Scylla Rhiadra

I get this. As an SL photographer who sells her work, I understand that sense of proprietary pride in something one has created. It actually bugs me (a little, at least) when I see someone who has resized one of my images, but messed up the aspect ratio when doing so. BUT . . . this argument also reminds me a little of "elite" creators in RL who make stipulations. A classic was that very talented, first-class POS fashion designer Karl Lagerfeld, who deliberately restricted the sizes available for his creations because he didn't want to see "curvy" or "overweight" women wearing them. "No one wants to see curvy women," he opined, and he (and other designers too) made sure that they were certainly not to be seen in their own haute couture. **** 'em, says I. I'll wear what I want. And I'll do what I want with things I've purchased in SL.

So, basically you're sailing through SL on the ship of Theseus?

I do frequently leave reviews -- and often positive ones, especially if there's been an instance of real great customer support. In fact, I've actually bought items from a store's MP just so I could leave a positive review, when I've had problems with something I bought in-world that were resolved by the maker. I also read reviews, but I discount ones that don't explain why they are positive or negative. Just, "Looks great!" or "not worth the price" isn't going to persuade me one way or another. I also pay attention to responses to reviews, sometimes by the creators themselves -- I wish more creators would do this. I don't generally buy things that don't have a demo anyway, so I usually have an opportunity to "test" the veracity of the review.

Yes, you're quite right. You don't "owe" anyone an explanation -- you can do what you want. And as a consumer, so will I. But it is potentially useful to creators to know that I won't buy their things because they are no mod. Consider it free market research! I note that your items mostly seem to be mod, so this doesn't apply. Thank you, however, for offering these explanations even if they are not "owed." And yet, as you note, most items can be replaced through redeliver (assuming they are not also no-copy, which I definitely do not buy). I sometimes puzzle over this one: I mean, sure, again, that's your right. But in RL I wouldn't accept restrictions on what I do with products I've purchased -- I have, after all, paid money for them -- and the same is true of SL. If I am putting a table you made in a pic, but I don't want the flowers you've placed on that table there, I expect to be able to remove them. If I think that this pair of jeans goes better with this top than the skirt that it comes with, that should be my decision. This feels a little like the "subscription" argument for software: you don't really get to "own" something, because the dead hand of the creator continues to exert authority over it even after you've paid for it. Not sure I understand you here. We're talking about mod perms, not copy ones? I've lost too many no-copy items to accidents and glitches to spend money on them now. And it's really inconvenient. And, of course, you can't get a redelivery. So, no thanks. My understanding is that no-mod perms does very little to "protect" an item. Is that incorrect? I buy lots of building kits to create backdrops. I do so for a number of reasons, but one very practical one is that they generally come with maps. If they don't, the likelihood is that I won't waste money on them, because retexturing is important to me. So, if you are selling a complete house, and also one designed to be modular, I'll almost certainly opt for the latter (if maps are included in the package). But if you DON'T offer that option, and I can rip a window from your full version of the house that I've paid for, for use in a backdrop or scene, I'm not going to feel bad about that because you aren't selling a modular version anyway. In other words, you aren't losing any money from this: I'm not cannibalizing something that I could be paying money for in full perm or modular form. So, I don't see how this hurts you? Except (as Theresa has pointed out) if your object is no-copy. And "protecting" my possession of an item that I can't use in the way I intended when I purchased it isn't terribly useful, really. Just to recap: I totally agree with you that it should be your choice as to whether something you create is no mod. But consumers also have a choice, and as your post here makes clear, many of us want mod perms. I won't buy decorative or structural things that don't have these. So, if I'm telling you that, it's not to "shame" you -- it's to inform you that you've lost my business because of your choices. And that, surely, is useful information?

Yeah. Slowly trying to transition to Bluesky which, unfortunately, simply doesn't have the same critical mass yet.

No, this WILL happen. Because I'm personally going to kill it.

Not "dingy," dahling! "Interesting"!

Great minds think alike? Or fools seldom differ?

Um. Far from being antisemitic, the meme is actually mocking absurd conspiracy theories of the sort that suggest that "the Jews" are secretly running the US. It's only antisemitic if you also think that it's seriously suggesting that aliens, the Dutch, etc., are the real power in America. And I'm pretty sure that is not its point. I get that we are all very sensitive to possible instances of antisemitism these days (and I hope to Islamophobia, which is also on the rise), but the exercise of a little critical thinking should ease people's minds in this instance. To reiterate, this is not articulating anti-semitic conspiracy theories -- it's satirizing them. It's not a joke I'd likely make myself, for reasons too evident here, but it is not antisemitism.

OnlyFans is, relative to SL, absolutely HUGE, and much, much higher profile. It's also an entirely different sort of platform. I am not arguing that companies are not under pressure to remove or hide adult content. I'm suggesting that such moves tend to target embarrassingly high profile platforms. I don't think SL qualifies. And the adult content that is here isn't as high profile as the stuff on OnlyFans. I just don't think anyone is likely to care. I'm not sure that's true: Oberwager no longer speaks as the CEO of Tilia: these are no longer LL's "customers." And in the meantime, we do have this, which is hardly sounding ominous: This is all highly speculative, and events may of course prove you correct. But I think that the actual language used in these announcements is more likely to support my conclusions. We'll see!

Yes, I called it an acquisition. I said that it evidently was not a hostile one, and noted that it was being couched as a partnership. That language matters -- as does this statement: "As part of the transaction, Thunes and Linden Research, Inc. (“Linden Lab”), the current majority owner of Tilia, have agreed to an exclusive five-year partnership in which, post closing, the cross-border payments company will provide payment processing and pay-outs to Linden Lab, leveraging Thunes’ global network – allowing gamers to pay, and to receive money real-time, in a more cost-efficient way and with increased transparency." And this quote from LL's owner: "It will be business as usual for our people and our customers as we bring Tilia and Thunes together.” Again, it's possible that LL is hiding something from us ("lying"), but this language very clearly suggests to me that this "five-year partnership" includes assurances, or at least the presumption, that Thunes isn't going to demand radical changes to SL as a condition of that continued relationship. Again, in general, profit-making corporations only get into the business of imposing "moral standards" or whatever you want to call it when they perceive that not doing so will hurt their bottom line. What that generally means is that corporations are responding to bad PR or external pressures when they impose such restrictions. The fact that SL is so clearly beneath the notice of most media, even when a series of putatively scandalous allegations have been made against it publicly, suggests to me that there is no pressure upon Thunes to do anything about adult content in SL. Why would they lose and/or possibly destroy one of the few customers that the Tilia acquisition brings with it merely on a whim? That may of course change, as circumstances change. But that was always going to be the case. (Flickr is annoying as hell, but their focus is not upon "cleaning up" their platform so much as it is upon encouraging or compelling its users to move to paid accounts so that they can advertise or host adult content. Adult content is not being removed wholesale -- except in some cases where it is happening in violation of Flickr's ratings rules. There's still no end of nudity, adult content, and outright porn on Flickr.) So far, I'm not seeing any reason to panic about any of this. Time may prove me wrong, but I just don't believe that LL walked into this blindly, without being sure that the sale would not scupper their only remaining revenue and profit source.

Oh, Tilia, we hardly knew ye . . . I have no insights into this that others don't have, but it does seem to me that the chest beating (and covering up -- hide those boobies from Thune!) might be a little premature. This wasn't a hostile acquisition; LL was clearly in negotiations with Thune about it, and must already have a pretty good idea of how this is going to unfold from the perspective of SL. And, as others have noted, this is being couched as a partnership -- whatever that means. I find it hard to believe, myself, that LL would knowingly enter into what appears to be a mutually satisfactory relationship with a company upon which it depends to keep SL afloat without knowing ahead of time that this was not going to impact negatively upon SL. It just doesn't seem credible to me that Thune is going to enter into such a relationship, and then immediately turn around and smack LL hard on the only real asset it still has remaining. And LL itself sounds upbeat about all of this. Could it be that they know something we don't? Now, LL could of course be lying, and knows we are all doooooomed, but generally the company is more inclined to go silent when bad stuff is happening -- like that sulky spouse or partner who won't open up about what is bothering them. And of course, a year or so down the road, Thune could get sold to someone else, or have a leadership change, or whatever, that changes the ballgame. The one thing going for us in such an instance is that no one cares about SL. The platform has just faced some of the nastiest allegations that have ever been levelled publicly against it, and . . . no one cared. There was almost no pickup in the media about this. Companies do have corporate cultures, I guess, but mostly they'll only react to things that are hurting their bottom line, and right now SL is flying so far beneath everyone's radar that there really doesn't seem to be much chance of that happening. ON THE OTHER HAND, this DOES offer a fantastic opportunity for us all to once again wring our hands in despair, insist that sex is the only thing anyone actually does in SL anyway, and complain about "pearl clutchers." In terms of the latter, I've polished up my set -- an admittedly cheap set of cultured freshwater ones -- and am ready to start bleating on about "preverts" and sex-crazed sickos as soon as I'm needed!

This is really not complex, Arielle. "Gay/Queer" and trans identities are both named directly on the card. "Straight" and cis identities are not. That exclusion is meaningful. Why do you think the first two are included, and the latter two omitted? In any case, that's enough of this sidebar. You either get it, or you don't.

The term "groomer" is particularly associated with anti-trans agitation at the moment, but i can recall it being leveled against gay men (especially) in the 90s, in the context of child abuse.

Then why does the bingo card not also include heterosexuality as a possible reason to get banned?

"Grooming" is the slightly coded language that has mostly been used, and is being used, to associate gays and trans people with child abuse. If a club owner who is worried about accusations of a*eplay decides to boot a gay or trans person because he thinks they pose a risk of that accusation being leveled at the club, then he is either being homophobic and transphobic himself, or is worried that LL's Governance team is. There is zero evidence that LL is targeting gay or trans people, so the club owner is either an idiot, or a homophobe. The same premise underlies this bingo card.

They are also part of the straight community. What's your point?

I'm not accusing you of consciously promoting an association of lesbian or gay sexuality (or trans identities) with grooming, but it is an implicit assumption when you bundle all of these things together and suggest that a threat to one will lead to the persecution of the others.

There is no connection between a*eplay and the majority of things listed on that bingo card. Arguing that new rules against a*eplay are the thin edge of a wedge that will be used also to attack the LGBTQ+ community (but not apparently cishet sexuality) implies a connection that doesn't exist. It's also utter nonsense; nothing that has been said suggests any of these other things are targets.

Associating p*dophilia with the broader LGBTQ+ community has been a tried and true strategy of homophobes and transphobes since at least the 1970s. The vast majority of child molesters are straight. Let's not feed this kind of deliberate distortion please.

Interesting, because that does seemingly suggest that dropping SL is in part at least a business decision, rather than a more personal one that (one would have thought) would impact upon the entire operation?

In the late 17th century, one of the most popular writers of prose fiction was the French author Madeleine de Scudéry, who wrote huge stories (not quite "novels" in the modern sense, but close) that filled anywhere from 6 to 10 thick bound volumes: her Artamène supposedly is over 2 million words long. She was much translated into English. She was particularly popular among women -- these were sort of pseudo-historical romance novels, set in exotic, far-off lands. Not quite bodice-rippers, but with lots of heavy breathing implied. I've actually always fancied that her popularity among women readers was owing at least in part to the convenience they must have offered as projectiles.

They're trying, though. And in some places, coming close to succeeding.

Too much danger of getting political here, but in practice, historically and present day -- a great many people.