Jump to content

Why do I choose Second Life over Meta?


You are about to reply to a thread that has been inactive for 377 days.

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

Recommended Posts

12 minutes ago, Mollymews said:

ps add

just thinking about this a bit more: "how to honour the use-license model thru the platform

i think some kind of CMT permission flags in the asset file might be how it ends up.  The CMT permissions are set by the creator when they make their models

a buyer can then upload their purchased model to SL say and the platform respects the CMT permissions in the file. Applying the CMT permissions and the name of the creator in the file to the uploaded asset. Should the creator not have a platform account then the upload is rejected

this can be subverted of course by rippers, but this is not a new problem, is an existing problem which is typically dealt with by DMCA

i think tho that most people generally observe licenses, so I think in the main a CMT like permissions in the file will suffice 

The CMT permissions system seems to have worked very well in SL so far, and "if it ain't broke don't fix it" is definitely an approach I subscribe to.

4 minutes ago, kevin350 said:

This is exactly what NFT technology provides and solves. 

Without wanting to dive into the whole NFT debate, it does seem like one of the more legitimate uses for them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Mollymews said:

it actually doesn't

a copy of the asset itself has to be uploaded to each respective platform for it to be rendered on the platform for all people in the view

that copy for upload has to be stored somewhere that the platform owners and creatives trust

It's true that it doesn't solve the issue of asset management, and it doesn't provide any protection from content theft, but I think it may still have a valuable role to play since it does provide an efficient way of registering ownership of content.

As for an asset registry system it looks like Nvidia are already providing a framework for that with "Omniverse Nucleus" which I'd assume could be configured to transfer assets between different decentralized asset servers within the Omniverse ecosystem.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Fluffy Sharkfin said:

Depending on the type of license that these assets are provided under it may be that the various marketplaces of the worlds that comprise this theoretical metaverse are completely separate from the worlds themselves and the content licensed across the entire metaverse rather than tied to a single world or platform.

yes this is how it is going now - dedicated third party stores

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Mollymews said:

it actually doesn't

a copy of the asset itself has to be uploaded to each respective platform for it to be rendered on the platform for all people in the view

that copy for upload has to be stored somewhere that the platform owners and creatives trust

edit:

sorry, I gave a wrong steer in my previous post.  I should have said repository rather than registry in my earlier

Right. 
 

So an asset is minted/created on a public (cloud based) blockchain with smart contract (permissions) information, ownership with a unique token ID (much like a UUID).  The item has a unique value etc…  

It’s paid for by creators minting the item and transaction fees on the sale of items etc.  literally in the same way it’s done in SL but on an open platform that economically favors the creator - who can collect royalties every time an item is resold / changes hands. 
 

In the grander scheme of a megaverse, the asset problem is less about creation, storage rights and payments of an asset, but more about classification, use, security, boundaries etc..

For example, in a global megaverse, where your global avatar can hop from a game sim to a social sim, to a concert venue sim or an adult sim - what is an appropriate asset?

Clearly, sim/game creators will want to have aesthetic control.  They won’t want you to wear fantasy robes and wizard gear on their space port game.

A major Part of asset management in an open universe will be filtering.  And you can only filter if you have extensive classification standards.  
 

which takes care of the dreaded nipple worry, if clothing also has a rating system. 

 

 

Edited by kevin350
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Maryanne Solo said:

I await..... the first ever captured fart NFT.
It's coming.... surely. 🤔

Jack Dorsey sells his first tweet as an NFT for $2.9 million

Okay so it's not technically a fart but it's comprised of mostly hot air, is mildly odious and has virtually no intrinsic value, so it's pretty close?!

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/31/2021 at 7:21 AM, Phil Deakins said:

Yes, there was MySpace. The one good thing about Facebook is that it sank MySpace just after Murdoch bought it, thinking that he'd bought the leader in the field. Anything that sinks Murdoch has to be good - at least for a while :D

 

I did not know that!  I liked MySpace so much better than FB and was really disappointed when it tanked.  Now I don't feel so bad.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, kevin350 said:

Right. 
 

So an asset is minted/created on a public (cloud based) blockchain with smart contract (permissions) information, ownership with a unique token ID (much like a UUID).  The item has a unique value etc…  

It’s paid for by creators minting the item and transaction fees on the sale of items etc.  literally in the same way it’s done in SL but on an open platform that economically favors the creator - who can collect royalties every time an item is resold / changes hands. 
 

In the grander scheme of a megaverse, the asset problem is less about creation, storage rights and payments of an asset, but more about classification, use, security, boundaries etc..

For example, in a global megaverse, where your global avatar can hop from a game sim to a social sim, to a concert venue sim or an adult sim - what is an appropriate asset?

Clearly, sim/game creators will want to have aesthetic control.  They won’t want you to wear fantasy robes and wizard gear on their space port game.

A major Part of asset management in an open universe will be filtering.  And you can only filter if you have extensive classification standards.  
 

which takes care of the dreaded nipple worry, if clothing also has a rating system. 

 

 

 

If you could stop trying to shove NFTs down people's throats that want nothing to do with them, that would be great.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I adore crypto bros who stan NFTs and have no idea what they actually are .. or more likely, don't want to know because they own or covet.

OK , Kevin, buckle up, you ready ?

19 hours ago, kevin350 said:

Right. 
 

So an asset is minted/created on a public (cloud based) blockchain with smart contract (permissions) information, ownership with a unique token ID (much like a UUID).  The item has a unique value etc…  

The asset is not minted on the block chain, because that would be eye wateringly expensive. ETH stores data in 256bit word chunks, to actually put that asset on the chain would cost as much as a house. So it's not.

The asset gets dumped on a website, somewhere like opensea, and the minted part is just a reference.

It's entirely independent to the asset, it just mentions it. Like a receipt mentions all the stuff you bought.

The NFT part does not in anyway contain or transfer intellectual property ownership or infer any rights. The smart contract part is really just some added logic that again .. doesn't translate into real world IP ownership or rights.

This all ends up only affecting what happens to the receipt.

 

19 hours ago, kevin350 said:

It’s paid for by creators minting the item and transaction fees on the sale of items etc.  literally in the same way it’s done in SL but on an open platform that economically favors the creator - who can collect royalties every time an item is resold / changes hands. 

Every time the receipt changes hands.

The actual art is hosted in the open for the world to see, it has to be for this whole mess to operate. There is no link from the art to the NFT.

This is why NFT bros are having so much fun reminting each others NFTs.

What happens when some art linked to by one NFT gets copied and has a second NFT minted and pointed at it ... nothing! Because there is no central authority on the blockchain.

What happens when your art gets stolen (either from an NFT hosting site or from somewhere else) .. nothing !

What rights do you have as the "nft owner" of the art? ... None because you're not the legal copyright holder of the art, you own a blockchain receipt and that's still intact.

What happens if you are the copyright holder and some crypto bro mints your art without your permission .. you can file a DMCA and hope for the best. Opensea started ignoring such legal requests recently so artists switched to targeting their hosts.. in the end this just means sites that hosts the actual data will end up operating in countries where the copyright claims can't reach them.

 

19 hours ago, kevin350 said:

In the grander scheme of a megaverse, the asset problem is less about creation, storage rights and payments of an asset, but more about classification, use, security, boundaries etc..

The "megaverse" ... yeah .. that's not a thing.

Nobody actually wants "Ready Player One", that's not an exciting vision of the future .. that's a dystopic nightmare where one company owns everything and actually enslaves people. Go read the book.

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Coffee Pancake said:

I adore crypto bros who stan NFTs and have no idea what they actually are .. or more likely, don't want to know because they own or covet.

OK , Kevin, buckle up, you ready ?

The asset is not minted on the block chain, because that would be eye wateringly expensive. ETH stores data in 256bit word chunks, to actually put that asset on the chain would cost as much as a house. So it's not.

The asset gets dumped on a website, somewhere like opensea, and the minted part is just a reference.

It's entirely independent to the asset, it just mentions it. Like a receipt mentions all the stuff you bought.

The NFT part does not in anyway contain or transfer intellectual property ownership or infer any rights. The smart contract part is really just some added logic that again .. doesn't translate into real world IP ownership or rights.

This all ends up only affecting what happens to the receipt.

 

Every time the receipt changes hands.

The actual art is hosted in the open for the world to see, it has to be for this whole mess to operate. There is no link from the art to the NFT.

This is why NFT bros are having so much fun reminting each others NFTs.

What happens when some art linked to by one NFT gets copied and has a second NFT minted and pointed at it ... nothing! Because there is no central authority on the blockchain.

What happens when your art gets stolen (either from an NFT hosting site or from somewhere else) .. nothing !

What rights do you have as the "nft owner" of the art? ... None because you're not the legal copyright holder of the art, you own a blockchain receipt and that's still intact.

What happens if you are the copyright holder and some crypto bro mints your art without your permission .. you can file a DMCA and hope for the best. Opensea started ignoring such legal requests recently so artists switched to targeting their hosts.. in the end this just means sites that hosts the actual data will end up operating in countries where the copyright claims can't reach them.

 

The "megaverse" ... yeah .. that's not a thing.

Nobody actually wants "Ready Player One", that's not an exciting vision of the future .. that's a dystopic nightmare where one company owns everything and actually enslaves people. Go read the book.

 

But what is the point of just owning a receipt? I want to own the art. So I kinda think that is wrong. That art is not yours to save to your computer, but you just bought the link to look at the art. So basically you just bought a digital ticket to a digital art gallery. In actual currency, you buy something you own the thing. That is how it should be.

  • Like 2
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Metaverse concerts are a massive flop 🤣🤣

"Facebook recently hosted a collection of Metaverse concerts that no one attended. Hosted inside Horizon Worlds, these concerts saw the appearance of multiple musicians to no applause.

The musical metaverse lineup opened with rapper Young Thug on December 26th.  That concert was quickly followed up by beloved DJ David Guetta just five days later. Finally, The Chainsmokers were brought on to sing Metaverse users into the New Year."

Here comes the best part ... 

I quote:

"The only issue: no one was there." 🤣🤣

Source: https://stealthoptional.com/metaverse/metaverse-concerts-colossal-failure/

 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Sammy Huntsman said:

But what is the point of just owning a receipt?

Well .. you might be able to convince someone else that your receipt is actually super valuable and they should buy it from you.

As an aside, the IRS treats them as cash so should the NFT owner ever unmask themselves, perhaps to try and make ownership claims, then they will likely find themselves liable for a lot of tax (which conveniently can all be calculated from the publicly accessible blockchain).

This alone kills the entire adventure really .. I don't think anyone has any desire to have to the IRS rummage though their virtual undies to see see if they owe them any money.

12 minutes ago, Sammy Huntsman said:

I want to own the art. So I kinda think that is wrong.

What you want and what you get aren't always the same :)

12 minutes ago, Sammy Huntsman said:

That art is not yours to save to your computer, but you just bought the link to look at the art. So basically you just bought a digital ticket to a digital art gallery. In actual currency, you buy something you own the thing. That is how it should be.

We actually own very little media or art, or things in general. 

At some point, capitalism asked "but what if we could be landlords, but for everything", and here we are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it is very illogical what is going on with the NFT.
There is already a huge market in digital arts and crafts. Millions of professionals have been selling their work, their assets and they have been doing it for years and making real money out of it. They also do this in places like Fiver to name one. Think about it, if this type of platforms took into consideration a nonsense like NFT what would happen?
This whole NFT thing in my opinion is just a big joke.
Selling a tweet, a gif or a fart? For millions of dollars?
It doesn't take much to understand that it's just a big joke that can only be taken seriously by a few chickens.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So what we actually see here is the same old same old "smart" approach to everything in the last decade.
For example:
-> Air BnB? No refunds, responsibilities, warranties or liabilities to AirBNB there....
Food ordering/delivery services? 97 million delivery riders die and guess what? 
-> No refunds, responsibilities, warranties or liabilities to bogus, Scammy Food Co there....
Funkeh, young, new age investment "advisors" online?  
-> No refunds, responsibilities, warranties or liabilities there....
Socials and their disgusting degenerate algorythyms?
-> No refunds, responsibilities, warranties or liabilities there....

NFT"s are just the latest "polished turd" "now you see it now you don't" presentation from those too
useless to succeed in the normal world. Shrouded with a veneer of credibility because they're digital.  
The GAG economy. 🤢🤮 Absolute horseplop!
 

lolgif62074390805.gif

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/6/2022 at 9:27 AM, Nick0678 said:

I was watching Star Trek Discovery the other day and there are plenty of men kissing in that, although it's supposed to be some silly childish Sci-Fi series, on the other hand i don't remember any men kissing each other in UK's Dr.Who.

You must've forgotten about Captain Jack (a recurrent character on Doctor Who and lead character in Torchwood).

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Heathcliff Harbrough said:

Metaverse concerts are a massive flop 🤣🤣

"Facebook recently hosted a collection of Metaverse concerts that no one attended. Hosted inside Horizon Worlds, these concerts saw the appearance of multiple musicians to no applause.

The musical metaverse lineup opened with rapper Young Thug on December 26th.  That concert was quickly followed up by beloved DJ David Guetta just five days later. Finally, The Chainsmokers were brought on to sing Metaverse users into the New Year."

Here comes the best part ... 

I quote:

"The only issue: no one was there." 🤣🤣

Source: https://stealthoptional.com/metaverse/metaverse-concerts-colossal-failure/

 

5 hours ago, Coffee Pancake said:

This is literally the hill Sansar died on.

 

And yet, concerts with RL performers have been hugely popular in Fortnite. So maybe "If you build it, they will come" is not true.

The platform has to offer something that plenty of people want and are willing to pay for. Second Life is not hugely popular like Fortnite, yet we've had inworld concerts in SL long before any other virtual platform did. We've had people selling both virtual and RL items in SL for years (though not many RL items). We've had a sandbox world that grew into a multidimensional virtual world (closer than any other virtual platform has come to a real Metaverse). We've had both adult/ NSFW and "safe" areas in SL for years. We've had the most customizable avatars for years. Inworld framerates can be low at times, upsetting content and people are common (but not worse than on Facebook), and there are no clear game objectives, rules or cheats for "winning". Yet, there is the opportunity to find a wide variety of entertaining content and make a profit in providing it. 

I don't think the limiting aspects of SL are ideological, but rather they're mostly technical. Meta (aka Facebook) is limited by the greed and power-hunger of it's creator, so it will likely never be able to create a virtual space that many people want to inhabit for long periods of time. Flat Facebook is bad enough, but people using it can turn their eyes away if they wish and can filter their experience to some small extent.

I would go crazy if I had to inhabit a 3D version of Facebook for more than an hour, and I certainly wouldn't spend money there if I didn't have to do so. I would go into Fortnite, Sansar or SL to watch a concert or play, but I wouldn't do so if all the avatars looked like legless playdough creatures. The visual graphics have to be worth the immersive experience, and not just an excuse to try to sell me something else. Virtual Reality should be an escape from the many stresses of RL, not a piling on of more of the same. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Tama SukiWe've Made Headline🤣

Quote

"Dilemaradio supports the views of Second Life avatars in the forum thread by Heathcliff Harbrough. It is obvious that Meta is not an original concept and Facebook’s reputation seems irreparable because most people don’t want anything to do with Meta. Watch the video above where people describe why Second Life is so special to them."

Source: https://dilemaradio.com/facebook-metaverse-concerts-were-a-complete-disaster/

image.thumb.png.eb6a278e42203058d5778027c4d0d8a3.png

  • Haha 1
  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Maryanne Solo said:

-> Air BnB? No refunds, responsibilities, warranties or liabilities to AirBNB there....
Food ordering/delivery services? 97 million delivery riders die and guess what? 

Recently the European community has been scrubbing ("scrubbing" in my part means "to corner and punish, scold and take meaningful action") this kind of company well.
Imposed quite tough rules and delivery companies can no longer make slavery level contracts.

Edited by Tama Suki
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are about to reply to a thread that has been inactive for 377 days.

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

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...