Should Any Second Life User Be Allowed To Continue To See Another User's Camera Beacon Location - Privacy Issue?

[Coffee Pancake]

  

1 minute ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

I think on balance I'd be against removing it, because in general I am against removing anything that empowers us. And this is just another tool that we have at our disposal.

But then, as I said, it's never (that I can recall) impacted negatively on my experience. And certainly, any tool can be misused, as it appears that this one sometimes is.

My point is it's not misuse that cause the trouble, it's that if used as a source of information it shortcuts other more tangible behaviors.

There is a reason social locations in SL are ghost towns populated by avatars standing about in silence, that doesn't happen on other platforms, it's not the people - we're not magically different from groups on other platforms.

It's the tools we have at our disposal and how they shape our social interactions, even in subtle ways.

The devil is in the details.

[Arielle Popstar]

1 minute ago, Coffee Pancake said:

But you can't assume the other person has them turned on, or is even using a viewer where names are shown.

So .. how many encounters did you miss because they didn't respond to you caming them really hard.

 

Well then I am going to miss out on those "body language" clues which will reduce the chances I approach them though not completely. I am not overly shy and will approach another even if there is not any clues they may have an interest. Others however may need such an additional confirmation that another has an interest in them also. Why deny them that? 

Maybe part of the problem is in being able to turn Look At on but not broadcast one's own which is not really fair is it. Maybe that option should be removed.

[Arielle Popstar]

5 minutes ago, Coffee Pancake said:

  

My point is it's not misuse that cause the trouble, it's that if used as a source of information it shortcuts other more tangible behaviors.

There is a reason social locations in SL are ghost towns populated by avatars standing about in silence, that doesn't happen on other platforms, it's not the people - we're not magically different from groups on other platforms.

It's the tools we have at our disposal and how they shape our social interactions, even in subtle ways.

The devil is in the details.

It is the tools but lets not blame the screwdriver for not being able to hammer the nail. Avatars standing about in silence has much more to do with voice, IM, Discord etc rather then someone being alt cammed. Some other platforms actually learn from their mistakes and quickly revert them like IMVU as an example when they experimented with voice and more accessible IM to the general populace instead of only premium members. The rooms quickly went quiet and the complaints started that everyone seemed afk. IMVU tossed voice and reverted IM's to only premium members and rooms started to get chatty again. The nature of S/L makes IM restrictions more difficult but they could for example limit IM's to premium members and only to other member outside of the Local chat range. That would get people chatting again. 

[Coffee Pancake]

Oh yes, I recognize SL's social problems are going to take far more than just removing lookats to resolve.

The biggest problem is that we will react badly to change.

[Hunny Bunny]

and this is why the future of the 'Meta'verse is chopped off at the waist. 

[Profaitchikenz Haiku]

On 1/9/2022 at 9:54 PM, Quistess Alpha said:

That's already a thing Prof. most people use it to fix clothing issues.

I know.

I should have added my "I'm tongue in cheek" rider to the post, but to tell you the truth, in all the excitement, I clean forgot.

[Quistess Alpha]

27 minutes ago, NiranV Dean said:

Alternatively LL could invest in some experiments like i did with putting headtracking back on top of animations to make it relevant again.

Couldn't you just add a debug parameter to specify the priority of the head tracking animation? I have to assume it's more complicated than that or someone would have done it though. . .

[NiranV Dean]

1 hour ago, Quistess Alpha said:

Couldn't you just add a debug parameter to specify the priority of the head tracking animation? I have to assume it's more complicated than that or someone would have done it though. . .

Sadly it is not that easy. Raising the priority of the headtracking animation is sufficient but poses a different problem, you essentially completely overwrite the AO, which wasn't what I did, I have the animation still play but the headtracking is "added" on top of the animation, essentially you are nudging your head around while its still playing the underlying movement, this looks a lot more natural and less broken but comes with its own issues (such as some human avatars having spinning heads for some reason)

51 minutes ago, Stephanie Misfit said:

Yeah to be honest, not impressed that people can be allowed to express paranoid delusions on the forums for pages and pages and thread after thread. As someone with a psychiatric illness, if I was doing that on the forums I would hope it would be shut down and fast.

So essentially what i read out of this is you agree to shooting down this thread now that it is coming back to the actual topic? Great. Way to kill a discussion, sounds more like trying to silence others. There have been a couple extreme statements here but that's no reason to kill the entire discussion which seems to be still up and well.

[Solar Legion]

There is no "discussion" to be had. The feature exists, no one's privacy is or has ever been violated in any way whatsoever by its existence (sorry, it simply hasn't, stow the drama fuel and no I do not care what your belief on the matter is) and quite frankly all other "concerns" brought up are fueled by nothing more than the user's own imagination or wanting to blame something for whatever they can (yeah no, LookAt Beacons are not to blame for low visitor counts to some locations).

Simply put, this thread - like a few others - simply should not exist nor should it have gotten this large.

Edited January 11, 2022 by Solar Legion

[Arielle Popstar]

3 hours ago, NiranV Dean said:

It does, it would only be consistent. My Poser is not allowed to pose others because there is potential abuse when i've clearly seen it being widely used for good at the time and there are still many people asking me about the status of this feature. Why am i not allowed to give people a better photography tool because of potential abuse but a debugging tool that is almost exclusively used for causing trouble and has time and time again stirred up discussions and drama is allowed to continue existing in its current form? LL has been incredibly inconsistent with this kind of stuff and if anything I'd want them to be consistent and apply the same harsh restrictions to everything.

I do think LL has some consistency though in not allowing viewer or server side features that conflict with existing third party offerings available in the Marketplace and I have seen such that allowed another to pose and manipulate my avatar for inworld photoshoots. It would be much handier and cheaper of course if it was built into the viewer itself and I wonder that it couldn't be done through an rlv function as that seems to be allowable considering the products out there that do force poses and animations of another avatar. The Look At function though probably couldn't be done through a third party offering as well as being a debugging tool so LL not removing it, still would be consistent with their general policies.

Quote

 

I have questioned the ability to show others (with names) while at the same time being able to hide your own in the past and i've also requested locking each other out when one of them is enabled. Nothing has happened so far.

The body language thing is also not an excuse, you as the user/consumer do not need to see the lookat, you could already see where an avatar is looking if we didn't all use AO's that blocked our headtracking. Alternatively LL could invest in some experiments like i did with putting headtracking back on top of animations to make it relevant again. See my youtube video

 

 

Well certainly the headtracking is nice but not as specific as the crosshairs of the Look At. When I was in a couple of singles clubs today I noticed a lot don't show their targets which begs the question whether they are blocking its broadcast, or don't use it because it doesn't interest them or they are not aware of it. It seems only Firestorm has the ability to block broadcast though so would be nice if one of their Dev's would answer why they continue giving the option to do so if it supposedly causes so much grief.

[QwiQ]

OK, I have no idea why the world seems to want me to get all "white knight-ish" on Mr Paulsian's behalf, but here we go again - third time's a charm and all that 🙂

We all exist on a continuum of sensitivity to security and privacy concerns. Paulsian "appears" to be on one end, and others here are on the other end. I've no issue with that, everyone is different.

As a software vendor though, it would make sense for LL to cater for as wide a segment of the continuum as possible, but again, they'll do what they do.

At the end of the day though, this is less a personal privacy issue than a data collection and analytics issue.

If social media and digital marketing has taught as anything over the past decade, it's that attention = money.

You might not care who looks up your skirt,
or who focusses on the jiggle physics in your blouse,
or the excellent ink stencilled so prettily on  your much, much too overdeveloped biceps;

but someone will care and someone will be able to make cold hard cash out of that tracking data.

If LL isn't seeing the recent interest in virtual reality as an opportunity to leverage all the (anonymised) data points they've collected over the past 18 years then .. well we can all stand to attention and salute their "ethics" as the good old SS SL sinks below the waves.

So yep you're definitely giving away all this valuable data, every time you look at something, TP somewhere, invoke any interaction between yourselves and/or the platform.

As it stands at the moment your feelings on whether that data is made available to you in your viewer is pretty much irrelevant.

On an individual level though, there are a few areas where what you accept now will be a tricky little genie to stuff back in the bottle later. These carry across things like.

1. Privacy - the security and privacy provided by any platform will become much more import as we immerse ourselves more deeply.
   
   So yeah you should probably be a bit more interested in how likely the LL viewer is to be carrying malware, whether LL's use of subdomains vs subdirectories presents a DNS vulnerability, where your camera tracking data goes when you sleep.
    
2. Future Digital Justice - let's say an assault takes place in some seedy SL nightclub and there is a means to report and seek justice for that assault, then where you were and where your cam was focussed at any one time might identify you as a witness and/or suspect.
    
3. Future Digital Governance - depending on what jurisdiction you reside under -  where you are seen to have your eyeballs pointed, and for how long at any one time,  might be very telling.

All sounds a bit crazy right? And yeah I get that some here might say:

"this is SL man, my avatar's age is older than your kid, I know what LL has done, is doing, will do, is capable of doing - I'm best friends with a Linden and I attend all the user group meetings FFS!";

Sometimes though it's wise to just step back from the blanket assertions, take a different perspective, imagine a world where there's such a thing as doubt 🙂

Because, in my opinion (as strange white knight extraordinaire) the only reason you might be able to disregard all of this is because SL is tiny, the population demographic is a commercial irrelevance at the enterprise level, and thus the size and the value of your data set is too small to warrant anyone's attention.

Anyway, as usual, this is just well meaning advice.. you go out and think whatever the fork  you want to think 🙂

Edited January 11, 2022 by QwiQ
way too many "yep"s.

[Qie Niangao]

12 hours ago, StarlanderGoods said:

All you guys arguing against Look At free and available to the public, that´s your guy, the one saying that there should be no third party viewers and that security is a bigger problem than performance right now.

It's certainly possible to argue against the broad dissemination of LookAt targeting data without taking that extra anti-TPV leap of illogic. (Or, theoretically, vice versa.)

The "performance" boogeyman is baffling, btw.

8 hours ago, Solar Legion said:

There is no "discussion" to be had. The feature exists, no one's privacy is or has ever been violated in any way whatsoever by its existence (sorry, it simply hasn't, stow the drama fuel and no I do not care what your belief on the matter is) and quite frankly all other "concerns" brought up are fueled by nothing more than the user's own imagination or wanting to blame something for whatever they can (yeah no, LookAt Beacons are not to blame for low visitor counts to some locations).

Simply put, this thread - like a few others - simply should not exist nor should it have gotten this large.

Yeah, except every thread about this feature always ends up like this. Completely predictable. Especially by the OP of such threads.

44 minutes ago, QwiQ said:

So yep you're definitely giving away all this valuable data, every time you look at something, TP somewhere, invoke any interaction between yourselves and/or the platform.

Interesting. I think it's simply (and obviously) true that SL is way too tiny (and weird) for its lookAt stream data to have commercial value to anyone, ever, but one could imagine that Meta would have different economics. 

We can be sure that AR advertising is all about that.

In fact, a taste of that might be fun to play with in SL. I wonder if anybody has.

[Scylla Rhiadra]

6 hours ago, QwiQ said:

OK, I have no idea why the world seems to want me to get all "white knight-ish" on Mr Paulsian's behalf, but here we go again - third time's a charm and all that 🙂

We all exist on a continuum of sensitivity to security and privacy concerns. Paulsian "appears" to be on one end, and others here are on the other end. I've no issue with that, everyone is different.

As a software vendor though, it would make sense for LL to cater for as wide a segment of the continuum as possible, but again, they'll do what they do.

At the end of the day though, this is less a personal privacy issue than a data collection and analytics issue.

If social media and digital marketing has taught as anything over the past decade, it's that attention = money.

You might not care who looks up your skirt,
or who focusses on the jiggle physics in your blouse,
or the excellent ink stencilled so prettily on  your much, much too overdeveloped biceps;

but someone will care and someone will be able to make cold hard cash out of that tracking data.

If LL isn't seeing the recent interest in virtual reality as an opportunity to leverage all the (anonymised) data points they've collected over the past 18 years then .. well we can all stand to attention and salute their "ethics" as the good old SS SL sinks below the waves.

So yep you're definitely giving away all this valuable data, every time you look at something, TP somewhere, invoke any interaction between yourselves and/or the platform.

As it stands at the moment your feelings on whether that data is made available to you in your viewer is pretty much irrelevant.

On an individual level though, there are a few areas where what you accept now will be a tricky little genie to stuff back in the bottle later. These carry across things like.

1. Privacy - the security and privacy provided by any platform will become much more import as we immerse ourselves more deeply.
   
   So yeah you should probably be a bit more interested in how likely the LL viewer is to be carrying malware, whether LL's use of subdomains vs subdirectories presents a DNS vulnerability, where your camera tracking data goes when you sleep.
    
2. Future Digital Justice - let's say an assault takes place in some seedy SL nightclub and there is a means to report and seek justice for that assault, then where you were and where your cam was focussed at any one time might identify you as a witness and/or suspect.
    
3. Future Digital Governance - depending on what jurisdiction you reside under -  where you are seen to have your eyeballs pointed, and for how long at any one time,  might be very telling.

All sounds a bit crazy right? And yeah I get that some here might say:

"this is SL man, my avatar's age is older than your kid, I know what LL has done, is doing, will do, is capable of doing - I'm best friends with a Linden and I attend all the user group meetings FFS!";

Sometimes though it's wise to just step back from the blanket assertions, take a different perspective, imagine a world where there's such a thing as doubt 🙂

Because, in my opinion (as strange white knight extraordinaire) the only reason you might be able to disregard all of this is because SL is tiny, the population demographic is a commercial irrelevance at the enterprise level, and thus the size and the value of your data set is too small to warrant anyone's attention.

Anyway, as usual, this is just well meaning advice.. you go out and think whatever the fork  you want to think 🙂

Possibly you wouldn't need to "white knight" if the OP was a bit more detailed and forthcoming with details and clarifications? I asked for that, quite politely I think, and so far haven't even been graced with a Brady Bunch clip in response.

The title of this thread, and the OP's first post, make it clear that his focus is upon what he calls "beacons," by which -- and this seems to be everyone else's assumption as well -- he means the cross hairs that we can optionally use to see where we are looking, and where others are looking.

These are user tools. They have zilch to do with the ability of the viewer camera to look at people, go through walls, look up skirts, wander into the next sim, record data about what is being "looked at," etc. Disabling or restricting our ability to use "LookAt" does absolutely nothing to address any of the points he has made about "privacy," except insofar as it might provide some with the privacy to look up skirts and spy on others undetected -- not, it seems to me, a kind of privacy we should particularly want to protect.

Your own points about data harvesting, monetization, etc., are well taken, but they too don't really have anything to do with these "beacons," which, again, are a user tool, and have nothing to do with how LL or anyone else might use the information they can (putatively) collect from user cameras. You're a very well-meaning White Knight, but you're attacking the troll in front of you, while the OP is actually urgently in need of assistance from the dragon behind you.

Had the OP, or you, addressed the kinds of social issues that "LookAt" may or may not be causing, as others within this thread usefully have, this thread would seem a great deal less pointless and confusing than it frankly does.

Edited January 11, 2022 by Scylla Rhiadra

[Solar Legion]

5 minutes ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

Had the OP, or you, addressed the kinds of social issues that "LookAt" may or may not be causing, as others within this thread usefully have, this thread would seem a great deal less pointless and confusing than it frankly does.

Any "social issues" exist in the imaginings of those that have posted - much like the scapegoating at least one other user has attempted here.

The lot are in the same lumped group as those who turn LookAt on and then begin to complain that they are - in fact - being looked at.

They can and should all be ignored. By everyone, LL included.

[Scylla Rhiadra]

52 minutes ago, Rowan Amore said:

What you've purchased or what is in your inventory, the groups you belong to, the people on your friend list, regions you visit...these are all things LL is also aware of and would be more telling in regards to the 3 instances you cited.  Where your cam is locked would be way down on any list of finding out what you've been up to.

If anyone is THAT concerned with what LL knows about their activities...they already know everything

And this, it seems to me, is kind of to the point. The cross hairs that appear on our screen have nothing to do with what LL knows or doesn't know. Disabling them does nothing, in terms of "privacy," to restrict or control that.

I'm honestly not sure that there is a "solution" to the potential for datamining that QwiQ (and, briefly, the OP) identify as important issues, beyond an assurance, maybe, from LL that they are not collecting this data. If the software enables you to look at things, the software can also record it: the only way to conclusively ensure that this data is not collected is to disable the code that points cameras. And certainly getting rid of TPVs isn't going to change that.

The other point, more generally, is that the data likely to be collected isn't going to be worth much to anyone, except possibly to LL itself, or just maybe to merchants and creators (although I'm doubtful). It's not merely that the size of the users of this platform is so small: it is also pseudononymous and rife with alts. The reason FB doesn't want SL avatars to have accounts on their platform is that it contaminates the data with information about virtual people that is all but unusable to the real world companies that might be interested in buying. Who, who has money to spend on such things, is going to buy data about where my avatar, or my alts, point their camera? How is that going to help them market Coke and Big Macs?

[Scylla Rhiadra]

3 minutes ago, Solar Legion said:

Any "social issues" exist in the imaginings of those that have posted - much like the scapegoating at least one other user has attempted here.

The lot are in the same lumped group as those who turn LookAt on and then begin to complain that they are - in fact - being looked at.

They can and should all be ignored. By everyone, LL included.

I am pretty agnostic about the social impact of LookAt. As I've said, I've never had any issues with this myself, and I don't really see how it is impacting upon public sociability at chat hubs and sims. But I find that conversation at least interesting and germane to the issue of cross hairs / beacons. The rest of this stuff just . . . isn't.

[Scylla Rhiadra]

Just a quick thought that occurs . . .

I think a far more invasive and intrusive affordance -- and also a more useful one -- is the popular "What Is She Wearing" HUD. Wow, the TMI that I've learned using that . . .  In terms of users violating privacy, that's a far worse offender than "LookAt."

This thread is already such a mess, that I thought I'd just mischievously throw that it into the mix as well . . .

[QwiQ]

1 minute ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

And this, it seems to me, is kind of to the point. The cross hairs that appear on our screen have nothing to do with what LL knows or doesn't know. Disabling them does nothing, in terms of "privacy," to restrict or control that.

I'm honestly not sure that there is a "solution" to the potential for datamining that QwiQ (and, briefly, the OP) identify as important issues, beyond an assurance, maybe, from LL that they are not collecting this data. If the software enables you to look at things, the software can also record it: the only way to conclusively ensure that this data is not collected is to disable the code that points cameras. And certainly getting rid of TPVs isn't going to change that.

The other point, more generally, is that the data likely to be collected isn't going to be worth much to anyone, except possibly to LL itself, or just maybe to merchants and creators (although I'm doubtful). It's not merely that the size of the users of this platform is so small: it is also pseudononymous and rife with alts. The reason FB doesn't want SL avatars to have accounts on their platform is that it contaminates the data with information about virtual people that is all but unusable to the real world companies that might be interested in buying. Who, who has money to spend on such things, is going to buy data about where my avatar, or my alts, point their camera? How is that going to help them market Coke and Big Macs?

Hi Scylla,

Well listen, I mean first thing is that LL are almost definitely "collecting" the data in that it will be stored somewhere on their backend. It'd be quite a wasted asset, and certainly they'd be in a minority of companies these days, if they didn't anonymise at least some of it and leverage it as a resource either internally or externally.

As for the relevance of my post in the context of this thread; in a strict sense you're right of course. However it felt like almost everything that had to be said had already been said many, many, many times.. so I thought I'd take the opportunity to maybe expand the scope a little and thus prompt some more interesting dialogue - which it has done a wee bit thanks to you, Rowan and a few others 🙂

The reason I suppose I'm jumping in on this whole white knight thing, is that while the OP may be "trolling", he may also be not. He may just be someone who is particularly risk averse and genuinely "wondering". I understand that the old hands of these forums feel they can sniff out a troll at a 100 yards, and by virtue of being judged a troll he deserves whatever judgement and treatment is handed down..

Apparently for the most part, what it's deemed he deserves is at best very ill informed (almost puerile) passive aggression, and at worst what would normally constitute pretty bad bullying from the usual suspects. To be honest, I'm an adult who knows what he's getting into here and the responses I get are all pretty predictable and factored in before I hit the submit button. Yeah it's a forum yada yada and there are worse out there, but there are also much better ones.. maybe we could try to be one of those 🙂

To be honest, even as someone who prides themselves on their use of language,  your use of words like "trolls" and "dragons" seem unnecessarily combative in this context. Maybe given the very, very small number of people who actually use these boards we could all just be people - people who agree with other, or disagree, or frustrate or annoy - but people nevertheless.

Anyway, I've added what I perceived (rightly or wrongly) to be some well intentioned information, so I'll leave it at that.

[NiranV Dean]

3 hours ago, Marigold Devin said:

Bullies unfortunately will be bullies and if they didn't have this tool available they'd just find another way to be abusive towards other people. The majority of people who do use this tool use it for positive purposes. 

The majority? Certainly not. The majority ignores this feature, doesn't know it exists or doesn't need it like a good consumer/user. A very tiny minority of the rest uses it for an extremely limited and weak excuses of "good" uses, such as Firestorm for teaching their users. The rest are bullies or weirdos who think SL and the virtual area around them belongs to them and no one is allowed to move their camera even remotely close to them and let this stupidity out on other people. The amount of people who use this feature for anything good is so incredibly tiny we might as well remove this feature and there would be no harm done. But i say lock it for users, keep it for support/developers/betatesters/teachers.

29 minutes ago, Solar Legion said:

Any "social issues" exist in the imaginings of those that have posted - much like the scapegoating at least one other user has attempted here.

The lot are in the same lumped group as those who turn LookAt on and then begin to complain that they are - in fact - being looked at.

They can and should all be ignored. By everyone, LL included.

You mean like all the other issues we keep ignoring for over a decade now? Way to go. Just add it to the stack.

 

I hardly care about data being collected (its LL's service after all and we use it) and this is the internet but there are valid reasons and concerns here (not saying the privacy thing is one, i find privacy or security a weak excuse in this topic).

Edited January 11, 2022 by NiranV Dean

[Adamburp Adamczyk]

*/me looks on marketplace for an item that when detects someone camming on you, makes your avi moon them*

[Scylla Rhiadra]

17 minutes ago, QwiQ said:

Hi Scylla,

Well listen, I mean first thing is that LL are almost definitely "collecting" the data in that it will be stored somewhere on their backend. It'd be quite a wasted asset, and certainly they'd be in a minority of companies these days, if they didn't anonymise at least some of it and leverage it as a resource either internally or externally.

As for the relevance of my post in the context of this thread; in a strict sense you're right of course. However it felt like almost everything that had to be said had already been said many, many, many times.. so I thought I'd take the opportunity to maybe expand the scope a little and thus prompt some more interesting dialogue - which it has done a wee bit thanks to you, Rowan and a few others 🙂

The reason I suppose I'm jumping in on this whole white knight thing, is that while the OP may be "trolling", he may also be not. He may just be someone who is particularly risk averse and genuinely "wondering". I understand that the old hands of these forums feel they can sniff out a troll at a 100 yards, and by virtue of being judged a troll he deserves whatever judgement and treatment is handed down..

Apparently for the most part, what it's deemed he deserves is at best very ill informed (almost puerile) passive aggression, and at worst what would normally constitute pretty bad bullying from the usual suspects. To be honest, I'm an adult who knows what he's getting into here and the responses I get are all pretty predictable and factored in before I hit the submit button. Yeah it's a forum yada yada and there are worse out there, but there are also much better ones.. maybe we could try to be one of those 🙂

To be honest, even as someone who prides themselves on their use of language,  your use of words like "trolls" and "dragons" seem unnecessarily combative in this context. Maybe given the very, very small number of people who actually use these boards we could all just be people - people who agree with other, or disagree, or frustrate or annoy - but people nevertheless.

Anyway, I've added what I perceived (rightly or wrongly) to be some well intentioned information, so I'll leave it at that.

Actually, the "troll" of my post was unintentionally ill-chosen, and wasn't intended as a pejorative reference to the OP. I nearly said "windmills," and in hindsight probably should have. It would have been funnier and less prone to misprision.

I don't have anything personally against the OP. What I will suggest is that his approach has not been very carefully considered. Forums are delicate ecosystems; they develop their own rules. I've been here for a long time, and I suppose I'm part of "The Establishment," but if I posted, in rapid succession, three different OPs on, say, feminist issues, I'd get push back too. One mistake that newish posters often make is not to listen and gauge the conventions of the community before leaping in with both feet. I did that in . . . 2009? whenever it was that I started . . . and got flamed. You learn.

And he could help himself by being a bit more attentive to his own thread and actually addressing points here rather than posting video clips.

And, yeah, not the Brady Bunch. Seriously. ANYTHING but the Brady Bunch.

(Except the Partridge Family. That would be worse.)

Edited January 11, 2022 by Scylla Rhiadra

[Silent Mistwalker]

Threads like this are one of myriad of reasons LL decide to put the lookat tool under the DEVELOPERS menu AFTER you have to enable the ADVANCED menu.

The damn thing IS hidden. You have to deliberately look for it in order to enable it. Neither the Advanced nor Developer menus are readily visible. BOTH HAVE TO BE ENABLED in order to be able to find the tools.

If someone is using lookat as an EXCUSE to harass/grief you, they have enabled those menus deliberately for that singular purpose and should be ARed.

[Arielle Popstar]

Just now, Silent Mistwalker said:

Threads like this are one of myriad of reasons LL decide to put the lookat tool under the DEVELOPERS menu AFTER you have to enable the ADVANCED menu.

The damn thing IS hidden. You have to deliberately look for it in order to enable it. Neither the Advanced nor Developer menus are readily visible. BOTH HAVE TO BE ENABLED in order to be able to find the tools.

If someone is using lookat as an EXCUSE to harass/grief you, they have enabled those menus deliberately for that singular purpose and should be ARed.

Firestorm (the viewer most use) has it in the Preferences and is not that hard to find even for noobies.

[QwiQ]

1 minute ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

One mistake that newish posters often make is not to listen and gauge the conventions of the community before leaping in with both feet. I did that in . . . 2009? whenever it was that I started . . . and got flamed. You learn.

Well you "learn" or you leave I guess, and the ones who leave take with them fresh insight and voices and what's left is an echo chamber reverberating with the same old prejudices and "opinion".

Unless you like taking pics of course, there's always room for some more pretty pictures to look at 🙂

[Silent Mistwalker]

8 minutes ago, Arielle Popstar said:

Firestorm (the viewer most use) has it in the Preferences and is not that hard to find even for noobies.

I'm pretty sure FS isn't the official viewer that most start out with.

And are you sure you can use those preferences with the Dev menu disabled? I'm not. @Whirly Fizzle