that heart is still beating. The inspiration is looking a bit withered, and the destroyers are out there eyeing the plunder. But good people are still here.

The Burning Man image was very appropriate. Thanks, for a note of hope.

As I understood it, Usenet didn't move. It's why it was called Eternal September (that's September of 1993, which as far as I've been able to determine lasted up until AOL removed usenet access from the AOL client).

You're welcome. The image wasn't mine, I think the Lindens came up with it once. But it seemed appropriate.

Oh, it's not that Usenet itself got moved. It's that the people using it for real-life collaboration or community building often moved on. If someone tried to do something important with Usenet now, they'd find the spam to be too much.

This makes for an interesting cautionary tale for Second Life. Parts of the mainland have also become a visual spamfest, and this makes them much less usable.

People in Usenet didn't want to give up their freedom of speech to get rid of the spammers; at first, there was even resistance when universities stopped carrying the alt.binary.* feeds. Now we see regular email often becoming unusable because of spam, with no really good solutions found yet.

Wherever there is open freedom, the spammers and juveniles move in and make it a noisefest. I'm fine with having something for everyone, but there's a line which, once crossed, can bring down the whole system in a mess of spam. My experience on the net so far is that users can't effectively organize to stop this. And still I dislike censorship. So SL tools that amount to client side spam filtering would be cool. To whatever extent users can organize to keep out spammers, I'm for it, but it's not enough.