Jump to content

Prokofy Neva

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1,177 Excellent


About Prokofy Neva

  • Rank
    Advanced Member

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. @Desiree Moonwinder - well, let me quote you again. You said that posting SL stuff outside always struck you as unethical. Why? On what grounds? I find in general, when people acquire such fears, and use empty alts to post on the forums, that they are afraid that something about their SL will be discovered in RL, usually the fact that they have changed their gender, but not only that. You don't have to explain yourself if you don't want to, but you should question why you are trying to promote an "ethics" that isn't based in anything.
  2. @Desiree Moonwinder, citing the TOS which -- for the third time -- only applies inside of Second Life -- does not explain where you get the idea that it is "unethical" to share photos outside of SL. You and others have developed this wrongful idea from somewhere, and it's helpful to know from where. Where is it said that this is not ethical? You might want to review some recent lawsuits on this issue which failed. Why do you think that the Lindens could write "Consent is not required for any snapshots" if there is some ETHICAL reason why this should NOT be allowed?
  3. What possible grounds do you have for continuing to say that it is "unethical" to share photos outside of SL? For something to be "unethical," there first has to be a law or even just an ethics such as to violate. What would that ethics be? That you can't take pictures of people in public places and post them? Where do you find such ethics? Where do you imagine they reside? WHY do YOU believe them? This is really the question. I'd really like an explanation. I personally think this notion is a feature of the general totalitarian trend of online life that inevitably follows hedonism and extremism. That you are in a context where you are encouraged and indeed wish to express yourself to the max, in every imaginable way in dress and behaviour, yet you then double back and imagine you should restrain someone from photographing you, an anonymous avatar. Why? Example: I'm wandering around the large plaza where I live, snapping phone shots of the buildings, the sunlight, and a group of boys playing soccer. These amateur photos are clearly not high resolution and couldn't be. (I do know that it is possible to take very professional pictures even with an i-phone camera, but if you are standing a half a block away from a group of people, there is no way you will have recognizable faces. I continued snapping flowers and such when suddenly this 10-year-old boy came up, one of those preturnatural sophisticates that you often find nowadays, who began denouncing me for taking this photo, and threatening me that his father, who was a lawyer, would sue me. I laughed in his face. I suggested he use his self-same obsessive Internet to research the jurisprudence on this matter. There wasn't a court in the city that would take such a frivolous harassment case, no matter how fancy the lawyer. It is well-established that you can take photos of people in public places. There was no setting of reasonable expectation of privacy -- private property that allows the public entry (and I myself live there) would not be such a venue. There was no commercial use. So it's out of the question. How is it that this boy, who chatted and snapped photos and shared with his friends endlessly (it was a rare moment these kids were actually getting physical exercise; so often they are huddled with their phones), who in his short lifetime had consumed and shared more media than say, my 107-year-old aunt had in hers, could come to such a pernicious conclusion that this was "illegal" and "dad" would "get me"? It's much like the issue of college date rape, where girls get drunk or take drugs and go with college boys and expect some different outcome than what all too often happens. The problem begins with her failure to assume responsibility for her own incapacitation. That's truly the story. That doesn't exonerate the boy; it merely explains how you PREVENT this sad outcome reasonably. So people overshare and put pictures and chat all over the Internet, and live in that environment, and want nothing to restrain this, yet they reach out with a totalitarian impulse to try to control a mom who is their neighbour from merely snapping a picture of her park, which at best a dozen people on Facebook might notice. It's truly insane. If you don't want your photo taken in Second Life, never go to any public places and remain in your bunker on lockdown.
  4. BTW re: the social worker or family member who says SL is a waste of time while they sit for hours in front of the TV. I have not had a television for more than 25 years. This is why I can't pass this cultural test as I don't recognize most of the people and issues on it. The same with my children, who grew up without a TV for their formative years. I only got like a 3 out of 34. Imagine, all I really recall from the last decade is that girl singing the song about "Friday" and bouncing up and down in the back seat of the car. That's about how much the culture was worth to me. I didn't follow it, didn't miss it, and I don't think it matters. I didn't recognize almost any of those others mentioned. I didn't know there was a controversial Pepsi ad where an actress gave a Pepsi to a policeman during a "Black Like Me" demonstration. I can't say I really missed any of these cultural phenomena at all. I feel I had a rich and cultured 10 years doing all sorts of things, going to foreign countries, visiting museums and art shows in the US, reading books, etc. I made all kinds of room in my mind by not watching TV, and by being creative in SL and doing RL things instead. This was not some zealous program combined with organic cereal and Montessori schools or anything of the sort. It's just that once there was Second Life, I was completely uninterested in TV. Why would I sit on the couch and watch an episode of Roseanne when it was so predictable and jumped the shark when she won the lottery? Why watch ER, especially after Dr. Green died? (See, that was the last time I watched TV). If I really need to watch the "Fugitive" again, I can go to archive.org and watch it for free. And I found my children, in their younger years, once they were off "Barney" (which they never liked) and "Sesame Street" (which we all loathed) and "Arthur" (which we liked" and what they called "Cartoons At Work" (Cartoon Network), they went on to Zelda and Animal Crossing. Those games were much more fun than any cartoon. The news is available on news companies' web sites or YouTubes and plenty of it. Who needs to watch another fire in New Jersey? Every one of the important hearings on the Ukraine scandal are all on web sites reached via Twitter. A TV is not needed. But more than all that, the reason why entertainment on TV just left me cold is that you can't change the environment. Once you have the power to move the chairs around and change your costumes and such, why would you sit passively to watch somebody else's directing? You have your own movie. If I have to sit and watch something like "Silicon Valley", it's usually only because I'm stuck home with a tooth extraction or the flu, and even then, I want to reach in and change things. There was also the practical issue of how they converted TVs to some sort of other system where you had to add a thing, and I never bought that thing and did it, I forget what it's called.
  5. Of course I'm real, and so is everybody else. The virtual can profoundly affect the real in good and bad ways. I think this is better understood now that we have people who meet in SL and actually marry in RL and stay married, on the positive side, and horrors like 8-channers chatting on the Internet and applauding as one of their number actually goes out and bombs a mosque or church and murders numerous people. Terror and crime offline often begins online. There is nothing magical about the Internet realm and its great propensity for crime and mayhem stems from the pioneers' wish to bypass organic law established by centuries. We didn't have the Internet when I was a teenager and in college (well, we did, but I used to have to get up at five in the morning and haul it from buckets from a spring 20 miles away). I remember one funny instance where a long-time friend from college kept trying to persuade me to join Facebook, which I wasn't interested in. Finally I joined it and I didn't care for it much. I told him about SL. He was an artist and photographer in RL so I gave him a store to put out his photos and art works. They didn't sell, because in fact I think there's a bigger market for SL photos, not RL photos, and it takes awhile to network and get established. It's odd, but he seemed "more real" to me on Facebook than he did in SL -- which he didn't like, for lots of reasons, mainly because it's so hard to work. I think it just has to do with the medium of expression. But all in all, he was "most real," i.e. like himself as I remember him when I knew him in person in RL, on his blog, where he published his poetry. It's funny how it works that way. People who pretend they've compartmentalized a virtual life from their real life without any consequences are in profound self-delusion. I will say this about SL. In RL, I seldom think about SL as I go through my day. I almost never dream about it, even though I'll dream of flying in *real* life. It does feel like a separate realm. Still, it is definitely connected. I don't think about Bayonne, New Jersey all the time, either, yet it is there and my son lives there and I visit him. But since he tends to call me on the phone or message me on Facebook, he is "more real" there in that particular manifestation that in the imagination of Bayonne that I might conjure, not that there's an awful lot to imagine about Bayonne, although it's more interesting and even pretty than you might imagine if you read about it.
  6. I'm thinking of starting a group by that name with that title above my head! Who's with me?! I am so tired of going to events or to stores where "fly" is turned off. It's truly the most ridiculous thing and has no reason to it that I can see. SL avatars are avian creatures. The giant stores parked in the middle of beautiful ocean beaches all over SL with open-air multi-floor buildings are made by people who grasp a simple rule: if you can fly up directly to a vendor instead of struggling to walk, let alone climb stairs, you will buy more. It's easier and freer. Given that some stores and events have "fly" on and keep it on and others don't, there really is no justification for turning it off. It's not like those who have "fly" turned ON somehow have less sales or more griefing (if that's the reasoning) -- they likely have MORE sales because it's more of a convenience to shoppers. Do owners imagine that they stop griefing this way? But griefers can override the settings of legal viewers and grief in other ways besides flying, and would be expelled hopefully quickly (although owners and staff often aren't on site). Griefers are a tiny percentage of visitors so it is not merited. By allowing fly, you help free up the pile-up at the landing point. While there is no injury in a virtual world, still, psychologically people get really annoyed if you land on their head or bump them. Fly helps you rise above the laggy and crowded floor to cam around, and zip around big sims which are pretty but a real chore to stump around on your two avatar legs. Perhaps store owners imagine that if they turn off fly, they prevent people from quickly zeroing in on only their favourite merchant, or only that one thing they want to buy. They force them to walk past other offerings and maybe make an impulse buy. This technique is at least 150 years old, and I believe it was introduced by the department store magnate Johnny Wanamaker, AKA "Wannamaker Buy" (about the housewives who frequented his stores), along with the "99 cents" price tag that made you imagine you were getting a bargain, compared to a dollar. The idea is that if you force the shopper past displays, there will be make more purchases, especially small ones (which is why all the gum and candy and tabloids are by the cash registers). This is the theory behind hunts as well -- if you get them in the store, while they are looking for the little snowflake or heart or elf or bell, they will also hit the gatcha machines a few times at the very least or maybe by a $399 chair. And they aren't wrong about this although most people likely only come in to grab the free or cheap hunt gift and get out. But really, especially in a virtual world where you CAN fly, it is so primitive and I think futile to have these forced-marches past merchandise you don't want. You end up not even going to the event if you know they have fly turned off. This being the forums with contrary regulars, no doubt readers will be found who imagine turning off fly is "vital" and certainly in that glorious realm of virtual law called "I get to do WTF I want on my land." But they really should reconsider. When you can't fly, you also fit in less events. It's too much of a chore. Right now, I'm avoiding "Lag and Cam", as I've dubbed the Lindens' event, because "fly" is turned off (unless it is really on, but so laggy you can't tell). Many people discuss how they park themselves at laggy events and cam-shop even on the original sim, let alone a cam-shopping sim. I always feel there is something humiliating about cam-shopping sims and simply wait for a few days to go by. Yes, there is something to be gained from walking around the whole event, I totally get it. Yet especially on your SECOND trip to an event, you want to be able to FLY. For events that span 10 sims or more, it's insane to turn off fly. The best sort of events are those that either alphabetize the merchants, or put their logos on a big board with a TP that takes you directly to their booth. The merchants who send out DIRECT landmarks to exactly their gatcha or booth are the ones whose groups I stay in and whose wares I buy, because I don't have to comb through laggy sims never finding them. I've noticed that some major events like We ❤️ RP that used to have huge layouts, sometimes even over several sims, which made it a huge chore to try to find things, even by camming, have tended to scrap this method and opt for large domes in one place rather than rows that you have to struggle to walk up and down. This has made it so much easier and more enjoyable to shop. And they save on sim tier.
  7. It It most certainly is enforceable -- in the most brutal way, like Russia or China or Iran. For "any reason or no reason," the Lindens can simply expel you from the service and block you from logging on again. This is done routinely without appeal for new accounts; older accounts might get a review but generally if the Lindens arrive at a decision to ban you, they will. And this will be for violation of the TOS -- as they see it, without recourse. Perhaps by "not enforceable" you mean that they don't bother to chase all violators, they don't have the resources. But that is really different than "not enforced" because generally the Lindens do enforce their TOS, and brutally, without appeal. And once again, they CANNOT enforce a TOS of their making as a private company OUTSIDE of their realm, i.e. their servers, to which you are logged in, either the world or forums or any other related property. The end.
  8. I'd have to disagree with that. While there are a lot of amateur shots and a fair share of them come from me, there are enormous numbers of very high-quality shots, look at Flickr, look at the top blogs.
  9. Once again, Linden Lab does not have jurisdiction outside its own servers. You would not want them to have it, nor would they want it. Everything in the TOS and things like this machinima policy refer to usage *inside the realm of Second Life*. And again, no one has mounted a successful privacy-related lawsuit involving an avatar and a virtual world. Call me when they do. That's to be distinguished from *copyright*-related suits, where they may have a case if there was *commercial use*. So again, *it does not matter what the landowner forbids*. Neither he, nor LL, have jurisdiction outside of Second Life.
  10. I could point out that they received less use....because they were broken lol. Either totally broken, as Twitter became, or sporadically broken (like the email to Typepad posting) such as to discourage people. I don't know why these platforms keep changing their interfaces, but it may be like Internet radio stations who constantly change their URLS, baffling and maddening those trying to make SL radios out of them: they want to drive people back to their properties so users click on their own ads or availing themselves to be data-scraped; they don't want to be accessed by someone else's property clicking on that owner's ads and being scraped by another party.
  11. There is absolutely NOTHING "unethical" about posting outside SL. Linden Lab itself recognizes this and put share in the viewer. Taking it out is a technical matter, not a finding that it is "unethical". LL's jurisdiction does not extend past its servers and it can't police speech or images and how they are posted. As in real life, if you are in a public square, you mind wind up in a photograph; deal with it. No lawsuits have successfully been brought on the grounds of people being photographed in public spaces, although there are always some who try. The exception is if you photograph a person or place to use it for a *commercial* purpose, i.e. if they are trademarked or you exploit their IP in some way. But not the mere fact of them being in a photo. Another exception is the Video Voyeurism Prevention Act of 2004 which prohibits filming people in places where they have a reasonable expectation of privacy, their home, a gym dressing room, and notably casinos that have this as a rule on their premises. Then you can fined. No one has pressed a successful lawsuit invoking the Video Voyeurism Prevention Act for a virtual world, involving their avatar. Sure, it's a courtesy to ask people before you film them. But if I am snapping shots of an event, I will include random people who pass by. Don't tell me that they get all dressed up in their finest costumes and holdable dogs to hide and not be photographed. Ridiculous. SL is all about photographs as Flickr will tell you.
  12. Don't use that link, sorry, that's the link FOR ME to keep me out, so get there from your view of the page.
  13. Well, the Lindens could explain but maybe simply because it kept breaking down? And wasn't used enough to bother spending resources on fixing it? It feels like an executive decision. Here are the release notes. It references SL-11984 which I can't see because I'm banned from the JIRA. So maybe someone can read it and see why someone would propose this. https://jira.secondlife.com/browse/SL-11984
  14. I would think that if something is entirely removed from the viewer so that the user interface no longer has it, they won't put it back. And if they marked the Twitter malfunction as "fixed" not by being fixed but evidently by being removed. Well, that's a great idea, that works for kidneys, too, remove it entirely, you know?
  15. So I noticed these liner notes that said "share removed from viewer" but I didn't grasp the ramifications until I tried to blog to Flickr while flying around sales and...it's gone. There doesn't seem to be any more option to post to Twitter or Flickr or anything. I was surprised to see that the Grid Status had a note about fixing the Twitter function, which I haven't gotten to work since the summer when they reported it. I thought this was an issue with the Twitter API and how it stops working in various ways in general. Some third-party merchants who made inworld post-to-Twitter devices also stopped working. It seems odd that they would post an emergency and imply they were going to fix Twitter, then take all sharing out of the viewer in a new patch the next day. ? (PS: it occurs to me that this was marked "resolved" simply because they removed the share function entirely from the viewer.) So I guess you have to "save to disk" and post from there. But the chances of that are reduced because it's a chore, for one, but more to the point, you have to hunt around and copy and save the SLURL as well, in order to post later. The beauty of the "share" from the viewer is that the SLURL was added automatically, even to Flickr. I realize that the aspiration of connecting avatars to social media was over-reach (except for perhaps Plurk) because people don't like to link their real life and SL identities. So it was a non-starter. But a lot of people have social media accounts with their avatar names. So now blogging to them is hobbled. Maybe it wasn't used much? Some time ago I was able to use the email photo function from the viewer to post to my blog on Typepad, because Typepad has a system of micro-posts from an email rather than navigating to the site and uploading. But then this stopped working completely (it always had its troubles) and Typepad said they couldn't see anything on their end. That is, it worked, but the pictures stripped out and you had only the text, which meant having to manually fix it but at least the SLURL was there. So that's why I changed to Twitter; when Twitter stopped functioning I changed to Flickr, which I don't really like and now I guess it's face the chores or do nothing (probably the latter). We've come a long way since the days when the Lab let one of its favoured sons with a huge screenshot-sharing site to use its mechanism to post directly to the secondlife.com front page -- can you imagine?! Naturally, it ended in tears, not even so much due to porn, but zillions of store and real estate ads posing as exploration photos. I also pointed out at the time that the third-party site could harvest people's RL emails. The host claimed these were dumped. Whatever. LL now combs through submissions rigorously to put one "photo of the day".
  • Create New...