Why, in Second Life, jerks are a minor problem.

[animats]

Something I posted on r/metaverse on Reddit. I've made this point before on various metaverse forums. There are people saying in mainstream media that the metaverse needs to be heavily censored or moderated. This is an opposing view. This is a message that needs to get out, before we have some kind of government-mandated moderation. LL is welcome to use these as talking points.

Second Life solved these problems years ago. The solutions are subtle and effective.

First, in a big 3D world, jerks are local. In Second Life, a jerk can only annoy for about a 100 meter radius. The whole world is the size of Los Angeles, and nobody notices distant jerks.

There's no way to broadcast to everyone. There's no such thing as "following" or "retweeting". So jerks are not amplified. They're just harmlessly yelling into the void.

Second, landowners have power over their own land. Go to a club and be a jerk, and you'll be bounced by the club owner. You can't get back in. If you try, large yellow bars appear in front of you, which you cannot pass. Homeowners have that power at their home, too. Jerks soon find themselves on the outside, looking in through ban lines. This eliminates the need for "moderators". Second Life does have a small "governance" department. It's for serious situations for which, in real life, you'd call the cops.

There are some public places where jerks congregate. Second Life users will know about Social Island 10, the Port Authority Bus Terminal of Second Life. It has the same kinds of losers you find in bus terminals, from panhandlers to people with boom boxes. Nobody has to spend time there. It's a problem that new users pass through the social islands, which gives a bad first impression. But by day 3, everyone with a clue knows not to stay there.

Arriving in Second Life is like arriving in a strange big city. The world offers many options but does not compel you to do anything. This confuses some people.

Third, sex. Second Life has an adult continent, a sizable area in which sex is allowed. If you want to go there, you have to be over 18, enable adult content in your viewer, pick an adult destination, and go. Outside of the adult continent, nudity and sex are discouraged. Mostly by peer pressure from other users. There's official enforcement if necessary, but it's rarely needed. The same tools that deal with jerks deal with unwanted sex. In practice, it's just not a problem. Even on the adult continent, there isn't much visible sex.

Finally, a key component of a good metaverse is that users are invested in it. They have virtual homes, stores, and friends. Being a jerk and being banned hurts your life in the virtual world. So most people just don't.

These are not major problems for a well run metaverse. It's just a problem for Meta/Horizon, which has now failed three times at virtual worlds.

[Rowan Amore]

11 minutes ago, animats said:

Outside of the adult continent, nudity and sex are discouraged

Most adult activity occurs on Adult private estates.  That's where most of the adult clubs people actually go to exist.  Oh, and on Horizons, too.   Sex is definitely encouraged.  Sex sells!

15 minutes ago, animats said:

The same tools that deal with jerks deal with unwanted sex. In practice, it's just not a problem. Even on the adult continent, there isn't much visible sex.

You've never been hit on for sex at a shopping event on Moderate land?   Yes, block the fool but it's still something that happens on a regular basis and off putting to newer residents.

I do agree with your post overall but to say there isn't a problem with unwanted sexual advances is incorrect.  Not that LL could or should step in.  

[Coffee Pancake]

I think that mistakes what the problem facing virtual worlds actually is .. it's not how do we get everyone to play nice an a shared environment, It's how do we get people to even want to participate in the first place.

The big players aren't making a hippy commune, they are making something they hope will consume more human activity than existing social media. That will, inevitably, be capitalized and shaped by the most efficient monetization possible. Algorithmically controlled and engineered conflict to maximize individual engagement and participation.

A world made to ensnare humans and have them squabble while trying to out spend each other. That kind of world will need moderation and will look nothing like Second Life.

No one wants Second Life, it's boring.

[animats]

40 minutes ago, Coffee Pancake said:

No one wants Second Life, it's boring.

Second Life is doing better than most of the supposed big players in the metaverse space.

Meta/Horizon isn't a big player. They make a lot of noise, but have a lower user count than SL. Even spending tens of billions of dollars didn't get them success.

Roblox is huge, but unprofitable. They're a public company, so we can see their numbers. Losses of 23% of revenue in 2021. In Q3 2022, they lost $301,902,000 on revenue of $517,707,000. RBLX stock has dropped from a high of $135 to $33 today. It looks like they overexpanded. They have 90 development teams, a shiny new HQ, and tens of thousands of paid "moderators". Expect layoffs.

The players with too much money have thus far mostly demonstrated that throwing money at this business does not work. It makes me think better of LL management. Second Life is profitable. The owners have used the phrase "cash machine". That's a good thing. SL will stay around as long as it makes money.

SL, like VRchat, is niche. But it's a good niche. Right now, SL has 49,965 connected users. That would be 25th place on Steam right now, just ahead of Euro Truck Simulator 2. (Which is like GTFO, with better graphics and controls.)

SL is doing it right, and almost everybody else is doing it wrong. I encourage LL to be less embarrassed about this.

[Scylla Rhiadra]

A couple of not-quite random thoughts

1) Yes, on the whole, SL does governance quite well on the personal level. We don't tend to banish jerks, but we do have tools that mostly deal with them quite well.

2) What Rowan says is quite right, however: sexual harassment and the milder form of just continually hitting on women (and men, I guess?) who don't want that kind of attention is cultural and systemic. That means that blocking Annoying Person 1 because they are making obnoxious advances doesn't stem the problem, because SL is stuffed full of Annoying Persons who will simply take their place.

3) Dealing with "jerks" is the easy stuff. The real issues with governance extend far beyond that. Governments don't much care that people are jerks online: if they are tempted to intervene, it's for other, far more egregious stuff. Stuff that is illegal in RL, for instance, or that spills over with toxic effects to RL (such as the way in which FB has been accused of aiding the poisoning of civil and political discourse, a charge that I think is entirely justified).

4) The premise of this thread is that platforms want to get rid of jerks. Sometimes they don't. Twitter is, right now, actively encourage Jerkism by reactivating accounts that were once banned for harassment, doxxing, and the like. Facebook and Instagram have both been revealed to be encouraging toxicity because they know it increases the all-important metric of "engagement," despite knowing from internal research that they were causing harm.

5) I don't think that LL wants to encourage "jerks." But it is quite happy to host a variety of activities, content, and behaviours that would turn off new users if they knew about them. (And of course, many do: hence, SL's continuing reputation as a haven for "weird" sex and antisocial fetishists.)

6) Following up on the above point, I'll remind you that LL has never made a move to stop an activity, be it ponzi scams masquerading as "banks" or sexual *** play, until they felt threatened either by external regulators or really bad PR. LL has given every indication that it's just fine with pretty much anything that goes on in-world, so long as word about it doesn't get out, attracting the attention of RL authorities, or impacting on the interest of potential new users. "Governance" for LL is more frequently an extended form of "damage control."

Edited January 16, 2023 by Scylla Rhiadra
Typo

[Coffee Pancake]

I don't think SL is doing it right or even ok.

As people love to point out, this isn't a video game. The goal isn't to be competitive with a video game. The heady foundational dreams were not of some kind of video game.

We're flatlining and growing nowhere, the vision's died along the way and management have been min/maxing the profit taking for over a decade.

Can anyone at LL explain why someone should want to join here or what they envision here is for? Could they do that in a public way, at all, pretty please ?

The metaverse space is a meaningless buzzword soup that no one likes or cares about. Externally it's a joke being there is no metaverse space, internally it's code for maximizing profits by cross promotional branding. It's twice as shallow as the last evergreen hype cycle .. only this time it crashed out at the first hurdle. Quick someone mention VR or AR now that crypto has imploded. Oh god oh god don't let the tech bubble burst.

 

What does the world think of us?

Second Life - A digital retirement home for virtual boomers 

 

[bigmoe Whitfield]

well I'm not a boomer, I'm GenX and SL is my home, 15 years here, I've tried other items that are out there or have failed,  there is nothing like this at all and kinda selfish, I hope it stays that way.

[Love Zhaoying]

As a GenX-er, Second Life is awesome! Detractors can "stuff it".

Edited January 16, 2023 by Love Zhaoying
Or in modern slang, "suck it".

[Orwar]

   I don't think SL is going to get better by trying to do what's obviously failing for others. And I don't really see the issue with there not being millions of active users - there's already more new stuff being made all the time than I can keep up with, and I don't think I'd go through almost 50K people even if I weren't an introvert. 

   The appeal of SL is that once you've learned how to interact with it, you can do some pretty amazing stuff in it. 

   True, I could drive through a much higher detailed environment with no region crossings to worry about in Truck Simulator instead of doing some GTFO in SL, but it's not about which 3D world has the better looking trees and shaders, it's about driving down the road and seeing winter wonderlands and beach resorts next door to each other, and then a random Stargate, and then an igloo with an indoor cinema and a Scottish castle with a bowling alley in the garden - and then you're suddenly in a 19thC village spanning a few regions.

   I've been in SL for almost 12 years and I've yet to grow bored of the world and all the stuff to do in it, and there's a constant stream of new stuff coming along. I got bored of Truck Simulator in no time. And when I got bored of driving a truck, I shut down the game and didn't really feel like booting it up again - in SL if I grow bored of driving I can just TP somewhere else and play some minigolf or do a HUD-driven murder mystery adventure or go to the beach and push AFKers into the sea whilst perving profiles. And if I feel like playing some MOBA or survival RPG with some friends for a bit, I can do that, and then step back into SL again - it's not really meant to keep me busy for 12 hours a day and make me feel like I'm falling behind if I don't (looking at you, MMORPGs and mobile puzzle adventure games!).

[Paul Hexem]

4 hours ago, animats said:

Second Life is doing better than most of the supposed big players in the metaverse space.

They're doing better financially, only because they sell their one really effective moderation tool (banning people) for a massively inflated price to people that are too invested to recognize that they're being scammed (I own land, I'm speaking from experience).

Like @Coffee Pancake says, no one else will do that because the others want engagement and conflict, and know they won't be able to get away with monetizing their moderation.

Edited January 17, 2023 by Paul Hexem

[Lindal Kidd]

An interesting take on things, Paul. I never bought land because I wanted to be my own moderator and ban folks. I bought it because I wanted a place I could call my own, and a lot of prims to play with.

[Istelathis]

7 hours ago, Coffee Pancake said:

The big players aren't making a hippy commune, they are making something they hope will consume more human activity than existing social media. That will, inevitably, be capitalized and shaped by the most efficient monetization possible. Algorithmically controlled and engineered conflict to maximize individual engagement and participation.

I think the next big thing will likely be lacking in social activity entirely, it will most likely be AI controlled NPCs that appease to the individual which can never be accomplished on social media sites.  We haven't and should never have that level of control over others, to force them to behave in a manner that we see fit.  This will offer a level of freedom humanity has never experienced, as we more or less are freed from the shackles of expectations of others, at least when it comes to entertainment.  As time progresses, we will experience this in all forms of entertainment, including VR.  The metaverse will more or less be a single player verse, where people have the option of engaging with others, however, most will opt to remain with an AI system that have been custom tailored to each person.  

The terminator kind of had it right after all, except it will be for most relationships people have, even if they realize it is not human.

 

No need to squabble, no need for algorithmic manipulation to keep people tuned in as they do now, custom tailored for the individual where they want to stay tuned in while tuning out the rest of the world.  It is at this time, where we see existing social media platforms either adapt or sink, god knows they are already being plagued with bots 🤣  People laugh at the idea now, but realistically, I think it is an inevitability.  When technology exceeds the needs of humanity, and we no longer are reliant upon us for social needs, the majority will turn to technology just as we always have.  

It will be an entirely alien like landscape for those of us who live as we do now, and there never really will be a metaverse, not as we envision it today anyway where the central focus is one of socializing with others.  

As it is now, we keep dividing repeatedly, as we find new ways to do so - with the exception of when we are actively seeking out conflict do most groups tend to try to engage with one another on social media sites.  Most of the time though, I think people are just seeking out validation which drives such division in the first place.  

 

Okay, off to the loony bin for me now 🤪

Edited January 17, 2023 by Istelathis

[Paul Hexem]

4 hours ago, Lindal Kidd said:

An interesting take on things, Paul. I never bought land because I wanted to be my own moderator and ban folks. I bought it because I wanted a place I could call my own, and a lot of prims to play with.

I didn't say it couldn't be used for that too.

[cunomar]

10 hours ago, Coffee Pancake said:

Can anyone at LL explain why someone should want to join here or what they envision here is for? Could they do that in a public way, at all, pretty please ?

I can't speak for LL but the clue is in the name "Second Life"

When you have to build up to checking your emails and it feels like you age 6 months every time your phone rings , then your probably the boss .

In SL i found a way to interact with the world from the flip side where nobody expected me to make all the decisions and provide all the answers .

I wasn't looking for or expecting anything but for a while i found escapism .

[Ceka Cianci]

I had an encounter with a jerk the other night when i was at a beach sorting my inventory.. I don't usually block people and more or less just close any IM's  if they start getting hard leg.. Well.. He started off polite, then could tell he was looking for some sort of in, which I've been blocking ins for years.. once he found out there wasn't one he went from polite to insta jerk.. I pretty much said,typical hardleg and blocked him. then seen his dot go poof but could still see his name tag..

So i went back to sorting my inventory and after about 10 minutes  I checked the sim and seen he finally left.. He might have been saying all kinds of stuff that whole time, but I'll never know.. I was so relaxed to start with that It didn't really bother me much in the end.. I think I just wasn't gonna let him impact  what I was doing..

Really that's all a jerk is looking to do anyways.. So it's nice we can shut them up and make them go poof when we need to, even if they are in the same area.

 

Edited January 17, 2023 by Ceka Cianci

[Coffee Pancake]

5 hours ago, cunomar said:

I can't speak for LL but the clue is in the name "Second Life"

That's a huge problem, always has been.

Second Life implies and inspires the question "what's wrong with your first".

While it is very true that plenty here have found a way to have a second shot at life because the first is out of reach, the implication is clear to everyone and maybe we don't actually need a sign saying this place is for broken people over the door.

 

We want people to know there is More Life here, not just a second chance.

[Orwar]

6 minutes ago, Coffee Pancake said:

[...] the implication is clear to everyone and maybe we don't actually need a sign saying this place is for broken people over the door.

   I don't find any such implication 'clear'; it's one, rather cynical way to interpret the name of the platform, but it's not the only way. And you absolutely don't have to be broken to want to experience something new and meet new people, or to find a new way to use and share your virtual creations - and none of that has to be escapism. 

[Love Zhaoying]

So, what's the solution?

Make a "jerk-free" area of Second Life?

Only nice people allowed, via Turing test?

 

[Ceka Cianci]

37 minutes ago, Love Zhaoying said:

So, what's the solution?

Make a "jerk-free" area of Second Life?

Only nice people allowed, via Turing test?

 

Nooooo! \o/  The occasional jerk keeps me sharp..  Getting the last word in and then blocking someone  can sometimes be that little bit of cinnamon in my tea. Then my imagination picturing them banging on the wall to let them back in so they can have the last word as I act like I don't hear them, all while sipping my tea..

hehehe Sorry, I'm in a silly mood this morning..

[Orwar]

5 minutes ago, Ceka Cianci said:

[...] can sometimes be that little bit of cinnamon in my tea.

   Blasphemer!

[Ceka Cianci]

2 minutes ago, Orwar said:

   Blasphemer!

Wood is so good for you! \o/

 

[Coffee Pancake]

2 hours ago, Orwar said:

   I don't find any such implication 'clear'; it's one, rather cynical way to interpret the name of the platform, 

When people mock SL .. they immediately go for "losers' with no first life". If they actually ever bothered to load up SL, they go for "looks like crap". This also tends to be used as an establishing meme when media are talking about SL, typically followed by "we can't believe it's not dead".

SL badly needs a rebrand and relaunch. Maybe after we have PBR and NUX.

[Orwar]

19 minutes ago, Coffee Pancake said:

When people mock SL .. they immediately go for "losers' with no first life".

   So you're saying we should fold before the mean comments of e-bullies? 

   Do you think people are any nicer in their commentary about the Zuckerburger's stuff because they rebranded?

21 minutes ago, Coffee Pancake said:

If they actually ever bothered to load up SL, they go for "looks like crap".

   Compared to what, though?

   Some of the most popular video games out there are the likes of Minecraft and Valheim, neither of which is famous for their 'hyper realistic graphics'. 

   Compared to IMVU and the virtual-world-that-must-not-be-named, SL looks pretty darned amazing. 

26 minutes ago, Coffee Pancake said:

This also tends to be used as an establishing meme when media are talking about SL, typically followed by "we can't believe it's not dead".

   All right, so both times annually that SL gets a brief mention in any kind of media that matters, the authors have no idea what they're talking about (how novel!). Changing the name of the product is going to change that .. How? It's not like people are going to go 'oh wow, look at this totally brand spanking new thing that came out of nowhere!'.

[Ceka Cianci]

39 minutes ago, Coffee Pancake said:

When people mock SL .. they immediately go for "losers' with no first life". If they actually ever bothered to load up SL, they go for "looks like crap". This also tends to be used as an establishing meme when media are talking about SL, typically followed by "we can't believe it's not dead".

SL badly needs a rebrand and relaunch. Maybe after we have PBR and NUX.

Ya but gamers get looked like losers too by a lot of the world, so they are just passing the buck.. hehehe

[Coffee Pancake]

3 hours ago, Orwar said:

   So you're saying we should fold before the mean comments of e-bullies? 

It's been 20 years. It's not working and it's not doing us any favors. 

Enough pretending.

Names set expectations, just like the font & styling on the cover of a book (yes, books are explicitly "coded" so you can look at the cover and judge the contents, on purpose. Consumer brands and product names are no different - this is also why marketing rules the world, not clever engineers who make clever things).

 

"Second Life" doesn't seed an expectation anyone wants, identifies with or desires.

The blue person video they used to have on the front page wasn't bad because of the content, it was bad because of the context. The framing, the branding, the presentation all clashed with the hopeful inspiring evocative message they were trying to deliver, and thus, it failed to deliver.

It's like naming a funeral parlor "Sunny Skys".

 

3 hours ago, Orwar said:

   Do you think people are any nicer in their commentary about the Zuckerburger's stuff because they rebranded?

It has nothing to do with being "nice".

3 hours ago, Orwar said:

  Some of the most popular video games out there are the likes of Minecraft and Valheim, neither of which is famous for their 'hyper realistic graphics'. 

Games present a constant graphical & artistic experience. Minecraft doesn't look like crap. A realistic model placed in Minecraft does.

3 hours ago, Orwar said:

   Compared to IMVU and the virtual-world-that-must-not-be-named, SL looks pretty darned amazing. 

Especially in static photoshopped pictures .. People coming to SL after finding those first feel tricked.

3 hours ago, Orwar said:

   All right, so both times annually that SL gets a brief mention in any kind of media that matters, the authors have no idea what they're talking about (how novel!). Changing the name of the product is going to change that .. How? It's not like people are going to go 'oh wow, look at this totally brand spanking new thing that came out of nowhere!'.

Those authors have no idea because LL & Second Life fails to manage and create expectations. They have no idea what's here because they are not being informed and directed on the way in the door. A door it's important to note they wouldn't be walking though if their boss hadn't handed them the assignment. Their experience is no different from regulars uers, only they are being made to write a homework assignment about the experience.

Everyone prejudges experiences. This is how people make decisions. This is basic human nature.

Shall we have Chinese or PIzza Hut for dinner .. you aren't deciding based the dinner you're going to have. You're deciding on the imagined dinner you expect to get.

Does this "Second Life" sound like "fun" .. no? Guess I have to go check out the sad sack digital retirement home for very online weirdos .. woop-de-doo.