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

[Love Zhaoying]

4 hours ago, Codex Alpha said:

I think this topic 'discussion' in it's entirety will speak for itself, and how it relates to the OP, and what Philip has to deal with and the challenges.

I nominate you for volunteer moderator.

[Love Zhaoying]

8 hours ago, Ayashe Ninetails said:

But yeah, they really think enveloping avatars in bubbles is going to make their platform more safe. That's so hilarious. 😂

I thought it looked more like "brains in jars".

[Love Zhaoying]

I found some books that will help those who are creating virtual worlds to ensure civility in their social networks!

 

[cunomar]

Kids come up with some daft ideas sometimes - and its a great and harmless thing . They are evolving , expanding imagination and developing a consciousness that the world is far bigger than their own bubble .

At some point we have to stop and listen to their theories with undivided attention , discuss the matter , question it with acceptance . Then leave them to reevaluate what the knew against what they recently learned .

Kids forget nothing that grabs their attention and once they have formed the ability to speak nothing in the general day to day game of living is beyond their comprehension .

Forbid that discussion which in later life is likely to be prompted by an individual who for whatever reason , (and there is usually a reason that might call for sympathy from opponents were it known) chooses to fly in the face of generally accepted civility .

When i was a teen and had a "RIGHT" to smoke on buses I asked the frail old lady sat in front of me if she would mind .

Whats misunderstood nowadays is having the right doesn't give you the right or make you right . 

Historically how many millions have died because someone chose to silence a whisper/belief that didn't fit with their own agenda - how much of it might have been avoided had honesty prevailed .

[Theresa Tennyson]

10 hours ago, Codex Alpha said:

Part of civility and building a community is to not demonize others

True that - people are entirely capable of demonizing themselves.

[Prokofy Neva]

On 6/2/2022 at 9:38 AM, Codex Alpha said:

As a person who expresses many views and opinions for many years participating on the internet, and experiencing the most mundane of disagreements to the largest - to the point that in 2022 I know have to compartmentalize and protect myself from others who stalk me across internet platforms to dislike, thumbs-down, 1 star rate and purposefully destroy my reputation and in some cases where they had personal details - dox me to unsavory types - it is most certainly important to protect one's real identity.

Of course this is not always the case, as some places it is fine - but with the growth of ease on finding people through search now with many methods, and connected databases (and even motivated employees of companies with access - yes it's happened who have relationships with users) can be an Achille's Heel should you 'offend' someone because you said in chat "Warehouse jobs should be automated because they are soulless, mind-numbing jobs. Human beings aren't meant to do boring repetitive tasks like stacking boxes - so robotics is the answer and we could get retrained into something more meaningful" and now they hate your guts because you allegedly "Insulted my living/job".

Yes. Something that little can quickly snowball, and especially in 2022 - to quickly make you a target and the Devil after one incident through the 'telephone' psychology sounds worse and worse each time it's told until its "oh he said warehouse workers are numb-brains and that they should be replaced by robots - he's insulting the job I have been doing for 10 years" - then turns into a campaign to ostracize you, or the hatred they now feel for you over one incident grows into "let's ostracize this guy", or other malicious things.

I've had to remove all my friends of friends list because otherwise they would be caught up in all of this themselves, and have been in the past. "Yep, sorry about that. They probably banned you cuz you were on my friends list, for a social or political view I expressed inworld or on a forum."

If these same people had access to my personal details, place of work, etc - and as we have seen from RL incidences about how hard and how far some groups will go to censor, silence, ban, and ultimately the big prize - destroy their reputation and livelihood - yeah there is good reason.

If people were civil then we wouldn't need to.

Also consider too that even if we use a nickname for ourselves, especially us current and former hardcore gamers :D, that our nick becomes our identity - and it becomes very personal - and even under that nick we can gain or lose reputation - and can feel the same as if our real life persona is being attacked.

Civility is first taught by Mom and Dad, and other adults we grow up with. Then if that's not enough, or there was a shortage of parenting and teaching that that person still is not civil and respectful of others - then we have the guns of the State to enforce their civility.

Personally, I like to debate and discuss the IDEAS a person may present - as it wouldn't matter what their name is or whether they are private or public in their speech - and thats we should all stick to - Civil discussion. As soon as someone goes beyond that and want to destroy someone else in any way - then the need for anonymity and compartmentalization is made clear.

Also, if you apply a Social Credit type status to people (Bansar (typo but lol is that funny gonna leave it in :D)  loves to do this - everything you say or do is on record to forever  judge you with - right or wrong) - you effectively chill conversations and free expression - because others see what can happen to others that fall afoul of a ruling party/government/majority's preferences at the time - they don't want to be treated like that either. Wield a banhammer big enough and terrible enough and without mercy or arbitration - and apply it unevenly and erratically and hitting innocent people in the process - very much creates a chilling and fearful attitude. "I don't want to say something that will get me in trouble or banned. I don't want to be  seen agreeing with or associating with that person, etc","I don't want to forfeit all my creations, world and hard work over this". This is the kind of existence Facebook and other 'metaverse' companies want to run - the promise of fun and opportunity - with the reality of lording over you, monitoring your behaviour and speech, and holding your purchases, worlds, creations and investments hostage to control you.

I would also argue that if the goal is to be civil, there is a strange phenomena that was observed on YouTube and the comment sections:

When there was a move to promote the use of real names - there was a time where it was civil - until people became even so emboldened in their positions - and with the rise of virtue signaling type of behavour - they PROUDLY stated their full names. Of course they only do that when they're in the majority and relatively safe from being mobbed, censored and banned by others - and they forget that should the tide shift that they would then be subject to the same measures against them.

Even if their names were 'exposed', they didn't need or care for 'civility' nor did it shame them into 'good behaviour'. All most people need is to be in the majority, then they cannot be shamed or otherwise motivated to be 'civil' anyway.

But yeah, arguing with others that "The rights you deny others can and will be denied you" is completely fruitless, because as humans I guess most of us simply do not care until we are personally affected.

Of course there will always be an element of people who will use anonymity to do malice in the world - but taking away the anonymity from legitimate, law-abiding, productive people will only allow the malicious more weapons against them.

What I've stated over and over and over again is that RL ID must be supplied, i.e. a valid payment form or government ID, ALTHOUGH you may have a pseudonym ON TOP of that. Thus, you can be held liable for violations and crimes because your RL ID is supplied, even if you use a nick inworld.

And there is always then someone to say, but games and worlds get hacked. Well, lots of things get hacked. But they often get hacked by people with no real ID, too. 

The theory of how to combat "blood diamonds" or diamonds obtained through violence, extortion, civil wars, etc. is that you don't attempt to stop them completely, although some basic filters can work, but instead, you create a set of companies willing to validate their diamonds are not obtained from violence and exploitation, you certify them by those criteria by an impartial body or respected industry body, and then you radiate out from there, hoping to displace the bad with the good. Combating cotton obtained from child labour works on the same principle, you don't attempt to find all the countries that use other countries' cotton with exploitation, but you certify the ones not using child labour and radiate out from there.

And so providing real life ID for games and worlds can work on the same principle.

The geek 0/1 mind at work on the nature and culture of social media always says "you can't do it 100%". But few things in life, even run by computers, can be done 100%. So you work even for 70% or 87% or whatever, it's all to the good.

Also people invocate vulnerable groups -- victims of domestic violence, transgender persons, disabled, and so on and say they must have anonymity. Again, what kind of world are you running where you cannot guarantee their safety? Because even if a pseudonymous account is hacked, it can be exploited and this has to be prevented anyway. 

No one makes the argument that you need to avoid getting a license to drive a car because you need freedom and safety. In fact, here's the crux of the issue: requiring that everyone has a license gives all of us FREEDOM AND SAFETY FROM EACH OTHER. And that's what it is all about, when people view this problem only starkly as a state/citizen dynamic or platform owner/user dynamic. The worst problems of virtual worlds are "each other," not the platform owner. That's why when Mark Kingdon made a slogan out of the "killer app" of SL being "each other," it felt so wrong. "Each other" are what ruin SL for yourself and others unless LL intervenes.

There's something to be said for reputation systems, although they are gamed, but it is true that it then entails a tracking that becomes burdensome and error prone. But there's nothing like a RL reputation, eh? Tied to an account. Which can have an anonymous handle.

[Prokofy Neva]

19 hours ago, Dyna Mole said:

It's time for a friendly reminder .... The OP's original statement set the framework for a discussion about "The problem of how to have a civil society online".  Somewhere in the past couple of pages, the conversation veered way off topic.  Let's try to yank it back again. 

BTW it might be useful to point out that "civil society" is a term that doesn't merely "being civil to one another" or "being polite" or "not using ad hominems" or whatever "netiquette" people devise.

It's a term with a history before the Internet involving various authors from Antonio Gramsci to Vaclav Havel to E.P. Thompson with varying visions, whether social democratic or liberal, regarding the relationship between the state and the citizen, and a lot of the writing in more recent decades grew out of the struggles of citizens' movements in Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union. But it has grown beyond these use cases to the whole world. And it's about the ability of the citizen to retain oversight and restraint over the state, to participate in decisions through voting and election, to have a space separate from state invasion, and so on. 

And while some authors want to only focus on citizens' movements against the state, others point out that business and religion are also part of a civil society and have their place.

So from there you have the tension between the platform providers and social media companies that have their group rights and freedoms from state intervention (and not only with Section 230 but all kinds of landmark Supreme Court decisions), and the tension between the usually authoritarian platforms and the individual user, or groups favoured by the authoritarian platform owners, like boyars or oligarchs, and ordinary users.

[Prokofy Neva]

On 6/2/2022 at 4:00 PM, Persephone Emerald said:

I think people can still say whatever they want about someone on a public (or even a privately owned) forum, as long as they do it eloquently or subtilty. The ability to use nuance and inference has always been to the advantage of artists, writers, politicians and political commentators. This caveat does admittedly disadvantage those who have equally valid feelings and thoughts, but lack the ability to frame them in clever, subtle ways.

Here's a simple example. Instead of someone responding to a poster by saying "Why do you have to use so many words to try to get to your point? By the time I read to the end of your post, I've forgotten what you were trying to say," a person could instead just respond with "TLDR".

On the other hand, if one responds with, "Why do you have to be such a long-winded bore?", that would be seem more personal and be viewed as rude. 

One trick is to avoid "You" statements. Another is to avoid words with obviously negative meanings. Subtle analogies usually get a pass even in totalitarian societies such as China, but even those can be removed after the fact when the person or agency they're describing figures out what's really being said about them.

I saw what you did there. And no one is required to read my long comments. They can skip them or skim them. I think out loud as I write and it can be a lengthy process. It's a style that is not going to be eradicated even by the most draconian boss or most vicious ridicule. So at this point, just move along if it bothers you.

[Prokofy Neva]

15 hours ago, Codex Alpha said:

No. People taking responsibility for their own experience and reactions is the most important one, by using the tools they already have to manage their issues - and leaving platform staff out of it.

Yet many many times, I don't see people using those tools, and seem to enjoy running to authority figures to wield as weapons against others. I've watched people literally orgasm with glee when they were successful at 'getting one over' on another user for whatever reason. They could barely hold their innards in, drunk on dopamines that they were able to get someone else to fight their battles for them. A battle that's not even worth it, but manipulating others is addictive to them.

Yes, and that's a wonderful byproduct of a larger user mass. The tattle taling, the manipulation of staff, the cries of woe and alleged offense simply can't be handled personally anymore - and the people must resort to tools they already have. Like blocks and ignore. Yet to this day you will see users act helpless and victimized when the power is under their fingertip and takes 0.0001% second of their life to implement.

The best thing for any platform is to grow to many numbers so that they can't deal with every little complaint, and that is when a platform is at it's best. Go look to Bansar and other small platforms who never grew past a small number where early adopting groups become their own force, and become toxic to any new user that tries to join. Couldn't happen on VR Chat or RecRoom as they grew too fast.

Sounds absolutely amazing and a place I would like to be.

Other than the most extreme (and exceptional) circumstance does  a governance even need to step in - the most 'civil' and fair way is to give people the tools to manage themselves - and leave staff alone.

 

 

If ban or block or ignore or a security orb were enough to control my experience in SL, you'd never hear from me. But you do because griefers exploit not weaknesses of tools, but people's psychology and do social engineering.

So that's how they conceive of things like making alts with versions of my name or my business name so that there is "brand confusion". That's why they join groups that seem to be for a good cause, such as a group around a temple or church or mosque, and then wear the tag and spam racist rants at people.

That's why they join groups that are open or easily joined and then spam in them to tarnish my reputation or others.

That's why they spawn prims on no-autoreturn land that affects the whole sim. My autoreturn in a shared virtual world is not enough.

That's why they manage to talk their way into situations, playing on people's reluctance to be seen as censoring or canceling.

That's why they pick up causes like "Impeace Bush" that they believe are "bullet proof".

Etc. etc. etc.

I don't know Bansar but there are entire studies like Clay Shirky's "The Group is Its Own Worst Enemy on this problem (which I have written a rebuttal to).  Shirky was wildly touted by game professors long ago in 2006 and is forgotten today, interestingly.

[Love Zhaoying]

21 minutes ago, Prokofy Neva said:

What I've stated over and over and over again is that RL ID must be supplied, i.e. a valid payment form or government ID, ALTHOUGH you may have a pseudonym ON TOP of that. Thus, you can be held liable for violations and crimes because your RL ID is supplied, even if you use a nick inworld.

What's interesting to me about this part is, depending on how one does business with Second Life, they (or Tilia) already have your RL ID!

10 minutes ago, Prokofy Neva said:

And no one is required to read my long comments. They can skip them or skim them. I think out loud as I write and it can be a lengthy process. It's a style that is not going to be eradicated even by the most draconian boss or most vicious ridicule. So at this point, just move along if it bothers you.

I started understanding your POV a lot better once I started patiently reading your long comments!

[Codex Alpha]

1 hour ago, Prokofy Neva said:

If ban or block or ignore or a security orb were enough to control my experience in SL, you'd never hear from me. But you do because griefers exploit not weaknesses of tools, but people's psychology and do social engineering.

So that's how they conceive of things like making alts with versions of my name or my business name so that there is "brand confusion". That's why they join groups that seem to be for a good cause, such as a group around a temple or church or mosque, and then wear the tag and spam racist rants at people.

That's why they join groups that are open or easily joined and then spam in them to tarnish my reputation or others.

That's why they spawn prims on no-autoreturn land that affects the whole sim. My autoreturn in a shared virtual world is not enough.

That's why they manage to talk their way into situations, playing on people's reluctance to be seen as censoring or canceling.

That's why they pick up causes like "Impeace Bush" that they believe are "bullet proof".

Etc. etc. etc.

I don't know Bansar but there are entire studies like Clay Shirky's "The Group is Its Own Worst Enemy on this problem (which I have written a rebuttal to).  Shirky was wildly touted by game professors long ago in 2006 and is forgotten today, interestingly.

Sure, don't take my opinions on the matter as absolute - I'm not a polarized person.

For myself I support a notion to reserve the extreme tools for extreme cases. When block and  mute is more than enough to eliminate a problem (for small offenses or misunderstandings) - then staff should be left alone, or calls to ban them is an over-reaction. Most issues can be dealt with by these tools. My argument was is that many don't use those tools BEFORE going to a more extreme measure. What can happen is that people can be framed in a much darker light than should be and have been subjected to over-discipline.

I've worked in complaint departments, and the customer will ALWAYS exaggerate their encounter, or depth of their frustration - it's a normal tactic to amplify to communicate that a wrong has  happened. I'm not criticizing that, it's just what happens and it takes a measure of patience and professionalism to first be able to empathize with the complainant, and then to assign an actual realistic level to the incident.

I am not disagreeing that in the case that you have presented, it is extreme and exceptionally hostile behaviour, and repeatedly - like bypassing security systems, blocks, using alts, etc - Of course that needs a bit more staff interaction.

Remember my argument first is 'give and encourage the user to take personal responsibility in managing their experience of the platform and others' - the most basic layers like block and mute, etc - then only get staff involved when it becomes behaviour that is sustained, bypasses, or goes to alts etc.

Like I said, if the large banhammer is used for every user or occasion not only is it unfair, but innocent people get mashed in the process as well.

Of course even the tools can be weaponized by nasty types if they want (group bans, sharing IP lists, etc) but that's a whole other topic.

1 hour ago, Prokofy Neva said:

If ban or block or ignore or a security orb were enough to control my experience in SL, you'd never hear from me. But you do because griefers exploit not weaknesses of tools, but people's psychology and do social engineering.

Yes, some people have become experts at 'skirting the rules' and that is also a form of trolling and griefing - and that's much harder to combat because there is nothing to report - and the reporter will seem deluded or paranoid.

1 hour ago, Prokofy Neva said:

I don't know Bansar but there are entire studies like Clay Shirky's "The Group is Its Own Worst Enemy on this problem (which I have written a rebuttal to).  Shirky was wildly touted by game professors long ago in 2006 and is forgotten today, interestingly.

That was a typo, but it kind of fits a bit haha. I've quickly looked up the book you cited and got a quick overview.

Clay Shirky - The Group is Its Own Worst Enemy (PDF)

I'll have to read it a bit more first, but yes it seems to address things that I have noticed in just the last 5 years or so, and with the advent of Sansar,  VR Chat where I noticed it the most enough to want to look up the psychology - I know it as "Early Groups Can be Toxic and Detrimental to Growth" kind of  "Community Manager" type knowledge, but this is similar in thought regarding how groups can work against themselves for positive change and why.

Can't comment on this too hard yet, haven't read it but will

Edit: Also a related resource in similar fashion and relating to the challenges of creating online worlds:

The Lessons Of LucasFilm's Habitat (Stanford U.)

1 hour ago, Love Zhaoying said:

What's interesting to me about this part is, depending on how one does business with Second Life, they (or Tilia) already have your RL ID!

And some of that is necessary, and is needed in some cases - if one is pulling an income out of SL - this is needed for tax purposes.

Also, many other corporations may have personal details. Yet they are all compartmentalized and so have (theoretical/ethical) limits on the use of said information.

What Provoky proposes is a UniqueUserID, which is not a new idea - but it aims to identify an individual worldwide and under ONE governing body - has far more implications and issues.

"The Right To Be Forgotten" or as how I would know it - practicing patience and forgiveness, is an important concept for us all - as we all screw up, we all lose it, we all do dumb things - and never being forgiven, never having our trespasses 'forgotten' - can cause great harm to the individual - and especially on a global basis.

Social Credit has this same aim, and is practiced widely in China. No second chances, no forgiveness. We either behave a certain way or get put out of society.

Edited June 4, 2022 by Codex Alpha

[Love Zhaoying]

1 minute ago, Codex Alpha said:

Remember my argument first is 'give and encourage the user to take personal responsibility in managing their experience of the platform and others' - the most basic layers like block and mute, etc - then only get staff involved when it becomes behaviour that is sustained, bypasses, or goes to alts etc.

"Getting staff involved" - is also part of "encouraging the user to take personal responsibility".  For example, when a user is given a "warning".  

Example: If I posted something a little too personal - even in jest - , and someone reported it, moderators review it and issue me a warning, deleting the post.  This is how the forum works today. While we aren't supposed to talk about moderation specifics - it happened to me just the other day.

I think this is just fine.

[Codex Alpha]

30 minutes ago, Love Zhaoying said:

"Getting staff involved" - is also part of "encouraging the user to take personal responsibility".

The context I was using was "A personal decision or action is one you make on your own".

Edited June 4, 2022 by Codex Alpha
Removing trigger word 'clearly'

[Love Zhaoying]

6 minutes ago, Codex Alpha said:

The context I was clearly using was "A personal decision or action is one you make on your own".

Your concept of "clearly" may not match other's. I've seen you use "clearly" in other posts. Bad form, in my opinion. Like trying to shame people because you aren't clear, by insisting you are "clearly" clear.

This is so, so tedious.

Whether or not you were "clear" is irrelevant. I was providing an alternative viewpoint.

Edited June 4, 2022 by Love Zhaoying

[Innula Zenovka]

5 minutes ago, Love Zhaoying said:

Your concept of "clearly" may not match other's. I've seen you use "clearly" in other posts. Bad form, in my opinion. Like trying to shame people because you aren't clear, by insisting you are "clearly" clear.

This is so, so tedious.

Whether or not you were "clear" is irrelevant. I was providing an alternative viewpoint.

The views of David Allen Green, a greatly- respected English commentator on law and politics, are perhaps relevant here:

Quote

The First Rule of Clarity

If you have to describe a thing as “clear” then it usually is not.

The Second Rule of Clarity

The stronger the intensifier for “clear” (for example, “very clear”, “absolutely clear”, “crystal clear”) the less clear that thing will tend to be.

The rules also apply to “clearly” – and this is always a tell in a litigation letter or legal argument that the author has no confidence in what they are saying.

https://davidallengreen.com/2021/11/let-me-be-absolutely-clear-the-two-rules-of-clarity/

[Madelaine McMasters]

9 minutes ago, Innula Zenovka said:

The views of David Allen Green, a greatly- respected English commentator on law and politics, are perhaps relevant here:

https://davidallengreen.com/2021/11/let-me-be-absolutely-clear-the-two-rules-of-clarity/

When I was little, I was taught that "To the casual observer, it is intuitively obvious that..." often precedes nonsense.

[Codex Alpha]

18 minutes ago, Love Zhaoying said:

Your concept of "clearly" may not match other's. I've seen you use "clearly" in other posts. Bad form, in my opinion. Like trying to shame people because you aren't clear, by insisting you are "clearly" clear.

This is so, so tedious.

Whether or not you were "clear" is irrelevant. I was providing an alternative viewpoint.

And I clarified the context in which I was using it. Clarifying or rephrasing a statement is a valid procedure in a conversation, or having to nitpick a word and agreeing on a definition so that conversation can be understood and continued. It may be tedious, but that's what happens sometimes while communicating with others.

I don't use words as 'concepts' nor do I make my own definitions for them. I use words that are defined in a world-respected dictionary so that we can all agree on their meaning and usage (context) so that we can comprehend the ideas presented.

Can we get back to discussing the topic or ideas now?

[Madelaine McMasters]

4 hours ago, Theresa Tennyson said:

True that - people are entirely capable of demonizing themselves.

[Silent Mistwalker]

35 minutes ago, Madelaine McMasters said:

 

Oh man. You've all done it now! You have Maddie so upset she is gonna fork us all! After she sets us on fire!

[Prokofy Neva]

1 hour ago, Love Zhaoying said:

What's interesting to me about this part is, depending on how one does business with Second Life, they (or Tilia) already have your RL ID!

I started understanding your POV a lot better once I started patiently reading your long comments!

Well, exactly. And that's why people squawking about this should back up and ask themselves whether they mean having your RL as a tag over your head as on Meta (presumably) based on (presumably) your RL Facebook account, or your SL avatar name that is on top of your RL form of payment in fact with your RL name.

But there are legions of people with basic accounts and no authenticated RL information. These are at least NPIOF and LL even has a way to ban such people from your land (I don't, they are customers). But at least you have the option to chose not to live with the anonymous and unaccountable if you wish. 

[Love Zhaoying]

7 minutes ago, Silent Mistwalker said:

 

Oh man. You've all done it now! You have Maddie so upset she is gonna fork us all! After she sets us on fire!

I hope we get to spoon after we're forked.

[Prokofy Neva]

1 hour ago, Codex Alpha said:

Sure, don't take my opinions on the matter as absolute - I'm not a polarized person.

For myself I support a notion to reserve the extreme tools for extreme cases. When block and  mute is more than enough to eliminate a problem (for small offenses or misunderstandings) - then staff should be left alone, or calls to ban them is an over-reaction. Most issues can be dealt with by these tools. My argument was is that many don't use those tools BEFORE going to a more extreme measure. What can happen is that people can be framed in a much darker light than should be and have been subjected to over-discipline.

I've worked in complaint departments, and the customer will ALWAYS exaggerate their encounter, or depth of their frustration - it's a normal tactic to amplify to communicate that a wrong has  happened. I'm not criticizing that, it's just what happens and it takes a measure of patience and professionalism to first be able to empathize with the complainant, and then to assign an actual realistic level to the incident.

I am not disagreeing that in the case that you have presented, it is extreme and exceptionally hostile behaviour, and repeatedly - like bypassing security systems, blocks, using alts, etc - Of course that needs a bit more staff interaction.

Remember my argument first is 'give and encourage the user to take personal responsibility in managing their experience of the platform and others' - the most basic layers like block and mute, etc - then only get staff involved when it becomes behaviour that is sustained, bypasses, or goes to alts etc.

Like I said, if the large banhammer is used for every user or occasion not only is it unfair, but innocent people get mashed in the process as well.

Of course even the tools can be weaponized by nasty types if they want (group bans, sharing IP lists, etc) but that's a whole other topic.

Yes, some people have become experts at 'skirting the rules' and that is also a form of trolling and griefing - and that's much harder to combat because there is nothing to report - and the reporter will seem deluded or paranoid.

That was a typo, but it kind of fits a bit haha. I've quickly looked up the book you cited and got a quick overview.

Clay Shirky - The Group is Its Own Worst Enemy (PDF)

I'll have to read it a bit more first, but yes it seems to address things that I have noticed in just the last 5 years or so, and with the advent of Sansar,  VR Chat where I noticed it the most enough to want to look up the psychology - I know it as "Early Groups Can be Toxic and Detrimental to Growth" kind of  "Community Manager" type knowledge, but this is similar in thought regarding how groups can work against themselves for positive change and why.

Can't comment on this too hard yet, haven't read it but will

Edit: Also a related resource in similar fashion and relating to the challenges of creating online worlds:

The Lessons Of LucasFilm's Habitat (Stanford U.)

And some of that is necessary, and is needed in some cases - if one is pulling an income out of SL - this is needed for tax purposes.

Also, many other corporations may have personal details. Yet they are all compartmentalized and so have (theoretical/ethical) limits on the use of said information.

What Provoky proposes is a UniqueUserID, which is not a new idea - but it aims to identify an individual worldwide and under ONE governing body - has far more implications and issues.

"The Right To Be Forgotten" or as how I would know it - practicing patience and forgiveness, is an important concept for us all - as we all screw up, we all lose it, we all do dumb things - and never being forgiven, never having our trespasses 'forgotten' - can cause great harm to the individual - and especially on a global basis.

Social Credit has this same aim, and is practiced widely in China. No second chances, no forgiveness. We either behave a certain way or get put out of society.

Having worked in the human rights field for 40 years, I something about complaints. I remember when I worked at one rather generically named organization, we would get zillions of calls from all over from all kinds of real or imaged victims who got our number either from Googling, or in the days before the Internet, by asking the operator for a generically named company, and lazy/busy operators gave our number. And we had to develop and automatic script to read and later put on a voice message to divert 99.9% of those complaints because a small NGO can't possibly deal with them all, so in that sense I truly understand the problems 10 governance staff people face in SL.

There is also the problem in the human rights field that many people do not know how, or are incapable of, formulating their own case. They may actually have a case, but they are bad at articulating it (and people understandably aren't their best when they have lost a leg to a Russian artillery attack, for example). They may imagine there is a law somewhere and then not realize there isn't.  Someone with a housing or health care complaint inside Russia could invoke norms of guaranteed social or economic rights that might even be recognized by UN covenants, but the US, for example, and other companies did not organize health, education, and welfare in this fashion so it was hard to make it an international "case". And such cases of negligence and corruption by local officials are better solved locally anyway. Human rights groups can't be faulted for picking out cases they think tell the story better, or promotes the "cause," but this undermines them.

Example in our little world: you tell people 5 different ways (on the group charter, on your profile, in the lease, in FAQs handed out and FAQs on site) that they will pay a weekly group fee, but if they have a store, they will get search/place ads free, and also will be absolved on early cancellation fees and get them returned if they move to another rental in the system (these three policies go together). Yet while most people grasp that this less-than-a-penny per month fee is in Linden dollars and not a big deal, you still get perhaps one person a month who either thinks it is in real US dollars or thinks it unfair and they have been robbed against their will by an automatic debit (which they can avoid by leaving the group after setting prims if they don't want all the added features).  So they rant on and on how they are going to report you to LL or to the RL police -- but it's a feature of groups that you can charge group fees and distribute group dividends, end of story.

The "the right to be forgotten" is not a technical problem for a social problem that tech exacerbates. The media can choose to be selective and prudent in its coverage as well.

Shirky also had this widely quoted piece "Here Comes Everybody" - and both this piece and the "Groups" piece were ones I critiqued heavily but now I can't find them on Google or with Typepad's search engine so I will have to work at it.

[Prokofy Neva]

1 hour ago, Innula Zenovka said:

The views of David Allen Green, a greatly- respected English commentator on law and politics, are perhaps relevant here:

https://davidallengreen.com/2021/11/let-me-be-absolutely-clear-the-two-rules-of-clarity/

Maybe that's why I haven't heard of him and I read a lot of British thinkers.

[Prokofy Neva]

16 hours ago, Persephone Emerald said:

Now you're starting to sound like an atheist.

A belief in God is a belief that is regulated by centuries of religious institutions and written works of all kinds. It has the weight of history and tradition behind it. Marxism, hardly as much, and those wielding the term "neoliberalism," not so much at all. It's also transparent. If you are a religious believer, you cite your religion and it has a public profile and is a known quantity. Not so anonymous people invoking "structural" and "neoliberal" in every other tweet.

[Prokofy Neva]

16 hours ago, Persephone Emerald said:

Then we're not doing a very good job of it on this forum.

The topic is not merely "civility" and that's why you get getting into the usual knots. It's about civil society, which is a different concept. The attack in cyberspace which is reported now out of Meta is among the worst kinds of civility but the question isn't yes/no, bad/good, but how you address such realities of human nature in a virtual world, which is a more complex problem. It's not just that you want people to behave better. It's that you want a system that both encourages such behaviour, and deters it and punishes it fairly.