Option to hide badges needed desperatley

[Qie Niangao]

1 hour ago, KathrynLisbeth said:

I think the distinction here is this.   After completing the transaction, and with no indication that this would occur,  the 'How' the service is paid for is revealed to other users.

Yeah that's probably not great, but the point I was making is that, because the information about the accounts has been public, by now surely some enterprising snoop has scraped the profiles of nearly all active SL users to find the ones with Premium and P.Plus Lifetime memberships. Making it optional at this point merely temps those members to reveal yet more information, either by showing themselves to try (too late) to hide it, or (as I was joking) not trying to hide it.

That may not seem a concern for those merely preferring that idle profile-browsers not see their status, but for those worried about snoops with more sinister motives (i.e., RL privacy, not mere SL "privacy"), this cure seems worse than the ailment.

[Perrie Juran]

6 hours ago, KathrynLisbeth said:

it is also just inferable by 'Does X account own mainland? 

A.  At the time I did not own any mainland

B. I do believe it would be outside of the ability of 99.999999999% of Residents to be able to determine if I owned any mainland unless I publicized it.

[Perrie Juran]

7 hours ago, KathrynLisbeth said:

 Basic Account: Second Life Fandom Wiki  "The first basic account on a credit card is free, all other basic accounts put on that card are $9.95 (one time fee). Additional accounts also have a free 7-day trial during which the account can be cancelled"

So No Payment Info on File was added later, when free accounts became a thing.   Done to imply that LL can, in theory,  discern between users accountable to a actual human v/s just a machine at some location, if needed

I am very aware of that history but no where does it state WHY that information was added to the profile.

[KathrynLisbeth]

24 minutes ago, Perrie Juran said:

I am very aware of that history but no where does it state WHY that information was added to the profile.

Again.   Done to imply that LL can, in theory,  discern between users accountable to a actual human v/s just a machine at some location.

As to others use cases,   I won't speculate.     As to my own use case,   I wouldn't want to purchase anything like full perm items with an intent to resell / redistribute from a user that is Not Payment Information on File.   Even if the link between Payment info on file and actual accountability is exceptionally tenuous.      

As to revealing if a user is Premium v/s just Payment info on File,  why they would include that?  Don't know.     Just that I can see the rationale behind it being 'Well it can be found the long way around'   ie the  outside of the ability of 99.999999999% of Residents

Edited August 19, 2023 by KathrynLisbeth

[Gabriele Graves]

43 minutes ago, KathrynLisbeth said:

Again.   Done to imply that LL can, in theory,  discern between users accountable to a actual human v/s just a machine at some location.

There is a difference between collecting that data and showing that data to everyone.  LL don't need to put anything on anyone's profile to know any details of their account.  They will have other web-based tools to look at account information that non-LL staff don't have access to.

Edited August 19, 2023 by Gabriele Graves
Cut quote down to just what I was responding to.

[KathrynLisbeth]

1 minute ago, Gabriele Graves said:

There is a difference between collecting that data and showing that data to everyone...

In the case of Payment Info v/s non payment info on file,  Payment info on file was the initial default case for everyone.   So even if it did not say Payment Info on File,  Payment info was on File.  While Non Payment Info on File users can walk away w/o giving additional information.   Continuing the use of that then just goes back to some Hypothetical level of user accountability.

As to 'regular' Premium / Premium plus, I didn't see that directly on the profile.    Only thing I see for that is  llgetobjectdetails (Object_account_level).  As to the why,  dunno?   

[Gabriele Graves]

3 minutes ago, KathrynLisbeth said:

In the case of Payment Info v/s non payment info on file,  Payment info on file was the initial default case for everyone.   So even if it did not say Payment Info on File,  Payment info was on File.  While Non Payment Info on File users can walk away w/o giving additional information.   Continuing the use of that then just goes back to some Hypothetical level of user accountability.

As to 'regular' Premium / Premium plus, I didn't see that directly on the profile.    Only thing I see for that is  llgetobjectdetails (Object_account_level).  As to the why,  dunno?   

My response wasn't about any of that but just about you saying that it was done so that LL can discern between users.

Generally though, it doesn't matter that there are precedents, things have been removed by LL before because they realised that they were not a good idea.  Exposing user's financial status to others publicly could easily be another of these if LL felt inclined due to pressure from residents.

The fact that over the years more details about people's financial status with the lab have been exposed rather than protecting that information shows an unsettling direction that I for one would rather we turn back from.

[Henri Beauchamp]

9 hours ago, Gabriele Graves said:

Exposing user's financial status to others publicly could easily be another of these if LL felt inclined due to pressure from residents.

+1

Did anyone open a JIRA for this (e.g. asking for an opt-out setting) ?... If yes, then publish the link in this thread, and people can vote for it, and the said JIRA could be used in future user group meetings to have the Lindens look at it seriously.

9 hours ago, Gabriele Graves said:

The fact that over the years more details about people's financial status with the lab have been exposed rather than protecting that information shows an unsettling direction that I for one would rather we turn back from.

I doubt this feature is part of a big plan to expose more private data about residents. It is most likely something about trying to ”reward” paying account holders with a cool badge (a medal ?) for them to show off publicly, as well as to incite non-paying members to ”join the club”.

So far, LL has always been very respectful of residents' privacy, and reinstated (via Lab Gabs and meetings at SL20B, for example) their commitment in this respect; so I simply think they overlooked the consequences of this little badge for privacy-minded residents.

Edited August 20, 2023 by Henri Beauchamp

[Qie Niangao]

39 minutes ago, Henri Beauchamp said:

Did anyone open a JIRA for this (e.g. asking for an opt-out setting) ?

Can we please consider a different jira, one that removes the option altogether and just turns off the flag for everyone? An opt-out is a very bad idea. An opt-in would have been (almost) okay at the very start but it's far too late for that now, too. ("Almost" okay because an opt-in, too, would have been a bigger reveal than just leaving the dumb flag showing, but at least it would be voluntary. The opt-out version forces that extra reveal on everybody who was ever a Lifetime member: now we'd be forced to either opt-out or not, revealing yet more about us either way.)

[Henri Beauchamp]

17 minutes ago, Qie Niangao said:

Can we please consider a different jira, one that removes the option altogether and just turns off the flag for everyone? An opt-out is a very bad idea. An opt-in would have been (almost) okay at the very start but it's far too late for that now, too.

Feel free to open the JIRA you like, and let people decide via votes... 😜

The opt-out was just a suggestion for a minimal solution to the ”badge issue”; I would, too, prefer an opt-in, but I find the removal a bit of an extreme measure (some people do like it: let's them enjoy it !). I believe in giving everyone a choice (freedom !).

[Qie Niangao]

I'll definitely enter a comment if an opt-out jira is raised because I really think it is way worse than just letting sleeping dogs lie at this point (which is what I'd personally prefer; the real damage is already done and there's no un-doing it, but it's possible to make it worse by adding an opt-out).

[Love Zhaoying]

I think the badges are very silly considering there so very, very few Lifetime members. 

It's like a "unicorn" badge - if they didn't show what the badge meant, anyone curious would have to ask because there's only a couple hundred people with it.

 

[Fionalein]

The problem I see with the badge is it cannot really trigger positive reactions in others but it can very well trigger negative ones, like envy, hate and resentments. Most of my friends considered those going lifetime idiotic cash cows, if they are representative for most residents, then no, it is not a unicorn badge it's a stigma.

Edited August 20, 2023 by Fionalein

[Love Zhaoying]

17 minutes ago, Fionalein said:

The problem I see with the badge is it cannot really trigger positive reactions in other but it can very well trigger negative ones, like envy, hate and resentments. Most of my friends considered those going lifetime idiotic cash cows, if they are representative for most residents, then no, it is not a unicorn badge it's a stigma.

I wasn't disagreeing with you. I was trying to say that because "lifetime" accounts are so 'unique' (like seeing a "unicorn"), badges for them are "useless" and should be deprecated / removed.

ETA: And to clarify, I mean "deprecated / removed" so they will not be seen as a stigma!

Edited August 20, 2023 by Love Zhaoying

[Perrie Juran]

11 hours ago, Henri Beauchamp said:

Feel free to open the JIRA you like, and let people decide via votes... 😜

Forgive my cynicism but since when did LL care about votes. In fact I seem to recall years ago that they said they didn't even look at the votes.

And while LL tolerates a small amount of discussion in the Forums about some issues I seriously doubt that they would allow in the JIRA the kind of discussions that happened about Red Zone and Revealing True On Line Status. Those two subjects received several hundred comments.

But perhaps I should be heartened by the way they responded to the concerns about the Bonnie Bots.