From: Valerius Constantine
The *new* restrictions are absolutely the problem. Enforcing the *existing* rules regarding advertising might be a nice thing to try before doing something more drastic.
But one of the main purposes of this is almost certainly to automate aspects of enforcement, both by filtering and by zoning. No, neither is ideal. Ideal would be if everyone magically grew up without any intollerances. That is not the world we live in.
From: someone
If you do not want a dog and pony show being set up next to you, buy land in a PG region, or in an estate with a "no dog and pony shows" covenant.
It is not the D&P show owner's fault that LL puts mature regions next to PG ones. Perhaps they ought to build some ALL PG landmasses?
But that is the thing... there is a separation in RL between mature and R or X. The separation is not always clear in RL either, but that does not mean it does not exist. No matter how much you think people should think or act differently, they still think the same.
From: someone
Not if they are in a PG sim, or in an estate with a covenant that doesn't allow such things. if they don't like such things, why are they in a mature sim? and why do they think that someone else's idea of "mature" is less valid that their own?
Finally, if it is *really* an issue for them, they can move. I didn't notice LL turning the world upside down the last three times *I* had neighbors who had stuff on their land that bothered *me*. To paraphrase Blondin, being an obnoxious neighbor isn't against the TOS.
Again with the PG... the zoning restrictions are forming a line between adult and mature. People bought mature land, which is not the same thing as mature land or PG land or any-other-classification-land. And Blondin's saying that does not mean all that much, in that depending on how they were being annoying, they could be considered against the TOS.
From: someone
In what way is the new program more cost effective than simply having a few worker bees running prurient searches once a month and smacking around the people who don't check their "mature" box after a week's warning?
This in theory would mean fewer worker bees required.
From: someone
No, not semantics. a weak argument that won't stand against anything other than assuming your opponent wishes unrestricted porn piped directly into children's heads
in church.
And the answer isn't "move everyone else". the answer is "why not allow a free move to a better spot for the folks who *have the problem*?"
That isn't the same thing as "Involuntarily move the people who are annoying the minority".
The response to that is 'because people who want to move for whatever reason will conspire to arrange 'problems.' And because it could mean that the person who has been there a lot longer could be the one who has to move. It would also require ongoing support for moves rather than simply sorting things out once.
There are three reasons for you.
From: someone
Ah, so now we hit the crux of your argument- because LL can simply print up more land, no compromise is necessary? And if LL can create a continent for any given zoning, and the existing zoning favors "mature" 3 to one. then why not make an all PG continent? something that has been suggested several times, and only seems fair.
Umm.... because there may be more PG people than adult people? Especially keeping in mind someone on PG land, providing PG services, etc. could still be verified and visit adult land when they do feel in the mood for adult services, just as they do in RL?
Again, not wanting to live beside a brothel does not mean objecting to the existance of brothels.
From: someone
No, your were trying to apply a real+physical world paradigm to a virtual world setting where it would simultaneously do too much to be practical *and* too little to be effective.
It isn't really that great an example then, is it?
Different means are used in RL because different means can be used in RL. Different means are used in virtual life because different means can be used in virtual life. The concept is the same, even though the exact processes to attempt to achieve it are not quite the same.
From: someone
LL should *absolutely* be banning any children they find on SL, and an accounts which *allow children to access* SL.
This isn't *doing* that. it is attempting rather to make the prohibited activity *safe* for children, instead.
How are those mutually exclusive? What part of this precludes banning any kids found in SL?
From: someone
Rather like "solving" teenage drinking by prohibiting alcohol (or in this case restricting all sales and advertising of alcohol to the state of Nevada).
Umm.. this is not prohibition... it is more like liquor stores requiring age checks to anyone purchasing.
From: someone
And the fact of the matter, as told by Aristotle itself, is that the program *doesn't work* for age verification. It isn't a matter of getting Aristotle to "clean up their act". It is a matter of waiting for them to have a product that *works*. And according to all of the major players in ID verification, there simply *is* no reliable age verification software out there, because they can all be bypassed in an absurdly easy fashion. short of a face-to-face meeting at the point of sale, there isn't a good way to restrict or verify age in a virtual world.
Confirming by any piece of id that is tied to a birthday should, in theory, work, provided that Aristotle can get that information to confirm against legally and, of course, assuming that the information used for confirmation belongs to the one attempting confirmation.
If Aristotle really cannot get the information to confirm against, then they are guilty of fraud, since they are not verifying anyone.
The extent to which false data is used can be mitigated by keeping a screening list of commonly used data.
From: someone
Actually, Aristotle makes it *easier* to fudge your identity. you don't even need a parent's credit card. just an address for someone from the phone book. Even someone *dead* and Famous. Might just as well call Aristotle an "Identity theft enablement service".
If all Aristotle is really doing is confirming name matches address then it is indeed not fulfilling its contracts.
This is from their site"
From: someone
Integrity
irect
Integrity
irect is an age and identity verification service solution that integrates a government-issued ID database check and ID format algorithms. The service provides merchants and government agencies with compliance for age verification laws and guidelines.
Integrity eliminates costs associated with manual intervention, simplifies, automates and streamlines the verification process. Verification information is returned real-time through a cost-effective, web-based solution.
What are the key benefits of the Integrity: Direct service?
Fast. Process takes under 5 seconds to complete from the time information is submitted.
Robust. US and UK coverage (152 nations total covering over 3.4 billion citizens).
Legal. Complies with US privacy directives and laws.
Open. Not subject to Fair Credit Reporting Act as no credit or medical data is used.
Compatible. Requires no new hardware and is OS agnostic.
Privacy. Only a match code is provided to the merchant so the consumer's privacy is protected at all times.
Insured. Integrity insures transactions against fines imposed on the merchant for underage sales.
Effective. Now that VISA explicitly prohibits merchants from verifying age by use of its credit card and consistent with credit card association rules, reliable real time verification through a check of government-issued ID databases offers confirmation of a consumer's age with high confidence.
PR Friendly. Merchants are able to show federal, state and local authorities, public interest groups and concerned parents that they are progressively preventing minors from accessing restricted products, advertising and marketing materials.
If they are doing as little as claimed, then LL should not be the only ones with an issue with them. By the way, note that they claim to insure their clients against any liability from underage kids getting past them too, something I find quite, well, insane.
From: someone
There isn't any act to clean up it is, in the absence of a worldwide database of accurate census data, and impossible task to automate age verification. there is no form of age verification that is useful unless there is an actual check of records, and there cannot be such a thing as a check of records that is *anonymous*.
The whole paradigm is unworkable with the present technology and the present state of computerized records.
So why isn't anyone sueing them? If their claims are impossible, aren't they committing fraud? Or at least breach of contract?
From: someone
SL provides Server and the tools to create content. So do web-hosting services. and the safe harbor rule has been tested *repeatedly*, since the 1980's regarding these issues.
SL also has codes of behavior. They police against griefers (even if they do not do so very successfully, they do still police). Isn't their safe harbour already gone because of that?
From: someone
They are a part and parcel of the plan itself. in fact, since they are leaving all other methods by which a lack of predictability can take place, I would say that this plan is *specific* to the advertising and operation of *businesses* who are, for the most part, plating by the rules, and aren't found unless they are *looked* for. thus hamstringing their advertising is in direct opposition to what LL *says* they want to do.
Which I agree is a major issue and needs revision. They do not even understand their own search engines. I don't agree that the plan should be abandoned over such issues, but I do believe that it should be postponed until they are solved.... unless there is some pending legislation that LL knows about that none of us do, but even then they need to do a LOT more to resolve these issues.
From: someone
You see a lot of Burger Kings opening in Iran, Cuba, or Myanmar do you? You need a rule of law, recognition of property rights, and political *stability* in order to do the necessary planning ahead to run a business.
Since Burger King is a US company, I am not sure that it can legally set up on Cuban soil. Doesn't the US still have an embargo in place? Or was that finally lifted? Cuba and Iran do have rule of law and recognition of property rights. The rule of law is not the same as here, but that does not mean they are lawless states.
From: someone
SL is *no* different from RL in those respects. In what way is removal by executive fiat from one's property at any moment, for any reason (what LL claims as its rights), indicative of a stable business climate?
When it is in the common good (the concept used for any government appropriation of land), and when adequate compensation is made (also true of the rules for government appropriations). Note 'adequate' does not mean 'what the owner wants for the land.'
And note, I do beleive that LL may have some liabiltiy there.... given that there are tier fees though, the rules may be tennant rules, which are not the same as ownership rules. Not sure about that though... anyone here an actual lawyer with experience in such matters?
From: someone
No, but in the absence of laws prohibiting activity, saying that *this* business but not *that* one must move, for no other reason than some people are annoyed by the *sight* of that business, *IS* 'restraint of trade. This is *not* the real world. this is a *virtual* world, global, multicultural, with its own social mores, and its own "community standards.
Rules which are mostly still undefined in the courts. Your interpretation, LL's and the courts' interpretations are likely all different.
From: someone
The RL zoning laws of *any* nationality do not hold here, for the very thing that Zoning governs, *land*, does not exist here. this is more like arguing that your file shouldn't be next to Hugh Hefner's in the file cabinet at the DMV because you don't like what Hugh does for a living!
That is not a given... well it is a given that this is virtual, but the same principles apply. Again the main reasons for RL zoning are to cut down on incidences of complaint, usually over noise or traffic. It is unlikely that these changes are over traffic (in fact, there is a counter arguement to the plan that involves traffic, if you care to hear it).
Based on the stated reasons, this is about the SL equivalent of noise. Assume for the momment that there really are a lot of complaints (ARs) from people being adjacent to adult clubs, organizations, brothels, etc. By setting up an adult entertainment district, there should be fewer such complaints. If the majority of complaints are over adult services, then it explains why they might want to segregate adult services. If the majority of sites do not seem to be offering adult services, then it makes more sense to move the adult content, since that requires the minimum effort, and thus minimum cost.
From: someone
No, in fact it *isn't* "fair use". it is "You changed what I bought *after* I bought it" Fair use is different- "You shouldn't be able to tell me how to use what I bought after it leaves your store."
That is not always 'fair use.' I think you are right that it probably is, but I doubt you are an expert on the subject... I know I am not.
From: someone
LL doesn't sell us a *disk* of the SL program. they sell us *server space* under certain terms and conditions, that a *judge* has said may not change without some sort of due process or recompense.
Actually, as I understand the ruling I think you are referring to (Bragg?), it was a matter of the TOS being too broad, that LL cannot simply have a provision that 'if we do not like it we can change it.' That might apply here, but I am not sure how that works if LL can show the change to be non-arbitrary in some way.
It is also interesting to note that if SL had real competition, Bragg might have lost, since appearantly that was a key factor.
From: someone
Not all *that* much harder- especially considering that the business cycle of SL is still in "the short term". Land prices will dip for the foreseeable future. that isn't something that's actionable by the way, but it's a good reason why LL might want to look at it's plan again.
"The business cycle of SL is still in the short term?" Pardon?
From: someone
Yes, but it's legal in the Netherlands and the State of Nevada too. That doesn't stop brothels, out-call services, or street prostitution from existing in Great Britain or The State of California. There are customers there, and the trade goes underground.
In what way is a lack of ability to travel in RL different than the lack of ability to access because of account verification in SL?
The extent depends on the extent to which customers are verification averse, and the ability to advertize successfully.
From: someone
You are making my point for me. Griefers and seeing terms in search that one doesn't like are the two biggest causes of an "unpredictable experience" followed by something that you don't like moving in next door, and accidentally teleporting into some situation that you don't like.
That does not mean 'number 3' is insignificant. The leading causes of death are heart attack and cancer.. does that mean traffic safety should be ignored?
From: someone
Of those 4 causes, the two biggest are simple enforcement issues, and the LL plan does *nothing* about one of them, and essentially solves the next three by essentially doing away with advertising, and by forced relocation and censorship of those who do not move,
Again, I consider that a red herring. Prevention of griefing is essentially impossible. Search terms are part of this plan.
From: someone
LL is doing all of this to *avoid* the need to "police" their rules. they are instead changing the rules.
Which increases their costs rather than reduces them, especially to the extent you would have to police to get any real mitigation effect.
From: someone
Zoning does have merits, as does *changing* zoning. but if local city councils tried to do it by fiat, they would be dealing with lynch mobs. hell, they sometimes face them even when doing it democratically. In this case, LL needn't consult with *anyone* before changing their zoning. they could simply have re-tasked their servers and stuck all the pg sims on an island somewhere and sent in the landscaping crews, and told everyone "sorry we didn't do this from the start"
City officials cannot re-zone anywhere near as easily as LL can. And yes, they could have done that with respect to PG sims, but how is that different from doing that to Adult sims, other than it would be affecting someone else?
From: someone
But they decided instead to do something that has all the worst features of "fiat" and "democratic", and to do it to the 3/4 of SL that is "mature" presumably those people who didn't *want* a "pg" experience.
I'll bite.. you are expecting 75% to need to move to Ursula? Based on???
From: someone
If a merchant on mature land, that carries adult items cannot *say so* in their search entry, because to do so would require adult search terms, and someone mortally offended by things adult shows up looking for a saddle for their virtual horse and sees pony play gear in the corner display, does that not *add* to the unpredictability rather than reduce it? does it not make it *worse*, because rather than just getting a search screen fully of vendors of pony play gear, the searcher doesn't find out until they are *actually* on the premises?
You do realize I agree there is an issue there, don't you? Worst case they could still advertise that they carry 'adult items' without being specific in their ads. I do think that better solutions than that need to be found, but that is an option.
How is that a *reduction* exactly?
From: someone
And whether or not is sounds "productive", in a system which will depend upon "citizen informants" (AR's) to find wrongdoers, You bet your *ass* people will come in *looking* for people to report. we already *have* a couple of big groups who do that... *FOR FUN*.
And that does not happen already? Isn't the current system based on AR's? AR's filed as griefing attacks *will* *happen* *anyway.* That will be true whether this is done or not.
From: someone
They haven't. and griefers in welcome areas, are the single greatest instance of people being shocked by porn in SL, and are the ones responsible for people thinking that SL consists of nothing *but* porn. the plan does *nothing* about griefers and that is one of the worst things about it.
Yet to see one in the welcome area I come in at.. been a possible language issue once, but that was normal conversation, not a griefing anything. Maybe I am lucky as to which welcome area I chose? Irregardless, those would happen anyway... even if LL policed the welcome areas actively, how would they prevent anything? They could ban an account after the fact, but could not prevent. Now if they were to get rid of free accounts it would likely do it, but given you currently can be verified by being a 'non-free account' ie PIOF, isn't that similar but even more stringent than the current verification plan?
From: someone
As for tourists, those are the ones who bob randomly around the map and are *surprised* to see something that they don't like rather than simply motivated to go somewhere else. they also are something akin to griefers when they show up in role-play sims with their freebie guns and mow down a bunch of elves with their M-60 and run off spewing gestures looking for more victims.
Do you have evidence those are a real issue, or are you just speculating them to be?
From: someone
Like i said A more predictable experience means more than not seeing "fuck" come up in the search window.
That doesn't make it a "straw man" by the way. that makes it pointing out the *deficiencies* of the plan.
No, I don't think that one is a straw man.. I think you really believe that reducing frequency has no benefits. In other words, it is one thing to be upset that you see any given word coming up in the window once, and another to live beside a club and hear it come up often, or to see things you really prefer not to, not merely once, but routinely in similar circumstances.
From: someone
first of all, nobody is saying that either the porn sites *or* SL is doing anything *illegal*, so relocation isn't necessary by *anyone*.
Second, they use what the USG tells them to. make sure of the intent of the viewer, make them *say* they are of age and seeking the content and aren't violating community standards by downloading the stuff.
These things are for the protection of *website*, not the kids. The kids are the responsibility of their *parents*, not "Wet & Wild Productions".
The current legislation that includes wording requiring the 'are you 18' question for viewing and the age confirmation for participation is a US child protection act. It is not a 'adult website protection act.' It is true that the legislation does not seem to cover virtual sex yet, but the intent seems to be that it would, and there is a lobby out there pushing for that regardless.
And again, even though it is virtual does not mean that all aspects are physical. Again, BDSM or D/s situations are primarily social/emotional/control play rather than sexual.
From: someone
Excuse me, but where *anywhere* does LL say that their plan will result in a "better world"? How is it *my* responsibility to make sure that someone *else's* idea of "better world" comes about?
Well a better world for LL is a more profitable one, but SL being a 'better world' is LL's primary means to achieve profits. Also if they can present themselves as 'good corporate citizens', it is usually considered good PR.
From: someone
Besides, my point is *not* that kids aren't worth "protecting" but that I'm not sure that they need to be *protected* from adult content in a virtual world (Lord knows we don't protect them from virtual *murder*, do we?), and that I don't think that LL's plan does *enough* to protect them to be worth the trouble it is.
The thing is though that is not entirely clear. Adults cannot always handle relationships, and even though kids will get into relationships with each other, children cannot give informed consent. The whole defense of a lot of the more extreme aspects of adult activity in SL are defensible only because they can only happen with mutual consent, but when one party to the situation does not have the maturity level to actually know what they are doing in giving consent, that defense falls apart.
From: someone
No. the ones that protect the consumer from the supplier. The fool from the folks seeking his money. Nobody is guaranteed by law that *others* have to follow *their* moral code.
But this is not just LL's moral code... it is a fairly common code across society and not all that new.
From: someone
Kids who are seeking porn will find it. they are not *trying* to avoid it. *We* cannot protect them from it, only their *parents* can do that. I am referring to the children who are seeking out porn whn I say "little black hearts" because such children are natural pirates- I know, I *was* one of them!
We can help their parents do that, though, by slowing the kids down a little more and also by strengthening it when we say 'no, it is not alright for you to be here.' If noone cares except the parents, then the parents have a much tougher time. If on the other hand society backs up the parents, the kids cannot as easily dismiss their parent's edicts.
Supporting the parents is not the same as taking all or even primary responsibility. Primary responsibility still resides with the parents. That does not excuse the rest of us turning our backs on our share.
From: someone
And adults have *choice*, and by definition, do not *need* protection from it.
And with appropriate zoning, adults can make better informed decisions.
From: someone
Absolutely. you are looking at the changes they are making, and adjusting your interpretation of their stated goals to fit their actions, whereas I am taking their stated goals, and testing their actions to see if they will *accomplish the stated goals*.
I'm saying that they will *not*, and because they will *cause* a whole host of new problems, they should either not be done, or should be changed so that the *do* accomplish the stated goals.
I think we agree in principle.. the devil (as they say) is in the details, i.e. how we get to something that does accomplish the stated goals.
From: someone
Then those adults should stay away from this "game", and those parents who don't want their children exposed to it should watch to make sure they don't. Besides, it was an example- I think that SL has more to it than a simple game.
'Those adults' are adults and can make their own decisions. The kids on the other hand, are kids, and no parent can monitor their kids 24/7. If the parents are being responsible, and teaching their child to wait to get involved in adult activities, or at least before going too far with them, then a verification system gives the kid more reason to believe their parents. This is especially useful where the parents for whatever reason have less time to spend with the kids (single parent, work schedules, whatever), but are doing their best.
From: someone
Real life has all those things too! Does that mean we shouldn't allow children to participate in it? Or that everyone who feels like having sex must live only in Mature areas, and cut it out as long as they are living in "PG" areas? (ad absurdum argument {tm})
Not sure what you are saying.. are you saying we *should* allow kids to engage in D/s behavior and/or BDSM in RL? Or are you trying to make an arguement that if since we don't, that somehow that would mean it would be ok virtually? That is not an ad absurdum arguement....
Your second suggestion might be... but the counter to it is that policing of that is very impractical. There is an arguement to be made there though..
From: someone
my point is that you will *never* be sure that it is not a child on the other end of the internet connection. you simply *cannot* be sure, and anything which claims that it can make you so is lying to you. There comes a point where it can be more trouble than it is worth to *try*. I would argue that LL's plan has passed that point. I would want a whole lot more assurance for the level of trouble they are putting their customers to
And because you cannot be sure, we should err on the side of incaution? I am sure that the various bodies pushing this kind of move will surrender to the glory of that conclusion.
From: someone
No, you presented a *comment* that people who were asking for LL to try *enforcing* the existing rules before making drastic changes were advocating doing "nothing".
The context was about the entirety of the plan, but particularly about search. not only about age verification. besides, they *aren't* changing their age verification plan. they are simply applying it more stringently.
Actually, I was responding to a specific individual who seemed to advocate either doing nothing, or verifying everyone (his preference IIRC is the latter).
From: someone
You are absolutely right. If it was just that I didn't like it, I would call it a "bad" or "inappropriate" comparison, indicating it was my *opinion*. But when you take something and run off the end of the internet with it, it *is* an "Ad Absurdum" argument. That's a technical term, not a value judgment
^V^
I am not sure how I have run off then end of the internet with anything... and I think that you like the term ad absurdum because it is a convenient means of dismissal while avoiding an actual response (and that you do not realize you are doing that). That is of course just my opinion. Oh, and it being a technical term does not mean it is not a value judgement.... unless you were saying that my arguement was a good one and using a technical term to conciel that fact.... Ad absurdum can mean 'carried to rediculous lengths' or it can be short for 'reductio ad absurdum', which is the disproving of an arguement by reducing it and showing its absurdity. The first is a non-arguement, but the latter, used properly, is a legitimate arguement.
