Scylla Rhiadra

That is true, but many of us, including myself, use our SL account names on other platforms, including most obviously Twitter, Facebook, Flickr, Discord, and (now) Mastodon. I am followed on all of those platforms (except Mastodon which I haven't yet set up) by people who are not in SL. They know my SL name.

I hear the "It's all public information" thing a lot in response to the ways in which our profiles are exposed on the web through LL's web pages and search, as well as other sites. Putting aside the fact that "public" shouldn't mean "I found it by using this cool script, or engaging in the following unusual contortions that the normal person wouldn't think of doing," there are problems with this argument. I want to add a bit of nuance to the discussion about what LL itself has left exposed by exploring one of those. We all are multifaceted in our relationships with people and communities in our RL. We don't present the same sides of our self at work as we do at home, with friends or family, that we do with strangers. We all have different "public" faces we wear, depending upon context. And this is very true online as well. Most of us, even if we are not regular users of social media, have different online profiles. Your SL profile is likely not the same as your Facebook or Twitter one. You wouldn't use your Instagram profile for your LinkedIn account, and you certainly wouldn't use your Tinder profile for that. Our SL profiles are similarly determined by context. Indeed, they are designed to be employed within SL -- that's their function and point. That's why there are separate tabs for "2nd" and "1st" lives. They are written for use within SL. Show it to a close family member and there's a good likelihood that they wouldn't recognize you in it, because it's likely very very different from the "you" that they see. And within SL itself, we probably relate to very specific communities -- very particular and specific "publics." The profile of someone who is here primarily for RP likely reflects that, in their Picks or even their bio. Similarly, people who are here for sex, or D/s and BDSM, will have profiles that are customized to those particular communities. I don't do RP or BDSM: you won't find my RP preferences, or my "limits" in my profile because those are not "publics" with whom I engage very much. You will find my political affiliations -- because those are relevant to my activities and communities here. So, we find ourselves in a position of realizing that our SL-specific "public information" is appearing online, available to a much broader range of people, than we maybe understood. And the publication of that "public information" to a different public than that for which it was written decontextualizes it radically. Say you are sub, and your profile reads somewhere "'No' means harder!" Or a Dom, and yours includes something like "There is no woman I can't break" (that's an actual example I saw recently, btw). In the context of the BDSM or D/s communities for whom this was written, that information makes complete sense, and is likely to be understood as representing something about the nature of the kind of BDSM scene or RP that interests you. Read without that context, on the open web by someone not involved in those communities, with little understanding of BDSM or D/s, or of SL, they are going to sound utterly appalling. Now, you could follow LL's advice, and remove information that you don't want widely public because it will be misunderstood, but that would entirely undercut a major point of the SL profiles, which is to help us, SL residents, connect with others who have similar interests. So, we need to stop thinking about the word "public" as though it were singular and uncomplicated. What is "public" in SL no more belongs on the open web than does your Tinder profile, which is also in some sense "public" and certainly easily attainable. (I not infrequently see screenshots of the latter posted on Twitter.) And one of the positive spinoffs of recent events may actually be that we, and LL, are suddenly and dramatically being reminded of that. I very much hope that LL is giving thought to closing what seem to be some pretty major leaks in our SL privacy.

I'll DM you: mentioning the name of said site is likely to get the post removed or worse. It's not just about RL information, Drake. In our SL identities, we still have relationships, reputations -- indeed, pretty full lives in many regards. People get married here, they have affairs, they are important members of communities, etc. You can do a great deal of damage to someone's SL experience by misusing information. Just look at Virtual Secrets.

And those are indeed one of the reasons why I'm personally not overly exercised about this particular aspect of the issue. My focus is much more on the huge database out there somewhere that contains a whole lot more information than appears in our profiles. One of the justifications / excuses for closing these threads has been the "vitriol" and "flamewars" supposedly happening in them. We don't need to go that route, Solar. Please, let's not.

Might it not be possible to have civil discussion about this here without engaging in mockery and sarcasm? If your concerns are not those of others who don't want their picks and their bios on the open web, that's fine. I myself don't care that much. But it might be nice to treat the views of others respectfully, even if they are not your own.

The problem -- if it is a problem; YYMV -- is that 1) SL web search is avalaible to literally anyone, and any web site can link to it, and 2) because it is LL's site, there us no way to "opt out" anyone from it. I am not sure of the actual utility of making the search openly available to anyone online, but if they are going to do so, LL should reduce the amount of info visible without logging in.

I agree pretty much entirely with all of this. I'm not willing to impute malice where there is no evidence of it. And maybe it will be a good thing if the policy changes that we are being (sort of) promised tighten things up a bit.

Seeing as I'm here anyway . . . @Coffee Pancake's proposal is carefully considered, well thought-out, and worthy of discussion. And I think it's a good thing she articulated it. That said, I'd be strongly against it, for many reasons already articulated here. Even without a "down-voting" option, it's still going to create angst and drama, and it doesn't really seem to be doing much to assist those who really need assisting, i.e., new residents. In general, I'm leery of this kind of "code as social engineering." And I don't really see much benefit in introducing a new activity that is essentially worthless in its own right. It's "busy work," intended to force people to socialize, but I don't see that it adds any value to that socialization. It may "bring us together," but it's not going to create stronger communities.

I get that, although the amount I was able to see about you without logging in was pretty scant. [Content redacted by moi]

[Content redacted by moi]

Actually, that is my profile now! [Content redacted by moi]

[Content redacted by moi] To keep it simple: -- Yes, you are correct: "opting out" is now essentially meaningless. Anyone can be found through the SL web search that has replaced what they had before. -- However, the amount and type of information available through the LL search is much more limited than was the case before. Our information is now not nearly so exposed to anyone who chooses to look than it was. There will undoubtedly be further developments to come:

Chinese spy balloons? Pah! That's nothing . . .

Really excellent point.

Hey you! Your boobs, as interesting as they no doubt are, are definitely off topic! Behave, young lady! 🙃

You may of course be correct, but not that LL has publicly (sort of) entered into an agreement with them, I think that discussion of what that agreement entails is probably ok. That said, we do need to be careful not to wander off-topic.

Could be better.

This is reasonable . . . maybe. I don't have objections to them harvesting information from anyone who is ok with that, and has consented. But here's the reason why I want to know what exactly "opting out" means. The process, as I understand it (and I'm open to correction) is this: a BonnieBelle bot TPs into a location. Using LSL, it immediately gathers minimally the following information: Who is in the region, along with data from their profile (which data appears under "Avatar Search") What attachments they are wearing (which data is later aggregated into their "attachments" page) How many avatars are in the region at that particular moment. Individually, all of these pieces of information are relatively harmless -- unless you combine them. And the process of harvesting must inevitably be combining them, i.e. Avatar X, wearing the following attachments, was in Region Y at such-and-such a date and time. Now, their web site isn't providing those associations; I imagine that if they had, LL would have responded far more strongly. BUT are they scouring those relationships from their database? Or does their database contain details about the presence of particular people at particular places, at particular times, wearing particular attachments? You can imagine how that sort of detailed information, relating these things, could be used for . . . not good purposes. This is why I want 1) a clear statement on whether opting out means that we are also not being harvested for data, and 2) how secure and safe their database is. For those who think that I may be overstating the threat of a database hack, I'd suggest you google "The Wrong Hands" and "Second Life." There is a precedent here.

I wonder how long it would take to produce a bot that sent emails opting all of SL out of this? 😉 Poetic justice?

Yep. Again, as I noted in the OP, I strongly suggest using an in-world IM to opt out for just that reason.

That would be nice, wouldn't it? This is very much the problem -- well, one of the problems -- with the "opt out" approach LL has apparently agreed to. As you note, the vast majority of people in-world don't even know their data is being harvested, yet alone that they can opt out of it. LL has, I believe, a responsibility to find a way to ensure that ALL residents are informed.

I agree. Please see my subsequent comment!

Interesting point. Yes, I suppose you can. LOL

Hi all, As per their recent agreement with Linden Lab, BonnieBot.com now offers the ability for both individuals and merchants to "opt-out" of their web site. It's unclear what "opting out" means -- whether they will stop harvesting your data, or simply stop displaying it (my suspicion is the latter). And, as there has been no effort that I've yet seen to ensure that residents even know that their data is being harvested, and that opting out is an option, this really should be an "opt-in" process . . . but that's a fight for a different day. For now, you have two options for "opting out." I would strongly suggest that those who wish to opt out choose the former method, as the latter exposes your email address to an organization that is apparently busily scraping as much data as they can lay their hands on. There are a great many questions still to be answered about this site, but for now we seem at least to be able to have our information (including Premium and Premium Plus status) removed from the public-facing portion of this site.

Yeah, sorry about that. Prok didn't post his transcription until after I'd post the video. If it makes you feel better, I sat through the entire thing too.