Jump to content

Has everyone read the TOS lately?


You are about to reply to a thread that has been inactive for 2890 days.

Please take a moment to consider if this thread is worth bumping.

Recommended Posts


Melita Magic wrote:

I don't know about "should" or "shouldn't" - and I dont make the TOS rules anyway so it doesn't really signify. 

But, I would think any group who sent out notices every 5 minutes, or anything like that, would witness a mass exodus.

I am thinking of a certain fashion magazine. If one were to accidentally click it, in a very laggy mall, and get subscribed, without realizing that; and then to get not only that magazine but ad spam from countless fashion merchants (maybe that is what Suki meant, even), then in my opinion, that is a careless setup. 

Careless on the customer's part? Maybe. 

Careless on the senders' parts? Certainly. Why? 

Because every ad which has potential to reach email must by U.S. law contain a convenient way to unsubscribe. And most ads in SL do not.

Convenient = direct SLurl to the unsub-o location. 

Yes, groups are easy to leave. But purposely joined groups are never what I was talking about with amount of spam; only that it still must contain the convenient unsubscribe information. 

SL TOS states that each resident is subject to the laws where they reside; but, I believe this spam law also applies to where the resident resides. And the gap between "RL" and virtual closes tighter every day.

Otherwise, yes, anyone is welcome to be a nuisance to their own customers if they so choose.

 

I don't understand, in a discussion which is ostensibly about TOS, why you and others are discussing how many advertisements someone sends.* That has NOTHING to do with TOS.  As far as TOS is concerned it does not matter if someone sends one or a hundred notices a day -- the ONLY thing that is relevant to TOS is whether the recipient has chosen to join or subscribe to the group, and has a way to unsubscribe.

 

The "How many advertising notices is optimum" discussion is an entirely different one, unrelated to TOS (and which we have had many times).  

 

 * For example, this statement you made indicating that TOS has anything to do with it:  "Still, I believe that to be in better compliance with this section of the SL TOS, merchants in world should NOT spam everyone who walks in their shop; and should keep ads sent even to subscribers to a modest amount. Perhaps once weekly at most. This would also include clubs, who sometimes 'spam' with several 'announcements' in IM and notices several times per day."

Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe there are really two different discussions going on here, one about the ToS and one about smart business practices.

The ToS is never that black-and-white about anything. It's possible that any message (even a group notice, but especially a subcription list) that doesn't explicitly state how to unsubscribe could be construed as a ToS violation -- although I'm sure the Lab would never interpret it that strictly unless somebody takes them to court about it, and that isn't going to happen.

Business practices that are smart for one group of customers are often sub-optimal for others. Newbies who don't know better, for example, may be thrilled by any attention, so very active subscriber communications may be appropriate for them, even though the same amount of messaging would turn off more sophisticated customers. If one is selling freebies at jacked-up prices, for example, one benefits by getting the more advanced users to unsubscribe.

If I find myself getting too many messages from a source, I conclude that they're simply catering to a different kind of recipient.  As long as it's convenient to unsubscribe, I figure no harm, no foul. If it's not convenient, then things may get ugly.

Link to post
Share on other sites


Qie Niangao wrote:

Maybe there are really two different discussions going on here, one about the ToS and one about smart business practices.

 

Exactly.  Except the two discussions are getting mixed up, giving some the impression that TOS has anything to say specifically about the number of advertisements sent to a group, or the amount of spam on a parcel, which it does not.

 

(But the thread title refers to TOS.)

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Linden Lab gave us the ability to turn off group notices so I would think their response to any one complaining about a group they are in sending out too many notices would be either turn them off or leave the group.

I did have problems with an someone who added me to their subscriber and had the ability to 'unsubscribe' turned off.  They are of course blocked and muted.

As far as unsolicited messages go, when you report it, the AR category reads "Disturbing The Peace > Unwanted Advert Spam."  That phrasing says enough for me as to how LL applies the TOS.


this was a general reply, not meant specifically for Qie

Link to post
Share on other sites


Perrie Juran wrote:

Linden Lab gave us the ability to turn off group notices so I would think their response to any one complaining about a group they are in sending out too many notices would be either turn them off or leave the group.


I mentioned previously that I often turn off group notices and group chat.  Another poster said that her viewer could not turn off group chat.  Since I will shortly be checking out alternative viewers (currently using Phoenix), I would love to know which current viewers have the option to turn off group chat, please.  Thanks for any advice on this as that ability is one of my favorite features on the Phoenix viewer.

Link to post
Share on other sites


Pamela Galli wrote:


Qie Niangao wrote:

Maybe there are really two different discussions going on here, one about the ToS and one about smart business practices.

 

Exactly.  Except the two discussions are getting mixed up, giving some the impression that TOS has anything to say specifically about the number of advertisements sent to a group, or the amount of spam on a parcel, which it does not.

 

(But the thread title refers to TOS.)

 

 

Pamela, I'm not sure how our wires keep getting crossed. It's frustrating to me when I try very hard to communicate what I do mean, and it continues to somehow, fall short.

Yes, in my original post, I did get a bit sidetracked by my feeling on one issue.

However, I have continued to say throughout the topic, in response to your insistence that "no one can tell me what to do on my land" or "no one has a right to join a group and tell them how often they can send notices" that that was a side topic, that that was not the point I was trying to get across to everyone - including merchants, for their own protection.

The point I have stressed, and which you seem to have completely overlooked, (I do say seemed), is that a convenient unsubscribe option must be included in any communication, which is an advertisement or such (not a personal IM) which can go to email. And I hav also kept saying that is a U.S. law. 

I am really not sure how much plainer I can state it.

When I have, mistakenly for the others suffering through this topic, further discussed the 'merchants rights' aspect of it, it has mostly or all been in reply to your stamping your foot on that issue. 

As I have also stated more than once: yes, I have my personal preferences, which I have also admitted are obvious; but that is a side topic within the topic, if anything. I never said that amount of notices AFTER SOMEONE OPTED IN is against  TOS - just that it is highly annoying to the recipients (most of the time.) 

It's frustrating when legitimate points I've made are ignored and somehow what I have tried to say becomes so mangled.

My apologies to the others reading this topic.

Link to post
Share on other sites


Perrie Juran wrote:

As far as unsolicited messages go, when you report it, the AR category reads "Disturbing The Peace > Unwanted Advert Spam."  That phrasing says enough for me as to how LL applies the TOS.

Thank you. Exactly.

Unwanted advertisements apparently are against TOS. I gave the links to the TOS document if anyone would like to read it. I never intended, whatsoever, to push myself forward as any type of an authority on TOS. 

I had hoped the links would provide some reading and fodder for discussion on that reading. Of the TOS document. And of applicable laws, since the TOS does also mention "abiding by local laws."

I really did and do not think most merchants or spam-senders (ad senders in their own mind, 99% of the time) (and btw I am not saying those two groups are one and the same; which is why I said or) are aware of that aspect of the TOS. For their own protection it might behoove them to become so.

I also discussed opt-in laws, as (since) that pertains to the aspect (in TOS) of abiding by the local laws. As far as I know, spam law in the U.S. pertains to where the sender or resident resides.

In my opinion, merchants who ignore the spam law, which states people must opt in, and be able to opt out conveniently, as well as (ETA: merchants - or any persons - who) ignore TOS on unwanted advertisements, are playing with fire.

In my opinion, to better comply with TOS, merchants should not sign people up without their knowledge or consent (that's what I meant by 'everyone who walks in'), or send so many ads it impedes normal use or enjoyment of SL (that's obviously subjective - well, to a reasonable point), or neglect to include an opt out link in every communication.

And for what it's worth to anyone at all, I did not originally post just about spam, but about the entirety of the TOS. Ad spam is just one teeny tiny part of that.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites


Melita Magic wrote:

As I have also stated more than once: yes, I have my personal preferences, which I have also admitted are obvious; but that is a side topic within the topic, if anything. I never said that amount of notices AFTER SOMEONE OPTED IN is against  TOS - just that it is highly annoying to the recipients (most of the time.) 

 

YOu can call it "stamping your foot", Melita, but I am only attempting to clarify the waters muddied when you say something like this, which says nothing about whether someone opts in or not :

 

"Still, I believe that to be in better compliance with this section of the SL TOS, merchants in world should NOT spam everyone who walks in their shop; and should keep ads sent even to subscribers to a modest amount. Perhaps once weekly at most. This would also include clubs, who sometimes 'spam' with several 'announcements' in IM and notices several times per day."

 

Too many people in this forum are already under the impression that they should have the right to dictate what others do with their property.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes you've quoted it twice now, Pamela. I understand that you took exception to my opinion on that matter.

I tried to explain what I did mean, in my post before this one.

Did you notice where it said "I believe?" That is an indication that an opinion or interpretation is about to follow.

ETA: As far as it saying "nothing about opting in or out," must it say that in every paragraph? But, as I said, I am not sure how I can try to explain anything I've said any plainer than I already have. (I would have to reread the thread to see exactly where I said that, remember exactly what I was thinking when I said it and what it was in response to or referring to. I think I was thinking of the section that goes into impeding other people's enjoyment of SL. When I am less tired I will go and make sure.)

It seems you are somewhat stuck on the notion that I was "telling people what to do on their own land." I was not. I was expressing a preference for how some of them misuse my time. (As I said: when it becomes my IM, my avatar, my email.) But even if I had said "I am about to tell people what to do on their own land" and followed it with a list, I believe you have made clear your feelings on such things. I understand you dislike being told what to do on your own land. Thank you for clarifying.

Link to post
Share on other sites

OK Pamela here it is. You have been quoting only a small portion of the actual section of my OP - only part of the section that regarded spam.

My apparent mistake was to hit the return key. Consider the blue paragraph and teh green paragraph to be one; my thoughts in the blue were being continued in the green. If you excise and isolate anything from a post it can be twisted to mean something else. 

In other words, I was still referring to situations which were not opt in, in the first bit (ETA: of the green); which is why I then said "even to subscribers.." in the next bit. (To differentiate the two situations.) I hate over explaining, but doggone it sometimes it's necessary.

Please take this as a whole. It hopefully is much clearer and cohesive, when not dissected and magnified as whole when it is no longer.

___

 

This is under a list of 'shall nots:'

"(ii) Post or transmit unsolicited or unauthorized advertising, or promotional materials, that are in the nature of "junk mail," "spam," "chain letters," "pyramid schemes," or any other form of solicitation that Linden Lab considers to be of such nature;"

In the U.S. there are 'opt in' laws. I'm not completely certain, so an expert may feel free to correct me. ;)  But, aside from past customers, who still have a right to 'opt out' - businesses may not spam or send ads through mail or email in hopes of snaring customers. I know - direct ad marketing makes it confusing. 

Still, I believe that to be in better compliance with this section of the SL TOS, merchants in world should NOT spam everyone who walks in their shop; and should keep ads sent even to subscribers to a modest amount. Perhaps once weekly at most. This would also include clubs, who sometimes 'spam' with several 'announcements' in IM and notices several times per day.

Where this runs into the real world is that many have IMs and announcements/notices sent to email. Then it becomes email spam, for which one can serve prison time.

I wish LL would word things more emphatically or clearly on this matter. For instance I believe all drop down or clickable items which subscribe an avatar to ANY mailing list should offer "are you sure" opt out clauses. It is too easy to accidentally click on a prim, barely realize one has been added, and then have a torrent of ad spam one cannot get out from under. An 'are you sure' pop up or having to click something else to confirm, would help combat that.

Also, EVERY ad sent should contain an "opt out" clause, since that is the LAW for email spam. Most merchants do not contain a direct SLurl to opt out, or any easy way to do so. They use anonymous mailers, they have huge stores that rez slowly, with hard to find clickable panels to opt out of their subscription list. Their profiles typically contain rules about how to or not to contact them - or forbid contacting them at all. In real life, all of that would be contrary to opt out laws in the U.S. as I understand them.

_____

END OF SECTION

 

And btw I still BELIEVE that it would be in BETTER compliance i.e. not pushing the limits close to spam or junk mail - to not send them every five minutes, or to people who didn't agree to get it.

FINITO (I hope)

Link to post
Share on other sites

This thread is very disappointing. The first post mentioned bots in relation to the ToS. Another post also mentioned bots. But that's the last we heard of bots in the thread and there's nothing botwise to get my teeth into. So disappointing. If you love me you'll rant about bots so I can join in - on the other side, of course. (That's the generic you, and not just Melita, who tried hard to get bots into it). It's so disappointing :(

Link to post
Share on other sites


Phil Deakins wrote:

This thread is very disappointing. The first post mentioned bots in relation to the ToS. Another post also mentioned bots. But that's the last we heard of bots in the thread and there's nothing botwise to get my teeth into. So disappointing. If you love me you'll rant about bots so I can join in - on the other side, of course. (That's the generic you, and not just Melita, who tried hard to get bots into it). It's so disappointing
:(

Bots are evil and will take over the world!

Bots ran off with my grandpa and stole the apple pie I had cooling on the windowsill!

(better?)

;):D

Link to post
Share on other sites

I completely disagree. I don't know about your grandpa and the apple pie but I am absolutely certain that bots will never rule the world. I am unanimous about that!

Bots are servants of mankind (neanderthals and denisovans included). They were created as sevants and they will remain as servant for the entire length of their existance in this world. Imo, it good old fashioned common sense - good sense and culture sense even. Besides it's surely against the ToS for bots to rule the world. I can't give you chapter and verse but it must be in there somewhere.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Do bots have a culture? If not, can they obtain common sense? Is common sense common? Or is it royal?

(I'm never sure if it's noble. That's for sure.)

Is running the world illegal or immoral? Ask the makers of Kelloggs cereal. (If they don't know now, they will one day!)

Will bots be servants or savants? Can one be both?

If you are unanimous you must be a borg. A bot borg!

A-ha!

I was about to read TOS but I am afraid, I tossed it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Bots don't have a culture because they are unaware of the existance of other bots.

They don't have any kind of sense - not common, regal, royal, noble, good, culture, or any other kind.

Running the world is neither illegal nor immoral, although you will need prior permission to run through most countries.

Bots will always be servants but can be thought of as savants; i.e. they excel in the field the are programmed to operate in and are 100% retarted in everything else.

I am not a borg but I can be unanimous because I feel intimately attached to Seven of Nine - especially in my dreams. I like to think of us as unimatrix-heaven.

Link to post
Share on other sites


Phil Deakins wrote:

This thread is very disappointing. The first post mentioned bots in relation to the ToS. Another post also mentioned bots. But that's the last we heard of bots in the thread and there's nothing botwise to get my teeth into. So disappointing. If you love me you'll rant about bots so I can join in - on the other side, of course. (That's the generic you, and not just Melita, who tried hard to get bots into it). It's so disappointing
:(

weeell

if you want to talk about advert bots then can go to Barbarossa and meet Elsie. she a clever bot. so are her sisters at the other infohubs. Joyce is usual at Degrand

they only give a advert once ever to the same person. not one from each bot either. only ever one from the whole sisters together

their brother bot is on the sim they advert. he walks round and round the city where he lives. he walks on the footpath not on the road. except to cross to other footpath

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Melita, I think from reading your concluding statement below that you continue to miss my point -- that the # of messages sent to someone who has opted in, and has a way to opt out, has nothing to do with compliance to TOS.  OTOH, sending one message a year to someone who either did not subscribe to a list or is preventing from unsubscribing, is not in compliance. (If I get even one unsolicited message I will AR it.)  

IOW, # of messages sent is irrelevant in a discussion about compliance to TOS; it belongs in a discussion about effective marketing or something like that.

It has nothing to do with anyone's opinion about anything, certainly not mine. 


Melita Magic wrote:

[...]

_____

END OF SECTION

 

And btw I still BELIEVE that i
t would be in BETTER compliance
i.e. not pushing the limits close to spam or junk mail - t
o not send them every five minutes
,
or
to people who didn't agree to get it.

FINITO (I hope)



Link to post
Share on other sites


Phil Deakins wrote:

That's not good enough, 16. I need some strong objections to bots, so I can get my teeth into disagreeing. So go back and try to do better.

q;

I like bots. they good listeners. not like some people. them bots never interrupt me when I am chatting. which is pretty good bc I chat a lot. like a way lot

Link to post
Share on other sites
You are about to reply to a thread that has been inactive for 2890 days.

Please take a moment to consider if this thread is worth bumping.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...