LaskyaClaren

Theresa Tennyson wrote: Madelaine McMasters wrote: With the Internet, everything has changed. Now, the cost of trailing you is zero. Actually, it's less than zero. Advertisers are willing to waste half their budgets (famously, they don't know which half) to track everybody, including those who've no interest in them. The cost of tracking is so low that it makes sense to track everyone in the hopes that you can identify even a tiny sliver of potential interest in the ocean of data. The cost of distributing the tracking data is... zero. In fact, the cost of not distributing the tracking data is fairly high, in the form of data security. And it doesn't work very well. Collecting data is very easy, even "free" now,. However, unanalyzed data is useless and analyzing it will always take time and effort - time especially, which is the one most precious thing in our corner of the universe because we'll never get any more of it. Computers can speed things up but even the fastest computer can't analyze data as fast as a few billions of humans can generate it and this is assuming it knows what it's even supposed to be analyzing. Let's use "Where's Waldo?" as an example. You can see Waldo instantly - his image will be burned onto your retina at the speed of light the instant you turn the page. Recognizing him among the other characters, though, will probably take a good deal longer, even though you know exactly what he looks like. Now let's say your first grade teacher says to you, "Great job finding Waldo! Your class thanks you.But I have bad news - we think he had an accomplice who's still on the loose. I need you to go back and find the character who appears in the most pictures other than Waldo." How long will that take you? Now imagine you live in a world where new "Where's Waldo" pictures will be generated every minute. Can you keep up? How about every ten seconds? Computers are already analyzing Waldo's data. The algorithms on Facebook and Google do so within seconds of detecting a new snippet of information. If you're on Facebook, try typing a product name or type in a status update, and watch how long it takes FB to display related advertisements on your page. Or befriend someone: FB will almost immediately list "other people you might like" based on your choice. With regards to more targeted interest in your data, human analysists will access it on a need-to-know basis. We already know -- thanks to Snowden -- that the NSA (and undoubtedly other security agencies) are scraping internet data looking for keywords that will alert them to "security risks." When those terms appear with any frequency in relation to a particular individual, that's when human analysists get involved. This isn't science fiction, speculation, or "sometime in the future." It's happening now.

Theresa Tennyson wrote: Okay, let me sum up my position in a few short statements: 1) You don't have privacy. I don't quite buy that. But if it's true, it shouldn't be. What are we going to do about it? 2) You never had privacy. The nature of intrusions into our privacy has changed. Not only do corporations and governments have new and vastly more efficient tools to intrude into our privacy, but the nature of what they are collecting, and what they are doing with it, has mutated radically. This historical shift in our understanding of "privacy" isn't merely a change in degree, in other words: it's a radical redefinition of kind. 3) Since nobody else has privacy, this isn't a big deal because you're not important enough for anyone to care about. It's true that most data harvesting and scraping doesn't involve individuals learning more about individuals: what is "known" about us now is mostly handled by algorithms. But that changes the nature, rather than the existence, of the threat to our privacy and identity. And, as the revelations about the NSA make clear, it's not entirely true that we are safe because we are "lost in the crowd" either. 4) If you are important enough for someone to care about? You're boned. I've never been a fan of fatalism. There are things we can do, as individuals and collectives, to respond. Have an awesome weekend! You too, Theresa. :-)

Theresa Tennyson wrote: Yes, there was the Internet back then ( I remember Delphi.) However, the PI did most of his work on the telephone. And forty years ago someone could have gotten a world of information about you in seconds by grabbing your purse, which would have contained a wealth of completely unencoded information. In the Pando article where people found so much information about the writer, both fourteen years ago and today, the investigators had to do quite a bit of work both times - it wasn't a case of someone sitting down and clicking a few keys. I was particularly struck how there were so many wireless networks around the writer's home that the snoops had trouble even finding the right one, much less cracking it. I find this a very odd response, Theresa. It's not really very often that I agree with Celestiall, but in this case I honestly don't understand why you are arguing this point. The collection of personal information -- be it identity, behaviours, friends, etc. -- isn't just a common practice in this digital era, it's been developed to almost a science. The terms "data harvesting" and "data scraping" are so new that they don't even appear in the most up-to-date version of the OED. The privacy issue, whether we're talking about identity, behaviour, or something else, isn't really about hackers, or purse snatchers: it's about governments and corporations having astonishingly sophisticated tools that commodify and profit from our private information -- who we are, what we do, and who we do it with -- for their own purposes. The entire business model of Facebook is based on this. Sure, someone can tell an awful lot about me by looking at my face and clothing. And they might even be able to profit from it. But the automated collection of personal information online is a huge and vastly more sophisticated and lucrative business.

I'm not sure why I'm bothering to respond to this, Sy, as you tell me up front that you probably won't bother reading my response. I'll just note, I guess, that this second post pretty much repeats the first: you again focus almost exclusively on my supposed "motivations," and my putative snobbishness and elitism. I've already responded to that by pointing out that I have not called for a marketing campaign built on "art" or "literature," but rather for one that does a better job of presenting the diversity of experience here. As for the suggestion that I "started" the ad hominem, I can only assume that you are referencing the fact that I called you "Jerk"? If you look at that post (and also at the quote you used in your response), you'll note that it is followed by an smilie, namely :-P Generally, in my experience, smilies are employed to indicate that the previous statement was intended humorously. In this case, it certainly was. But whatever.

Eve Greymoon wrote: I was so excited to see this thread! Bear with me if I have repeated some things others have said. I am SLs target demographic. Or I should be. I have time, I have entertainment dollars to spend, I like fashion, art, music...I have NEVER not once seen an ad for SL outside of SL. NOT ONCE. You should be advertising in the places that will reach me and the professionals like me. Vogue magazine to reach those who would love to wear the clothes they can never afford to own in RL. Business publications both online and real world, to reach those people stuck in hotel rooms at night with nothing to do. In flight magazines! Features on Yahoo Shine or in Forbes online. Homebound mom's...pinterest is popular for a reason. Figure out how to reach them so they can come to SL and create the homes they can't afford in RL. You get the idea I think. Expand your idea of what SL is, and who would be interested. Take the time to understand who uses SL every day, and how best to reach those like them. SLex surely exists, but there are also thriving fashion communities, art communites, music, etc. I have done guided meditation, gone to church, poetry readings...read the blogs about SL, the most popular ones are travel and fashion. This should tell you something important! Focusing on the avatar is fine...but make them look like the high end avatars many of us create, not the cartoony characters I frequently see in your advertisements. Same with the environments. You have to entice people, make them drool, make them want it. The ads you show in your initial post? They don't give anyone any idea at all what SL is about. Frankly, I don't know how you could expect to know how to market SL unless you spend some serious time there. I suspect part of the problem is that most of the marketing team doesn't. I could be wrong, but I doubt it. The fact that you think the images you showed us in your initial post are representative of SL in any way proves that. Those are so 3 years ago. Thanks for this, Eve. This is a great post, and I think I agree with most if not all of it. I've highlighted the bits that I thought were particularly pertinent. I especially liked your point about the most popular blogs being fashion and "travel" (the latter frequently really being a version of "art" blog, in that they tend to showcase really beautiful or interesting sims). I also like your point about focusing attention upon those things that SL can provide that we can't necessarily have in RL, which is surely the whole point of it being a "second" life. You've given an interesting marketing twist to the theme!

Dear bannedganksta: We regret to inform you that your account has been permanently banned from the Second Life Forums. Reason: Failure to punctuate.

riaroswell wrote: Hi Everyone! My name is Maria Bodwell and I'm an undergraduate student of anthropology at the University of Redlands. I'm doing research on the way people in virtual communities portray gender through their avatars and I'm particularly interested in learning about the way people use SL avatars to express genders different from their RL gender. My research has 2 components: This thread - I will use these group discussions to get a sense of how residents feel about gender expression in SL, both for themselves and for others. If I plan to use something you say in this thread (by quoting, for example) in my paper, I will contact you personally to ask for permission. In-world interviews with users who claim to present a different gender in RL - these interviews will last 30-60 minutes and I will ask you more in depth about your personal experiences. You may be asked about some intimate topics, although whether you actually share this information with me is up to you. You can choose to participate in one or both of the two components. If you know anybody who may be interested in taking part in this thread or the interview, please let me know or tell them to contact me. All of the names of the participants will be changed for the final paper presenting my research, and only I will know your screen name or real name. Other identifiable information will be altered as well to protect participants' identities. All of the information I gather will be stored on a password-protected hard drive. At any point during your participation you can choose to stop and/or have the information you gave withdrawn from the study without any consequences. If you have any questions or concerns, you can contact me through my SL account or at maria_bodwell@redlands.edu. Now that I have the formalities out of the way, what are your thoughts on expressing gender in SL? Do you do this or know anybody who does? Has it changed the way you think about gender or other aspects of identity for yourself or for others? This doesn't have to be a very directed discussion; I'm happy for anyone to bring up new topics related to the subject to enrich my research! Hi Ria (is that how you prefer to be called?) First, I want to congratulate you on a really well-done and nicely written request for research information. We do get a lot of requests for participation in surveys and research from students here, and most of it is very poorly thought out indeed. As a result, residents here understandably tend to get a bit grumpy with these, and that may be reflected in some of the responses you get here, unfortunately. Before I respond to your research question directly, let just add a few points, however. The first is that there have been threads you can reference on this forum, and in the archives of its predecessors, on this subject. You'll find a wealth of information there. You can start with this one, which I created years ago (using a different and older account than my current one): http://community.secondlife.com/t5/General-Discussions/How-Do-I-Talk-like-a-Boy/td-p/265506. Or, possibly, this one (also started by me): http://community.secondlife.com/t5/Lifestyles-and-Relationships/The-UnQueering-of-Second-Life/td-p/815765. I've just suggested two that I started because I know of them, but there will be many, many others that are similar. A second question I have for you, is . . . how much experience do you have in-world in SL yourself? Your avatar is, I see, less than 2 weeks old: how much exploring have you done in Second Life? Have you gone to places that might seem to cater to one gender or another? And have you tried gender bending? There's a very vibrant transgendered community in Second Life. How will your research account for that? You are going to have some serious problems, I think, getting people to give you RL information, even with all of the promises about confidentiality. People just don't give out that information here very readily. And I can't see any inducement for them to do so. At the same time, can you trust such information? Will we be able to see any of your final research report? Can you post it (with confidential information removed) somewhere we can see it? You'll get more positive responses if your subjects (us) feel like participants rather than lab rats. My only feelings about this are more or less apparent from the two threads I've directed you to, but I'll just add a couple of things here. I've never seriously, or in a sustained way, tried to represent another gender, although I did have a male alt that I used for purely satiric purposes at one time. So I don't have a lot of insight on this from first-hand experience. My perception, however, is that a lot of people represent, for at least some time, as a different gender. Most often, it's probably not sustained, but rather an alt account that they play with occasionally. It is the general, unproven, assumption here that people who present as hyper-gendered -- i.e., VERY feminine, or VERY masculine (often accompanied by hypersexualized physical attributes, such as very large boobs, etc.) are more likely to be gender-bending than others. But that, as I say, is merely a general belief, rather than a provable fact. It is also the general perception that far more men have female alts than the other way around. Again, I know of no statistical proof for that, but it matches my own experience. Anyway, that's my little 2-cents . . .

Madelaine McMasters wrote: LaskyaClaren wrote: I find it enormously ironic, after the scorn heaped upon Mark Kingdon for supposedly moving Second Life towards social media, that it is actually The Great LeaderWanderer, Philip Rosedale, who may finally be responsible for the Facebookization of virtual worlds. Oh well. The NSA at least will love this database. As will the project's investors, who will have access to all of that lovely minable data! Him too.

I find it enormously ironic, after the scorn heaped upon Mark Kingdon for supposedly moving Second Life towards social media, that it is actually The Great Leader, Philip Rosedale, who may finally be responsible for the Facebookization of virtual worlds. Oh well. The NSA at least will love this database. As will the project's investors, who will have access to all of that lovely minable data!

So stupid. Yet another project employing outdated technology. Everyone knows the Future is in 8-Track.

Madelaine McMasters wrote: LaskyaClaren wrote: Tarina Sewell wrote: LaskyaClaren wrote: Hmm. Yeah. I have to admit that I'm a little surprised at how harsh the response has been here. Are you really? You must be new. Eh. Not exactly. She's just a slow learner! You can tell, because I have to keep repeating.

Tarina Sewell wrote: LaskyaClaren wrote: Hmm. Yeah. I have to admit that I'm a little surprised at how harsh the response has been here. Are you really? You must be new. Eh. Not exactly.

Dresden Ceriano wrote: Perhaps I was a bit defensive... I, also, wasn't trying to single you out, though I can see how it came off that way. As for my apparent lack of sympathy, I simply didn't express those feelings, at least not in any sort of adequate way. But then, I wasn't originally addressing the part of the first post to which I felt sympathetic... perhaps I should have... a spoon full of sugar and all that. ...Dres Perhaps so was I. And I do need to watch my tone sometimes. NVM. It's all good. :-)

I agree with everything you say here. The rationale you give for this rule is one I had not thought of -- its a good one.

Dres, I am not sure why you seem to think that I am suggesting that she continue to circumvent the ToS. I am not: in my very first response here I concluded by saying she needed to use a new account. There is nothing in the ToS that precludes the transfer of transferrable items from the old account to the new, which is the most that I suggested she do. I also think that you may be assuming that my expression of surprise about the harshness of the response here was particularly aimed at you. I WAS somewhat surprised at how little sympathy you seemed to exhibit for the OP's situation, but I was not particularly singling you out -- as I think you'll see if you read it. Again, I did not suggest that what happened wasn't her fault, or that LL owes her a restitution. And I certainly did not say that she should continue on her merry way doing it again. What I did say -- and continue to think -- is that the tone of many of the responses to her predicament was unnecessarily harsh and unsympathetic.

The quality of mercy is not strain'd. It droppeth as the gentle rain from heaven Upon the place beneath: it is twice blest; It blesseth him that gives and him that takes: 'Tis mightiest in the mightiest: it becomes The throned monarch better than his crown; His sceptre shows the force of temporal power, The attribute to awe and majesty, Wherein doth sit the dread and fear of kings; But mercy is above this sceptred sway; It is enthroned in the hearts of kings, It is an attribute to God himself; And earthly power doth then show likest God's When mercy seasons justice. I do like to think that I am a reasonably "ethical" person, Dres. But I also don't believe that laws and rules are ever absolute: they must be tempered with a consideration of possible mitigating circumstances, context, intent, and, yes, mercy. There is a reason why we have sentences set, usually, by human beings -- judges -- and not (usually) applied automatically. (As is probably clear, I oppose mandatory sentencing.) It is so that a human can weigh all of these factors and choose a penalty that is appropriate to the actual circumstances. We are not applying penalties here, but we are clearly judging. Did the OP do something wrong? Self evidently. Does she have a right to complain about the consequences? I have already, twice, said no. But does the fact that this may have been performed in ignorance of the rules, and doesn't (from what we actually know) reflect an attempt to do harm mean that she deserves my sympathy rather than a harsh condemnation? Well, I think yes. Perhaps it is a fault, but I generally try to give people the benefit of the doubt when there is doubt. I don't much feel the need to apologize for that. I am truly sorry if my unwillingness to apply a Draconian interpretation of The Laws here seems to you unethical. But to me a vital part of ethics is compassion and, where it it seems merited, mercy. And until I see evidence to the contrary, I will continue to assume that my sympathy rather than harsh condemnation is appropriate here.

Griffin Ceawlin wrote: Ya know, usually when people post requests for other people to answer surveys such as this, it's easy enough to ignore. Just scroll on by to the next topic. Posting such requests to an existing thread and violating my inbox in the process is just OBNOXIOUS. The forum software has addressed this to me, but as I have not posted any surveys, and none seem to be still on this thread, I assume that it was taken down? What was it about?

Dresden Ceriano wrote: You can't be serious. No one deserves to have their account hacked. But the crux of this situation is the fact that this person's account was not legitimately theirs in the first place. Culpability for breaching the ToS lies squarely with the OP... and that culpability is, indeed, very real. The OP's hands are in no way clean. What I find most puzzling is that you, among others, would encourage this person to circumvent the system, by asking their friend to pretend that nothing nefarious had taken place on either of their parts, in order for the OP to gain access to an account to which they should never have been given access in the first place. Surely, LL had, and continues to have, good reason to specifically stipulate that this is not allowed within the massive amount to text which makes up their ToS. Yet, you've obviously decided that this is one section needs not be subject to adherence and can, therefore, be completely ignored as a "harmless practice". The very real possibility that someone could find themselves in this very situation should clue you in to the fact that such actions can be anything but harmless. ...Dres I think you may be reading a little too much into what I said. I am certainly not "encouraging" people to violate the ToS and circumvent the system; on the contrary, I exonerate LL for having frozen the account, and tell her to make a new one for herself. Ideally, yes, if access to the old frozen account is reinstated, it should be her friend who transfers whatever is transferable over to that new account, rather than her doing it herself. I think my point here is that, while there are good reasons no doubt for the rules about transferring accounts, we can make a distinction between someone who is doing it for "nefarious" reasons, and someone who was not. And, although as Perrie notes there are some odd gaps in the story here, there is, at the moment, no reason to think that the account was transferred over to enable fraudulent activities. (Indeed, it would be odd to find her complaining here if it had been.) Assuming (as I must, given what I know) that there was no fraud or nefariousness intended, what she did was a venial rather than criminal sin. So, yeah: transferring accounts is bad practice, and she can hardly blame LL for their actions in freezing her out -- as I in fact said. But, from what we can gleam here, it was a dumb rather than a wicked thing to do. And that, really, was the point I was making, and why I was a bit taken aback by the harshness of some responses.

sirhc DeSantis wrote: Well harsh responses or not, the part where the OP says '... and since lightning rarely strikes twice, tranfered my REAL trove of lindens to the recently attacked avie...' strikes me as - hmmm better not say:) Lets settle for foolish, especially as this would have been done after, by OPs account, having the hijacking reported to the Lab... Well, yes. I agree. Although I can sort of see how, having newly reset the password, it might feel "secure." And in a sense, of course, she was right. What she wasn't counting on was LL freezing the account. If you've never seen LL go into action after a serious security breach or ToS violation, you might not know that this was probably to be expected. sirhc DeSantis wrote: Also, why would an 'attacker' set the password back so the OP could get into the account to do so anyway? That part puzzled me too.

Hmm. Yeah. I have to admit that I'm a little surprised at how harsh the response has been here. People here are, of course, right in two regards. It is a violation of the ToS to pass an account to someone else without going through Linden Lab first. And it was foolish, obviously, to click on a link without being sure of the sender first. That said, I can imagine myself stupidly and unthinkingly clicking on a link before I've given myself time to think about what I'm doing. I've also known a fair number of avatars who have been passed from one person to another -- yes, in violation of the ToS. It is mostly a pretty harmless practice, unless it is being done to bypass an IP ban or something similar. I'm also not sure that I understand how the fact that you did so means that you "deserve what you got," which seems to be the message I'm hearing here. What is certainly true is that the fact that it was not originally your avatar is going to make it more difficult to get it back again. And here, I don't think you can blame LL: they have no way of knowing that you aren't the person who hijacked it in the first place. You're going to need to rely upon the cooperation and hard work of the friend who created the account initially to get it back again, if at all. When and if you do -- create a new account, and abandon that one, after you've transferred whatever can be transferred over. I'm sorry this happened to you: I don't see any real culpability here -- just a foolish mistake. I hope it all works out for you. :-)

Celestiall Nightfire wrote: LaskyaClaren wrote: Celestiall Nightfire wrote: LaskyaClaren wrote: The rhetoric you've identified,..... particularly associated with elements of the right. It is the rhetoric of division, of divide and conquer. *Laughs* Oh please....may I point you to the rhetoric of the left?! Pretty please with sugar on top? It's chock full of....you know.....those elements! (...rhetoric of division, of divide and conquer.) along with insults, etc. (You do know Sy's not on the right....right? But, since you're so far to the left.....you'll cast him there) Every ideology has a rhetoric, Celestiall, and that definitely includes the Left. I find much of it equally annoying, divisive, and stupid (if not always quite so hate-filled). And I actually didn't call Sy a right-winger. I've really no idea what he is: I was simply noting the similarity between the language he uses, and a kind of rhetoric that has become really characteristic of a particular brand of conservative. (And please note, also, that I said elements of the Right). I didn't notice anything that seemed conservative in his write up. Argumenative, yes. But, conservative? Huh? (Dillion was way closer with "elitist"...which is not the same as conservative) What language? What chararactersitics? What "brand"? Can you provide some examples? Perhaps links to articles, threads, or political commentary? As I'm not seeing what you claim. Um, again, I didn't say that Sy was conservative. I said that his class-based stereotypes and language was characteristic of a particular kind of conservative rhetoric. And I did give a very concrete example: Rob Ford has built his political career on demonizing the citizens of Toronto's downtown as an effete intellectual elite, and "championing" the city's blue collar suburbs. So effective a strategy has it been, that the city's voting patterns, in the last mayoral election, broke down almost exactly along those geographical lines, with the downtown voting pretty solidly against him, and the suburbs for him. I'm sure you can find other examples of the same phenomenon, with a little help from Google. I wish I could take credit for the idea, but it's been around a while.

Derek Torvalar wrote: LaskyaClaren wrote: Derek Torvalar wrote: See what happens. They take away the Art and the whole thread devolves into political bickering. And the Sugar. That's what I was referring to. Ohhh you thought I meant the Seurat. An honest mistake. My apparent lack of comprehension was studied and entirely deliberate, I assure you. :-)

Derek Torvalar wrote: See what happens. They take away the Art and the whole thread devolves into political bickering. And the Sugar.

Celestiall Nightfire wrote: LaskyaClaren wrote: The rhetoric you've identified,..... particularly associated with elements of the right. It is the rhetoric of division, of divide and conquer. *Laughs* Oh please....may I point you to the rhetoric of the left?! Pretty please with sugar on top? It's chock full of....you know.....those elements! (...rhetoric of division, of divide and conquer.) along with insults, etc. (You do know Sy's not on the right....right? But, since you're so far to the left.....you'll cast him there) Every ideology has a rhetoric, Celestiall, and that definitely includes the Left. I find much of it equally annoying, divisive, and stupid (if not always quite so hate-filled). And I actually didn't call Sy a right-winger. I've really no idea what he is: I was simply noting the similarity between the language he uses, and a kind of rhetoric that has become really characteristic of a particular brand of conservative. (And please note, also, that I said elements of the Right).

Derek Torvalar wrote: LaskyaClaren wrote: Derek Torvalar wrote: LaskyaClaren wrote: Derek Torvalar wrote: Awww my lovely painting got removed. And they called it 'porn'! Philistines! What did you expect? The Impressionists are SCANDALOUS! Then there is no hope. And leave Rob 'Falstaff' Ford alone! He is a man of the people! I'll just insert this after the end: "This advertisement was paid for by the Committee to Elect Anyone But Rob Ford." You can add Kathleen Wynne's name to that too! Not a big fan, I'll admit. But if "anyone" includes Hudak, I'm out. :-)