Do ad farms have rights too?

This forum isn't for general discussion; there are many Resident Sites where this discussion is appropriate — Resident Answers is for Resident-to-Resident help. I'll close this thread...

I was a bit hasty about closing the thread, so I've moved it here where the discussion of future policies is appropriate.

No. They don't. They same way people who are responsible for junk email, fake porn friending accounts on myspace and other various pieces of internet garbage don't have rights and should barely be considered human.

Do they deserve rights? Hell yes, they do. The own land, they pay for it, they can do blessed all they want with it.


Does that mean I like them? Hell no, I hate them. They are ugly, ruin the view, and are usually very distastefully made. But I stand by the adage of "If you pay my tier, then you can control what I put on my land. If you don't, then gtfo."

Whilst they have rights.. lets just say, by the vast majority opinion, they are being anti-social. Advertising is an art, get it right and you do the job intended, do it wrong and you fall under the umbrella of spam mail etc.
FYI, my Aunty who has reached the ripe old age of 67 this year, has no use for Viagra, nor does she need yet ANOTHER mobile (cell) phone, or to assist some African business man get millions of dollars out of his country......

Surprised to see this thread re-opened, especially after it had descended to a pretty petty level before (thanks in no small part to my own d*mned pig-headedness). But, now that it's in this forum, let me try a little refocusing:

There's a jira request, , that proposes raising the minimum size of land ownership per sim to 256 sq.m. There's some relevant discussion on the linked jira page, too.

What I might suggest as a refinement to this proposal is to retain the existing 16sq.m. parcel minimum size, but change Land Sales such that no parcel under 256sq.m. can be sold.

There are lots of other possibilities that might be worth considering (perhaps including the previously suggested reverting of all parcels under 256sq.m. to Governor Linden by "eminent domain"... *but*...

Would any of this make any difference? I really don't understand how adfarm financials sustain beyond the initial break-up into microparcels, so I have no idea whether this change would actually reduce the problem, or if it would simply shift the adfarm business model from micro-parcel ownership to ad-space rental, with the same resulting hyper-concentration of ads.

It seems like community sentiment demands some sort of solution to this problem. It's the "Tragedy of the Commons," more or less, with the "commons" a growing share of each Mainland continent.

Tinkering with Community Standards (effectively making adfarm content AR-able on the basis of its interference with others' enjoyment, or some such) seems a step not to be taken lightly, if some less onerous approach is viable. Whatever is done, it shouldn't compromise the vibrant diversity of the Mainland.