How other online worlds gag people...

It seems that malicious individuals who stir things up with unfounded rumours is something that not only SL has to deal with. Here is a quote from a newly updated Project Entropia TOS, which is an online world with virtual trading like Second Life.


"'You cannot spread any rumors about MindArk, Project Entropia, and MindArk Staff or Partners, that can be considered potentially damaging, using Project Entropia, IRC or any other public forums, for example a web space.'

The reason for this addition is to avoid malicious individuals to spread unfounded rumors with the intent to fuel discontent and trying to stir up negativity and bad will against Project Entropia and MindArk."


There's no holding back with this clause! Say something that the company deems 'damaging' and you're out...

Our TOS clearly states that LL don't need a reason to cancel one of our accounts.

Ewan, is the Entropia TOS listed at a public web site? (If so, could you provide a link?) Here's a link to their Conditions of Use but I couldn't find the clause about rumor-control. The funny thing about their Conditions is the legalese states that it's the Final Agreement between you and MindArk... so it's rather shortsighted of them to have a different set of clauses in a different document.

That's a pretty pompous bit about no rumormongering on 'any other public forum'. If I was a user of that game I'd go out of my way to spread stupid rumors on any public forum I could find.

If MindArk was truly interested in promoting free speech rather than gagging it, they'd clearly define what they mean by both "rumour" and "potentially damaging." A rumour could be anything not confirmed by MindArk. In my books, a rumour is anything that can't be proven, but that still doesn't solve the "potential" for "damage."

I think that's what Ewan just did.

~Ulrika~

Whats the big deal? Its not like you cant go to ANY forum and post your comments. Of course dont use the same name as the one in the online world you are talking about. Common sense. There is no gag.

Chris, imagine you were afraid to use your Second Life name when posting your opinion in a public forum because you might be banned from using Second Life. It's not free speech when you have to hide behind an alias for fear of reprisal.

Uhh why would I use "Chris Wilde" on another forum? I picked the first name but the last name I had to pick a predetermined last name. Its not like Im going to be Chris Wilde anywhere else. And no ones hiding, much less fear. If I wanted to post about some online world's issues (or the company), I really dont need to post my "persona" to get my message across. Some online games would be doing me a favor if they banned me.

Many (if not most) Second Life bloggers use their inworld names. You might not use your alias elsewhere but some people do. If Linden Lab had a policy like the Entropia policy, people like Urizenus Sklar of the Second Life Herald would likely have their accounts banned.

Considering the trash and rumor-mongering often presented as 'fact' by Sklar, I'd consider that a good thing. But I suppose that's a tangental thing, at best.

It amuses me how many people think their 'freedom of speech' is a protected thing in games.

It is not.

You are choosing to participate in an environment provided by a corporation for their profit.

You are choosing to submit yourself to their rules without recourse.

You chose to waive certain of your state or federal rights to recourse when you signed up and clicked 'I agree' to the EULA (ref: Mythic vs. Blacksnow).

'Freedom of speech' is not a concept upheld to exist within virtual environments that are funded, developed, and supplied by a corporate entity for its profit.

You have precisely as much 'freedom of speech' here as Linden Labs chooses to permit to you. When and if the day comes when you no longer like the things you have submitted to, up to and including that you have no 'freedom of speech' here, your one and only choice is simply to leave.

That is all.

I am not so foolish as to imagine freedom of speech is protected in games. I think that, in Second Life's case (what with it being a virtual "world", that it should be. I am fully aware that our rights in Second Life extend as far as Linden Lab sees fit.

Moved to Off-Topic.

Very well said. I've seen this same discussion about free speech come up for almost 25 years in reference to online environments, and you've hit the nail on the head.

If that nail is "If you don't like America, go live in Russia," yes.

Yeah, because we all know, not being allowed full free speech on private virtual property equates to living in Russia.

What is with all the wild hyperbole when it comes to this issue?

Nevermind, I think I know the answer.

Drama helps weak cases.

Nolan: I was executing pointed sarcasm. I don't think that people should run away from problems. I think they should face them. Linden Lab implements changes based on user feedback. Hate something, change something.

If you point out specific examples of weakness in whatever case you are referring to, I'd be happy to address them if I can.

Banning people that cause serious strife and discontent is a good way to face the problem. Simple. Clean. Effective.

Chip, I gather you feel it's appropriate for MindArk to dictate what their customers can do on customer-owned web sites? What, specifically, is the "problem" you refer to?

They're not dictating what you can do. They're reiterating what they can do if they don't like what you do.

The rule in question concerns malicious, unfounded rumors. If somebody is spreading such rumors on outside websites, there's no compelling reason for Mindark to continue doing business with them.

I can say Project: Entropia is a dog of a game, a money pit with all the depth and sophistication of a slot machine, and have no fear of my account being lost because I'm rendering an opinion, not spreading a rumor.

If, on the other hand, I make up a story about hearing from a friend at the company that the game is closing up shop within the year, that is going to hit Mindark where it hurts since their entire revenue model depends on people investing RL money into the game. At that point, a libel suit may be more to the point than a mere account banning. (Note this is hypothetical, and I have heard no such rumor).

Freedom of speech includes accepting the consequences for irresponsible speech.

The headline slogan of the Second Life Web site is "Your World. Your Imagination." But it seems like many people in SL can't imagine a world that's something more than a product. No, the ToS doesn't guarantee free speech. But imagine if it did. Would Second Life would be worse off for it? I'd be interested to hear residents' thoughts on that question, as that seems to be what a lot of people are saying.

By the way, Cienna, it seems you're in violation of the "Intolerance" paragraph of the Community Standards:
"Combating intolerance is a cornerstone of Second Life's Community Standards. Actions that marginalize, belittle, or defame individuals or groups inhibit the satisfying exchange of ideas and diminish the Second Life community as whole. The use of derogatory or demeaning language or images in reference to another Resident's race, ethnicity, gender, religion, or sexual orientation is never allowed in Second Life."

And then there's the "Discipline" paragraph of the updated Forum Guidelines:
"Be respectful. Please challenge opinions, state your own and enjoy the discussion, but do not cross the line into personal attacks and insults because you will risk having your Second Life account suspended or banned."

Cease and desist!

Zero, imagine you owned a restaurant and you had one regular customer that would yell out libelous statements to your other customers. They'd stand out in the parking lot and tell people on their way in that you used human feces as an ingredient in your food, or that you bribed the health inspectors to cover up violations of health code, or that your food caused people's bladders to spontaneously explode... none of which was true. Would you continue to welcome that customer, give him a table, and serve him? I'm guessing your answer would be no. You'd refuse him service at the very leat, and pursue legal action if it started to hurt your business.

I don't see how that fundamentally changes the sentiment behind the question I posed. I mention this not to be argumentative, but because I think the question still stands.[/quote]

We agree on MindArk's stance. I'd be interested in MindArk outlining what they mean by some of their terms. Does "unfounded" mean that MindArk disagrees with the rumour, or that the rumour-monger can't verify a source?

Would MindArk agree with you? How do you know?

As you point out, there are already real-life laws in place established by real-world governments that cover this sort of thing. In my opinion, this makes MindArk's additional rules unecessary.

I completely agree. In my opinion, lies are irresponsible.

Absolutely. Libel is already covered by existing real-world laws. So there's no need to tell my customers that by agreeing to eat at my restaurant, they agree to abstain from making "unfounded" blog posts about my food.

Interestingly, MindArk isn't talking specifically about libel. They are talking about "rumours." Whatever those are.