Category: pre-image catastrophe

What I find “broadly offensive” is the fact that Linden Lab’s communication efforts are about as effective as using farts for Morse Code. Daniel Linden posts in Keeping Second Life Safe, Together not only a definition of ageplay (finally), but also that depictions of sexual violence, extreme or graphic violence, and

other broadly offensive content are never allowed or tolerated within Second Life.

Please help us to keep Second Life a safe and welcoming space by continuing to notify Linden Lab about locations in-world that are violating our Community Standards regarding broadly offensive and potentially illegal content.

He follows up on New World Notes with some responses to questions from James Wagner Au, including this bald-faced lie:

There is no new policy in yesterday’s blog posting– our Community Standards have always prohibited broadly offensive behavior.

If you haven’t been following the recently increasing brouhaha over ageplay and Linden Lab trying to cover its ass, here is the pertinent part of the Community Standards, which Daniel Linden lies about:

Content, communication, or behavior which involves intense language or expletives, nudity or sexual content, the depiction of sex or violence, or anything else broadly offensive must be contained within private land in areas rated Mature (M).

First, what kind of idiots does Daniel Linden take us for? Second, what kind of idiot is Daniel Linden?

Now, I believe Linden Lab should do everything in its power to protect children. (It’s unfortunate that Linden Lab has directly worked against this by allowing floods of unverified accounts in the adult grid.) But prohibiting something widely legislated against, like real-life child pornography, is really a no-brainer, and in fact, Linden Lab should report to and cooperate fully with law enforcement authorities in any cases of real-life child pornography.

When ageplay first came up, I thought that eliminating virtual depictions of sexual situations involving child avatars was also appropriate. Even though I personally find the thought of such virtual activity sick and twisted, I’m no longer so sure that prohibiting it is appropriate. I was mistaken. While I believe that all of our activities in Second Life are real, in the sense that we cause the actions to occur and give them existence in our imaginations, two adults having sex or sexual fantasies while one or both is dressed as a child is not actually illegal. Unless it can be shown to harm actual children, there can be no justification for banning such behavior.

As a gay man, I cannot stand idly by when a policy that bans undefined “broadly offensive” behavior is imposed. I will not participate in policing Second Life, and I will not silently tolerate the existence of the policy. Such a policy itself creates an inherently unsafe space for me.

While I have not personally experienced each bulleted item in Project Open Letter, I’ve had some of those bugs as well as being tired of other, “ambient suffering” glitches that seem to be perpetually with us. I fully support the open letter’s plea that Linden Lab give priority to stabilization and scaling over new features. I’m especially glad that the authors added this:

We remain fully supportive of Second Life and are more than willing to continue doing our part to help, . . .

I enjoy SL so much, most of the time I’m just delighted to be able to be at play there and overlook the ongoing problems. But it would be so much nicer to have teleports and sim crossings always work, and attachments to stay put, and friends, groups, and search working consistently! So I’ve signed the letter.