Open letter to Linden Lab: Enforcing policies?

[Love Zhaoying]

10 minutes ago, Solar Legion said:

Feeling secure enough with regard to what data, specifically?

Sometimes people just feel insecure!

[Solar Legion]

1 minute ago, Dorientje Woller said:

Are you 100% sure? Have you seen the script? Is the script modifiable? Having faith in something is one thing, having a blind faith into something leads to disasters.

I just linked you to the LS page that contains the data on that particular script call. It does not do anything more than read the Account Level.

An LSL Script can only do what is allowable within the framework of LSL - to do anything more would require execution of calls to open external webpages, functionality that requires certain settings/permissions on the end of the one being acted upon.

An account utilizing the LSL function outlined above will not be able to view more than what is being called and even if a call is made to open an external, malicious website that call must target an external avatar who then must open that page in some way.

As for "being 100% certain" ... What a ridiculous bit of criteria. I'll be clear on my feelings regarding such: If that is your metric for these things, there is no point in bothering to respond (in text) whatsoever.

[Rolig Loon]

7 minutes ago, Rowan Amore said:

When there are 20-30 starter avatars enclosed in an empty skybox or a sky platform just standing there yet not a single avatar is at the actual venue, that's gaming traffic.  Sometimes, it's fairly obvious that is what they're doing.  Especially when that venue has a top rating in search.  THOSE are the ones LL should be doing something about.  2 or 3 avatars AFK somewhere that ISN"T at the top of search is not the problem.

I am not disagreeing with you.  As you say, sometimes it seems obvious what they are doing.  There are, indeed, times when the large majority of us would agree that a group of AFK avatars has gone way past the red line.  My point, though, was that except in those egregious cases -- and even then --  I think we would have a hard time saying where the red line is.  How many AFK avatars is "too many"? What if they are not scripted agents but alts of "normal" avatars?  What if they are not all controlled by one person or one person's computer? How should LL craft a policy that isn't full of ambiguities and loopholes that make a mess out of deciding what's an "obvious" violation?

I don't know the answers to any of those questions. 

[Dorientje Woller]

6 minutes ago, Solar Legion said:

I just linked you to the LS page that contains the data on that particular script call. It does not do anything more than read the Account Level.

An LSL Script can only do what is allowable within the framework of LSL - to do anything more would require execution of calls to open external webpages, functionality that requires certain settings/permissions on the end of the one being acted upon.

An account utilizing the LSL function outlined above will not be able to view more than what is being called and even if a call is made to open an external, malicious website that call must target an external avatar who then must open that page in some way.

As for "being 100% certain" ... What a ridiculous bit of criteria. I'll be clear on my feelings regarding such: If that is your metric for these things, there is no point in bothering to respond (in text) whatsoever.

Yeah, I do hope, for anyone that has mentioned "Payment Info Used" or "Premium User" doesn't become a victim of scams. 'Coz those people have now a target painted on their back.

Edited January 23, 2023 by Dorientje Woller

[Solar Legion]

1 minute ago, Dorientje Woller said:

Yeah, I do hope, for anyone that has mentioned "Payment Info Used" or "Premium User" doesn't become a victim of scams. 'Coz those people have now a target painted on their back.

Payment Info Used has always been visible. There have always been people who would attempt to target them - outside of perhaps an uptick, not much has/will change as such users already had that target on their backs.

[Rowan Amore]

Just now, Rolig Loon said:

I am not disagreeing with you.  As you say, sometimes it seems obvious what they are doing.  There are, indeed, times when the large majority of us would agree that a group of AFK avatars has gone way past the red line.  My point, though, was that except in those egregious cases -- and even then --  I think we would have a hard time saying where the red line is.  How many AFK avatars is "too many"? What if they are not scripted agents but alts of "normal" avatars?  What if they are not all controlled by one person or one person's computer? How should LL craft a policy that isn't full of ambiguities and loopholes that make a mess out of deciding what's an "obvious" violation?

I don't know the answers to any of those questions. 

For an example...I just visited a venue ranked 5th in legacy search using a keyword.  35K + traffic.  As you can see, most of the avatars are nowhere near the venue.  They were all up in a box.  Regardless of the exact number, anyone can see what they are being used for, IMO.  LL has said they look at search and check venues at the top which it seems they do not.  Took me about 5 minutes to check, btw.

So as to how many are too many?   However many it takes to consistently put places at the top of search without seeing any actual people IN the venue.

 

[Lindal Kidd]

2 hours ago, Sparkle Bunny said:

if I find a bot that isn't marked as such, I should be able to report them to LL

This is the problem...LL is relying on an honor system re. bots. Yeah, you're supposed to register them. If you do, they aren't counted in the Traffic algorithm

So of course, people intent on using bots to up their traffic DON'T register them.

But... then how do you tell when an account is or is not a bot?  Or for that matter, when it is or is not being used to game the traffic numbers? We had a prior example of a friend parking an alt on your parcel.  That affects traffic, for sure...but is it WHY your friend's alt is there? Where do you draw the line...we have a spectrum here, from one friend parked on your living room sofa, to thirty "friends" parked on a sky platform over your store or club. Where along this spectrum does it become a Bad Thing? Is it only bad if five or more accounts are on the parcel? Ten? Is it only bad if it's on a parcel used for commercial purposes?

What about bots used for other purposes? When getting information that's publicly available, does it matter if it's a human doing it one profile at a time, or a bot running a search algorithm, or fifty bots scouring the grid all day long? Is the end use of the information a deciding factor, and if so, how can that be controlled?

Right now, it appears LL's response to that one is, "it's public info, so it's all good." Obviously, some of us feel otherwise, in some cases very strongly.

I think the whole issue, or packet of issues, is tricky and the edge cases matter. I don't think LL's current laissez faire position is the right answer, but I don't think anyone else has proposed an idea that doesn't create more problems than it solves, either.

Since this problem exists in a social space with a lot of variables, it might behoove LL to do some research by putting together a number of groups, either of residents or their staff, and game out various changes/policies/restrictions/new functions to see what the consequences, intended and unintended, are.

[Rowan Amore]

6 minutes ago, Dorientje Woller said:

Yeah, I do hope, for anyone that has mentioned "Payment Info Used" or "Premium User" doesn't become a victim of scams. 'Coz those people have now a target painted on their back.

Anyone can find that out by just wandering through Belli and seeing who owns parcels

[Sid Nagy]

4 minutes ago, Solar Legion said:

Payment Info Used has always been visible. There have always been people who would attempt to target them - outside of perhaps an uptick, not much has/will change as such users already had that target on their backs.

But that info should not be freely available on a third party website, with hopefully no other intentions than to show off what they can accomplish with their bots IMHO.

Edited January 23, 2023 by Sid Nagy

[Dorientje Woller]

Just now, Solar Legion said:

Payment Info Used has always been visible. There have always been people who would attempt to target them - outside of perhaps an uptick, not much has/will change as such users already had that target on their backs.

Always visible, yes, only when you have an account and/or when you as user take the time to read the profiles of other users. Now, that info is free to see to everybody, whether they are linked to Linden Lab or not. On that site, you don't need a login, verification that you are a user of Second Life. But go ahead with your stubborness, if you get hit with a scam from outside Second Life, it's your problem than, and don't come complaining than here on the forum. We have a nice phrase/expression for that in Dutch: "Eigen schuld, dikke bult".

[Paul Hexem]

LL doesn't enforce their own policies consistently even when they do enforce them.

@Harley Linden even literally said my thread was "worthwhile", but nobody made any attempt to clean it up. 

[Solar Legion]

3 minutes ago, Dorientje Woller said:

Always visible, yes, only when you have an account and/or when you as user take the time to read the profiles of other users. Now, that info is free to see to everybody, whether they are linked to Linden Lab or not. On that site, you don't need a login, verification that you are a user of Second Life. But go ahead with your stubborness, if you get hit with a scam from outside Second Life, it's your problem than, and don't come complaining than here on the forum. We have a nice phrase/expression for that in Dutch: "Eigen schuld, dikke bult".

Stating what is, is not "stubbornness".

That information being on an external site that can be seen (and is at this point, known) is the least of my personal concerns.

"If you get hit with a scam" ... I have an oh so lovely method of dealing with messages purporting to be from Linden Lab and asking me to go to pages for log-in, verification and such: If I did not make the request, it gets binned. if It sounds like it might be something that did not require a prior request, I check elsewhere first before binning it.

[Scylla Rhiadra]

39 minutes ago, Rowan Amore said:

When there are 20-30 starter avatars enclosed in an empty skybox or a sky platform just standing there yet not a single avatar is at the actual venue, that's gaming traffic.

Which rather begs the question: why do people even bother doing this? What exactly is this accomplishing? How is this being monetized -- if it is -- or what other gain is accrued from this effort?

I'm not of course disagreeing with you, but it's a genuine question. Unless there is an entrance fee to get into a parcel, which there very seldom is, how does one actually gain by gaming traffic?

[Dorientje Woller]

3 minutes ago, Solar Legion said:

Stating what is, is not "stubbornness".

That information being on an external site that can be seen (and is at this point, known) is the least of my personal concerns.

"If you get hit with a scam" ... I have an oh so lovely method of dealing with messages purporting to be from Linden Lab and asking me to go to pages for log-in, verification and such: If I did not make the request, it gets binned. if It sounds like it might be something that did not require a prior request, I check elsewhere first before binning it.

Correct, you, but you're not alone on this planet and certainly not the only user of Second Life with that mindset. And that's the problem with such an atitude, that you don't think for other users, who are not this savvy.

[Solar Legion]

Just now, Dorientje Woller said:

Correct, you, but you're not alone on this planet and certainly not the only user of Second Life with that mindset. And that's the problem with such an atitude, that you don't think for other users, who are not this savvy.

Attempting to "think for" other users - especially those who might not be as "savvy" - is an arms race that I quite frankly no longer have the patience, motivation or "spoons" for (in fact on that last, I am down to "forks" at best).

I'll be quite brutally honest on that: If you're prone to falling for such things, you've not been paying attention whatsoever or are naive. Both need to be corrected, as soon as possible. I am not going to be the one to do so. You're welcome to take up that mantle if you wish - be wary of burnout.

[Sid Nagy]

9 minutes ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

Which rather begs the question: why do people even bother doing this? What exactly is this accomplishing? How is this being monetized -- if it is -- or what other gain is accrued from this effort?

I'm not of course disagreeing with you, but it's a genuine question. Unless there is an entrance fee to get into a parcel, which there very seldom is, how does one actually gain by gaming traffic?

If one sells things, higher rankings in search mean more sales, because more people find your place.

When a bar. club or other facility: Self importance. Look I own a popular  venue.

Edited January 23, 2023 by Sid Nagy

[Silent Mistwalker]

1 hour ago, EliseAnne85 said:

Please be advised, I am not trying to alarm people by my posts above.  The information came directly from my bank and you can call your bank as well to see how to best keep yourself secure.  Keira Linden said in her post for you to enable 2fa regarding this issue.  People encourage being cautious for a reason.   It was even encouraged by a Linden to take precautions regarding this issue.  

There is a reason I never save my bank info on an online account.

[Rowan Amore]

10 minutes ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

Which rather begs the question: why do people even bother doing this? What exactly is this accomplishing? How is this being monetized -- if it is -- or what other gain is accrued from this effort?

I'm not of course disagreeing with you, but it's a genuine question. Unless there is an entrance fee to get into a parcel, which there very seldom is, how does one actually gain by gaming traffic?

I never understood the point of doing it either.  Some places do have ad boards up so I assume they inflate traffic to get potential ad board renters to rent?  Bragging rights?  Hoping that some people MIGHT stay?  Your guess is as good as mine.  My only point, in regards to this particular thread, is that LL does not enforce their own policies except...on the forums.

[Coffee Pancake]

Just to mention .. the 3rd party websites ranked list of busy places using their clever anti bot tracking based on people entering and leaving a location is ... hot garbage.

You know those scammy things that drag crowds to a location to camp and click on a thing, to claim some token, to eventually convert to L$ .. yeah, now we know where they all are.

If you want to be on the top list of the 3rd party website, you need simply run many bots and cycle them in and out every 100 minutes.

Edited January 23, 2023 by Coffee Pancake

[Ceka Cianci]

I think those mystery subscriptions  bother me much more.. How did I end up  subscribed to your store and how do I get out and is that database you are keeping  in world or on the web?

I had one store kick me out of their group and then subscribe me to their store, like two maybe three weeks ago..

That's a merchant not a bot, But I still doubt there is anything I can do about that though. But ya, I sure would like to.. If i could have reached through the internet and put a foot right up their exit hole, I sure would have...hehehe

[Silent Mistwalker]

1 hour ago, Rolig Loon said:

If I understand what DancingStarx is getting at, the line is kind of hard to define.  I think most people would agree with you that her first two examples are not "gaming" traffic. For you, the red line is between her second and third examples, but that's rather arbitrary.  Other people might say that three or four are OK, but five are not. In fact, DancingStarx might argue -- I'm not putting words in her mouth -- that the number of avatars doesn't matter at all.  "Gaming" traffic only becomes an issue if the avatars are under computer control rather than just AFK accounts.  After all, if I own a club and ask all my friends -- not my own alts -- to come as a flash mob, how can a bot policy about "gaming" apply?   How could LL enforce it?

That's what makes this an intractable problem.

Not arbitrary to me. It's pretty clear that if you are logging in more than one account at a time and leaving both logged in at the same place for extended periods of idle time, the intent is to game traffic. Especially if more than one person is doing the same thing on that region.

On the other hand, I'm the sort that shuts down her computer at night, every night and I've been in SL since 2004. I do remember how things were when traffic actually meant something. All it really means now is this club either had a boatload of bots or a boatload of actual people and the only way to find out which it is, is to go there and look. Or attempt to communicate, whichever the case may be. 

 

[Dorientje Woller]

I simply wonder how many times I will be harrassed now by club owners in search of staff, being poached to come to work for them while my gerne of music doesn't fit theirs, and then being insulted for it that I am no "real" dj because I refuse to play their genre of music. I do other things in SL beside dj'ng, which requiers my full also.

Edited January 23, 2023 by Dorientje Woller

[Silent Mistwalker]

1 hour ago, Rowan Amore said:

When there are 20-30 starter avatars enclosed in an empty skybox or a sky platform just standing there yet not a single avatar is at the actual venue, that's gaming traffic.  Sometimes, it's fairly obvious that is what they're doing.  Especially when that venue has a top rating in search.  THOSE are the ones LL should be doing something about.  2 or 3 avatars AFK somewhere that ISN"T at the top of search is not the problem.

This is what I am saying.

[Rolig Loon]

4 minutes ago, Silent Mistwalker said:

It's pretty clear that if you are logging in more than one account at a time and leaving both logged in at the same place for extended periods of idle time, the intent is to game traffic.

Not to argue at all, because I agree with your basic point, but I have a friend who habitually logs in on two accounts because she's creating and testing things.  She's also absent-minded enough to get wrapped up in some RL matter and forget that she's still logged in ... for hours.  Without being too outlandish, I can imagine other people who do the same sort of thing.  All of which brings me back to the problem that I posed before -- and Lindal has expanded on -- "How can LL craft a policy that defines where the red line is?" How many, how long, how "obvious" does behavior have to be before it's over the line?

[Silent Mistwalker]

1 hour ago, Sid Nagy said:

Firestorm and other third party viewers could do something about that too, by ditching their legacy search. That still uses traffic ranking like Phil already pointed out.

Please don't take away the one search feature I do use in SL. Not the traffic part of it but I do use legacy and only legacy. Although it's rare, there are those occasions when I am looking for a place to hang awhile where people actually are and not bots. The rest of the time I'm ether looking for places with little traffic so there is less chance of running into people or I'm shopping and traffic makes no difference to me when shopping.