"It's really, really hard to build a world" - Philip on Civility

[Ayashe Ninetails]

2 minutes ago, Silent Mistwalker said:

I'm still trying to figure out the one about the bar and the movie. If the bar isn't charging people to be able to watch the movie there is no copyright violation. Cover charge at the door? That still isn't charging to watch the movie.

This whole discussion is pointless when it comes down to the brass tacks.

Oh, I've been lost for pages now. 

I assume it's all related in some way, but my brain is too tired to put it all together. It's why I just addressed the main title with my comments.

[Love Zhaoying]

15 minutes ago, Silent Mistwalker said:

59 minutes ago, Ayashe Ninetails said:

I'm still trying to figure out what the topic even IS.

I'm still trying to figure out the one about the bar and the movie. If the bar isn't charging people to be able to watch the movie there is no copyright violation. Cover charge at the door? That still isn't charging to watch the movie.

This whole discussion is pointless when it comes down to the brass tacks.

I can relate the "Bar" story to when businesses used to pay a fee to play pre-recorded music.  So, I have to turn back the clock 30 years or so to understand.  That's about how relevant the examples are! IMHO of course.

[Love Zhaoying]

9 minutes ago, Ayashe Ninetails said:

Oh, I've been lost for pages now. 

I assume it's all related in some way, but my brain is too tired to put it all together. It's why I just addressed the main title with my comments.

Somehow when posts started on the "RL Social Problems" it got twisted pretty badly.  The only relationship to web / virtual worlds / moderation is, the drama it causes when people discuss "RL Social Problems" on the web / in virtual worlds / which then needs moderation.

[Luna Bliss]

8 minutes ago, Love Zhaoying said:

Somehow when posts started on the "RL Social Problems" it got twisted pretty badly.  The only relationship to web / virtual worlds / moderation is, the drama it causes when people discuss "RL Social Problems" on the web / in virtual worlds / which then needs moderation.

Reading the OP again will help clarify.

[Ayashe Ninetails]

1 minute ago, Love Zhaoying said:

I can relate the "Bar" story to when businesses used to pay a fee to play pre-recorded music.  So, I have to turn back the clock 30 years or so to understand.  That's about how relevant the examples are! IMHO of course.

I wouldn't really relate virtual worlds to bars, either. I guess they're closer to that than a public square. It's just that bars are so local and online worlds typically host people from all over the dang place. Hence why I think of them like large online game worlds (no I'm not saying SL is a game I'm not going there don't worry!!!).

[Silent Mistwalker]

38 minutes ago, Love Zhaoying said:

I can relate the "Bar" story to when businesses used to pay a fee to play pre-recorded music.  

You probably aren't old enough to remember what it was like to be able to freely listen to what was freely shared.

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1962/04/jukebox-piracy/305829/

Thanks RIAA. I no longer have to worry about whether or not I can listen to my favorite radio station or local juke box. I won't be listening. *looks around at all the guitars and keyboards... We'll make our own. 🤣

Edited June 3, 2022 by Silent Mistwalker

[Codex Alpha]

2 hours ago, Prokofy Neva said:

No, because you are an enabler of the culture. It's like the time Philip banned several dozen denizens of Something Awful, which crossed over into 4chan and inworld griefing groups like "b" etc. There are those that maintain the land or maintain the open prims where griefing items are stored so that alts can easily get them when they re-spawn. They hold the cloak. They post selfies of themselves with griefers (even certain Lindens have done this historically) yet can remain technically free of the charge of griefing because they haven't acted or haven't been caught

All this "outrage on principle" like the refusal to accept random drug tests may all sound noble, but it enables a culture where the drug users can also get up their high dudgeon and undermine the system.

The Lindens remove swastikas as a hate symbol. They do take action on anti-gay attacks. So it's reasonable to expect that they can act on a "Z," but even if they won't, I can, and find it fully justified. 

It's not what I support or don't. SL is not real; it is virtual; it is a highly controlled and censored society which is also highly uneven in its management. So the discussion is about how you cope within that artificial set of rules. In RL, under the First Amendment, I wouldn't report a swastika despite aversion to it because it is "protected speech". If it appears on the tombstones of Jewish graves, then I would, because then it is not just vandalism but hate speech which in some communities and states can lead to civil or criminal action. The Buffalo shooter is not just arrested for murder, but hatred of minorities, and not just that, but white supremacist terror. That might not even have been possible (all three of those types of charges) even 10 or 15 years ago, but the media and society at large has increasingly come to accept this as necessary.

Regardless of the advertising, SL is a world where capture roleplay is tolerated and many kinds of violent and broadly offensive activity that LL will not act on, especially if in adult reasons, despite championing an event like "Billion Rising" in the "Destinations" or a blog post. 

So ultimately this guy's post about gun control, which people especially on the right will pick apart, is a reasonable analogy because those with the culture of objection may not themselves be miscreants but they create the climate of impunity and don't want to take responsibility for it. The Wired journo stumping to go after Japanese state capitalist toy companies while willing to overlook Ken Lerer's bankrolling of Moot and flippant Washpo articles on the edginess of 4chan is exactly part of the problem. He doesn't want to ban 4chan because: 1st Amendment, although the platform providers could unilaterally make that decision. He wants to be able to target only the extreme right or foreigners (Russia, Japan, whatever) but not look at leftists and liberals at home who also make up that culture of enablement and impunity. And this climate is not one to be legislated. It is one that changes with social movements like #MeToo. If every company that suffered a DDoS complained to Ken Lerer that his support of a group that not only commits them, but their founder who is supposedly becoming more artistic and less of a griefer won't denounce them, then they can boycott him and his works and socially ostracize him until he grasps that if you want free speech for all, then you have to combat DDoS for all, and not accept violence/force as a method, by looking the other way when people you don't like get DDoS'd, instead of universally condemning the tactic. 

I can appreciate your passion on the subject - but really it isn't supposed to be that hard. Frankly all of this is quite tedious and I'm not interested in promoting victim culture and 'helplessness' to the point that governance of any type, whether in a virtual world or real - will happily step in and crush everyone in order to guarantee a safe space for all. A safe, secure and ultimately super boring and mediocre and soul-crushing space.

Good luck. I hope everyone bans everyone else they think should get banned until there is no one left.

"We can't manage the ban lists. We can't keep up with it. If we restricted everyone that everyone would like to have restricted, we'd have no one left" - Phillip Rosedale regarding social spaces in HiFi, where users constantly whining about others to the help desk, wasting their time, spreading drama and toxicity and fingerpointing and villainization of others - until ultimately it contributed (in part) to it's social area shutdown, and ultimate failure.

Rinse and repeat on Bansar (in part), with the same attitude.

Hey lets do it in Second Life too! Wheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!

Perhaps this kind of thing can't be done anymore. It's over. Metaverse isn't going to happen, because it can't.

The Rise of Victimhood Culture It's funny how one can notice a change in society, how much of a difference it makes in one's own reality and existence, and not really knowing what to call it, then come up with a relevant term for it, then find someone wrote a pertinent book on it.

it really encapsulates what happens online and in real-world situations from home to school to workplace. In the end it just leads to the rise of the Nanny State - otherwise known as the Totalitarian State.

"We're going to force you to be polite!"

Edited June 3, 2022 by Codex Alpha

[Love Zhaoying]

36 minutes ago, Luna Bliss said:

45 minutes ago, Love Zhaoying said:

Somehow when posts started on the "RL Social Problems" it got twisted pretty badly.  The only relationship to web / virtual worlds / moderation is, the drama it causes when people discuss "RL Social Problems" on the web / in virtual worlds / which then needs moderation.

Reading the OP again will help clarify.

I'm not the one needing clarification.

Thanks, anyway! I read it thoroughly, and all the posts except when you and Prok started arguing.

[Love Zhaoying]

My conclusion is, Mr. Philip Rosedale would have made a terrible Jedi Knight, and never met Yoda.

"It's really, really, hard!", said no Jedi ever.

[Love Zhaoying]

14 minutes ago, Silent Mistwalker said:

You probably aren't old enough to remember what it was like to be able to freely listen to what was freely shared.

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1962/04/jukebox-piracy/305829/

Thanks RIAA. I no longer have to worry about whether or not I can listen to my favorite radio station or local juke box. I won't be listening. *looks around at all the guitars and keyboards... We'll make our own. 🤣

lol! This is exactly what I was referring to. You got it!

[Love Zhaoying]

1 hour ago, Codex Alpha said:

Good luck. I hope everyone bans everyone else they think should get banned until there is no one left.

Not *you, mister! You, we cancel! * evil laughter *

..Is joke!

Edited June 3, 2022 by Love Zhaoying
You not use

[Love Zhaoying]

I have just now personally solved the moderation issue with a simple thought experiment.

If an infinite number of monkeys can write Shakespeare..

We just need an infinite number of Moles to moderate!

[Coffee Pancake]

4 minutes ago, Love Zhaoying said:

My conclusion is, Mr. Philip Rosedale would have made a terrible Jedi Knight, and never met Yoda.

"It's really, really, hard!", said no Jedi ever.

Philip ?

[Silent Mistwalker]

10 minutes ago, Love Zhaoying said:

lol! This is exactly what I was referring to. You got it!

I'm not as look as I dumb. 🤭

[Luna Bliss]

18 minutes ago, Love Zhaoying said:

55 minutes ago, Luna Bliss said:

1 hour ago, Love Zhaoying said:

Somehow when posts started on the "RL Social Problems" it got twisted pretty badly.  The only relationship to web / virtual worlds / moderation is, the drama it causes when people discuss "RL Social Problems" on the web / in virtual worlds / which then needs moderation.

Reading the OP again will help clarify.

Expand  

I'm not the one needing clarification.

Thanks, anyway! I read it thoroughly, and all the posts except when you and Prok started arguing.

Moderation doesn't mean to moderate against people you have a grudge against or don't like.

The type of governance any society advocates has everything to do with the way in which a virtual world will be policed (they do have to follow the laws in any given country), and that is what I was debating with Prokofy.

And so if you value virtual worlds one needs to pay attention to the political climate in a country, and try to enact laws you agree with that are most favorable to the characteristics you want upheld in your virtual world. 

[Luna Bliss]

11 minutes ago, Silent Mistwalker said:

I'm not as look as I dumb. 🤭

Oh but I am much, much dumber than I look   🤣

[Ayashe Ninetails]

5 minutes ago, Love Zhaoying said:

My conclusion is, Mr. Philip Rosedale would have made a terrible Jedi Knight, and never met Yoda.

"It's really, really, hard!", said no Jedi ever.

It's hard, but some online spaces worked to figure it out.

It's imperfect, it's messy, it's constantly being tweaked, and yeah it costs money, but it's been done. There are absolutely communities I can think of where I'd say "Man, being here is so chill" vs. others where I wouldn't even bother socializing - even on the same platform.

Look at Twitch - terrible community reputation on the whole and if you drop into random channels you'll quickly see why, but I know of some *huge* channels with diligent, paid moderators. 20,000+ people pile in at once at times during big events and streams and yet chat remains civil and pleasant more often than not. In fact, quite a few people met in chat and socialize off-Twitch (in Discord, in guilds, etc.), they've been around so long. A community like that takes years to build up, so it's definitely not something the metaverse (cringe) can do on the fly.

[Scylla Rhiadra]

"The Victimhood State," so-called, comes into being when those who have been victimized by the system finally decide that they've had enough, and start pushing back. Which, in turn, leads those who have been doing the victimizing to whine furiously about how unfair it all suddenly seems.

The "victims" I know aren't weeping in corners or moaning -- they're kicking. Hard.

Get used to it, Snowflake.

[Love Zhaoying]

11 minutes ago, Ayashe Ninetails said:

A community like that takes years to build up, so it's definitely not something the metaverse (cringe) can do on the fly.

Oh, great! Now they're taking away our flying!

[Luna Bliss]

7 minutes ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

"The Victimhood State," so-called, comes into being when those who have been victimized by the system finally decide that they've had enough, and start pushing back. Which, in turn, leads those who have been doing the victimizing to whine furiously about how unfair it all suddenly seems.

The "victims" I know aren't weeping in corners or moaning -- they're kicking. Hard.

Get used to it, Snowflake.

When You’re Accustomed to Privilege, Equality Feels Like Oppression 

[Paul Hexem]

5 hours ago, Theresa Tennyson said:

Explain to us how a private bar would be in a situation where a customer would be in a position to play a copyrighted movie on all the TV's without the bar owner's knowledge and permission.

Are you saying that the bar owner would get in trouble if a drunk patron jumped over the bar and hooked up video player to the televisions without the bar owner's knowledge?

Or, more likely, would they only be liable if they set up a situation where they knew of the situation, allowed it and advertised it or set up a recurring event?

Section 230 exists because with the way internet sites that allow customer posting work, the owners generally have no control over what any given customer will post until after the fact, and aren't in a position to know the specifics of every given post.

I dunno, I didn't bring up the bar. I was just explaining what I thought was the initial rationale for people complaining about platforms getting to publish specific content without consequences.

 

3 hours ago, Innula Zenovka said:

I don't see how Section 230 is relevant, at least not as you explain it.    The owner of a site cannot be expected to know who owns the IP to any particular item uploaded to the site, and neither can they know whether whoever uploads it has the permission of the IP holder to use it.    Section 230 protects them, as I understand it, so long as they respond promptly from the copyright holder to remove offending items.

What's that got to do with a site deciding what sort of content it will or won't permit -- banning content depicting extreme violence, or content that's sexual in nature, or content promoting particular political ideas, or content that's off-topic to the site or whatever?  

One is a question of protecting other people's intellectual property, and the other is a question of the kind of site the owner wants to run and the kind of audience/advertisers they want to attract.

Personally, I think 230 is a good thing. Like you say, when anybody can upload anything, you never know what you're gonna get. The problem, as it's been explained to me, is when a site makes it clear they agree with the content they intentionally don't take down, why should they continue to be protected from the consequences of having that content up (assuming the content is something with consequences)?

[Moondira]

1 hour ago, Codex Alpha said:

The Rise of Victimhood Culture It's funny how one can notice a change in society, how much of a difference it makes in one's own reality and existence, and not really knowing what to call it, then come up with a relevant term for it, then find someone wrote a pertinent book on it.

it really encapsulates what happens online and in real-world situations from home to school to workplace. In the end it just leads to the rise of the Nanny State - otherwise known as the Totalitarian State.

"We're going to force you to be polite!"

The Totalitarian State manifests when the dominators take over and punish the out-groups they deem unfit.  You have the dynamic reversed.  A diverse and inclusive world in real life will produce an inclusive virtual world.

[Codex Alpha]

Yet that is usually not the result as observed and experienced. Maybe for YOU, but such movements are actually all about EXCLUDING others as a rule - who don't conform to their vision.

Edited June 3, 2022 by Codex Alpha

[Love Zhaoying]

6 minutes ago, Moondira said:

The Totalitarian State manifests when the dominators take over and punish the out-groups they deem unfit.  You have the dynamic reversed.  A diverse and inclusive world in real life will produce an inclusive virtual world.

Luna?

[Moondira]

1 minute ago, Codex Alpha said:

4 minutes ago, Moondira said:

The Totalitarian State manifests when the dominators take over and punish the out-groups they deem unfit.  You have the dynamic reversed.  A diverse and inclusive world in real life will produce an inclusive virtual world.

Yet that is usually not the result as observed and experienced. Maybe for YOU, but such movements are actually all about EXCLUDING others as a rule - who don't conform to their vision.

What do you mean by not conforming to their vision? 

A vision of everyone (no matter race, sexual orientation or gender, or financial status) being treated with respect?  Why would you not conform to such a vision?

We definitely need this vision in all worlds, including virtual ones.