Veronika Larsson

I can trace the decline of Second Life as a virtual world to the establishment of the ghetto known as Zindra, aka "the Naughty Place". Like it or not--and many people clearly don't like it--naughty people's activities are one of the driving forces of the Second Life economy. What happened when LL instituted age verification and an "adults only" holding pen? Several things: First, a lot of thriving escort clubs disappeared overnight. Approximately two-thirds of all escort clubs did not survive the move to the adult continent. Of those that did survive, almost all are struggling, with their traffic down to 20%-25% of pre-Zindra levels. The withering of the escort clubs means that a lot less money circulates in the SL economy. Escorts are known as free spenders: if an escort gets 2000L, she will spend it all (usually on dressing up her avatar one way or the other). Therefore, money put into the hands of escorts has a strong multiplier effect. I personally know several clothing retailers who have sharply curtailed their activities in-world or gone out of business entirely because there are no longer escorts to buy their merchandise. Second, a lot of Europeans have dropped out of Second Life PZ (Post-Zindra), probably because they couldn't get past the US-centric age verification requirements. You can witness this during the hours when the North Americans are in bed; the Europeans used to take over, and now Second Life overall is a ghost town during European daylight hours. Third, there has been a growing mistrust and disenchantment with Linden Labs. Everything critics predicted would happen as a result of the move to Zindra came true with a vengeance, and yet to date we've not seen Linden Labs make any effort to ameliorate their self-created disaster. One way of ameliorating would be to lower tiers on adult lands for clubs and other businesses, Linden Lab's own version of a "stimulus package". A lot of people have either quit Second Life in disgust (or despair) or, like me, have sharply curtailed their activities in-world. Fourth, a sense of community has been broken by the mass exodus of "naughty people". What's that? Naughty people had a community? Yes, we did, and there was an amazingly tight-knit circle among Second Life escorts (believe it or not) that has been irretrievably dissolved. After we moved to Zindra, I lost friends (especially my European friends) right and left, and took a seven-month break from Second Life because I found my friends list looking more like a list of obituaries. Rod, you missed the glory days of Second Life, and they are not coming back. The best you can hope to do now is have the courage and insight necessary to partially repair the enormous damage done to Second Life by your predecessor. Repairing that damage means healing the economy, giving people a reason to visit Second Life, and above all, rebuilding a sense of trust and communication with the Second Life residents. Most of us don't trust anything Linden Labs says or does; not your fault, but it's the mess you have inherited. I genuinely wish you luck and success in the task set before you. One of the commentators has already made this suggestion, but I will reiterate: Go incognito into Second Life and experience all it has to offer as an ordinary, non-premium Resident. Do this not just at first but as often as you can manage it. I guarantee your eyes will be opened.

Doc, I agree it might not be a bad experience for men to see what it's like to be a woman, even for a bit. As for women in RL being treated like men just because we wear pants or "business suits"--think again! I am treated as a woman, with all the good and bad that implies, no matter how I dress. If you think I've experienced "life as a man" because I wore a pants suit...think again

That exact quote should be in the Terms Of Service

If it is, we'll have to file Abuse Reports against 75% of the residents in "lesbian" or "women only" clubs, not to mention 85% of the escorts in Second Life!

"Seeing as Linden Labs, as a company, has to abide by US law does not mean that their definition of consent has to extend to all those supported by the real world system. Because so long as they, as a company, abide by the laws they can do what they want with their ToS and their game. " Exactly so. Let us take the case of a person who is banned from Second Life for ageplay, which happens from time to time. When Linden Labs cancels that person's account, he/she loses everything--all the money he/she has invested in inventory as well as any Lindens (which can be converted into RL money!) in his/her account--without any right of compensation. In Real Life, under US law, the government cannot just seize your property and money without "due process" (a court hearing). In Second Life, the Lindens can deprive you of your property and money without giving you a right to any "due process" if they so choose. Daria Afterthought is confusing "the law" with "Terms Of Service", and hence the confusion.

something tells me this is one of those threads where its like "I have my opinion made up and I just want to see how many people agree with me. Other points of view and/or facts are irrelevant. I just want attention and praise" = "I don't agree with Daria Afterthought." Once again, you are confusing "law" with "Terms Of Service". Sharing IMs is not a matter for civil or criminal litigation. Linden Labs has stated that it is a matter covered by their Terms Of Service. I asked a question whether or not anybody could find anything stated in the Terms Of Service that would validate the statement that by IMing a certain person, you implicitly consent to having your IMs shared with the world, and would have no right to an Abuse Report. Really, the only people who can definitely answer this are the Lindens themselves, because they have the power to interpret the Terms Of Service, which is the contract between the residents of Second Life and Linden Labs. You keep bringing US law into this, and it has no applicability in this situation. So you are operating from a fundamentally flawed premise, and now you're making personal accusations that have no place in a reasonable discussion.

I am not a lawyer, of course, but the example of "passive consent" (called "acquiescence" by American lawyers) is that I make an mp3 player and call it an "iPod", which is an infringement on Apple's trademarked and patented product. Apple knows of my iPod but fails to object to the use of that name for a long period of time, and so in legal terms has "acquiesced" (consented by silence) to allow me to use the trademark. That is very different from stating "if you IM me, you consent to have your IMs shared." Or do I have to insert a statement in MY profile, "if I IM you, I do NOT consent, passively or actively, to having my IMs shared?" Isn't that getting a bit silly? It seems to me the Terms Of Service are clear on this point. "Consent" means active consent: the other person asks, "May I have your permission to post our conversation or share it with someone else?" and you say "Yes." The only case in which there might be "passive consent" is if I know the other person is sharing IMs and I do not object. However, it doesn't matter what US law says, really, it says what the Linden Labs' Terms Of Service says--the TOS is "the law" that governs in this case

You are a lawyer? That is not explicitly stated anywhere in the Terms Of Service. Sharing IMs doesn't break any US laws, it violates the Terms Of Service. No one who shares IMs faces criminal or civil penalties under the US justice system for doing so, but they do face sanction by the Lindens for violating TOS. Sorry, but I think your reasoning is misapplied.

Where do you find this statement about "passive consent" in the Terms Of Service? I couldn't find it anywhere.

What's even worse than the fact that she freely shares private IMs without other people's consent, but is notorious for altering the notecards (by either adding or deleting the words of other people) to make them look bad. She has caused a lot of friends to fall out with each other by altering notecards and then sharing them in this way. And yes, she has MANY Abuse Reports filed against her, but to my knowledge hasn't even gotten a suspension from Second Life. Not sure what it takes to get the Lindens to act on that issue.

This person put that statement in her profile because many people have filed Abuse Reports against her for sharing IMs (private chats)--now she is claiming that if you IM her, you have "consented" to share those IMs because she put that disclosure in her profile. I read the Terms of Service, including Community Standards, three times and couldn't find anything resembling that exception she is claiming in her profile.

This is the Community Standards statement that says you can't share IMs: Disclosure Residents are entitled to a reasonable level of privacy with regard to their Second Life experience. Sharing personal information about a fellow Resident --including gender, religion, age, marital status, race, sexual preference, and real-world location beyond what is provided by the Resident in the First Life page of their Resident profile is a violation of that Resident's privacy. Remotely monitoring conversations, posting conversation logs, or sharing conversation logs without consent are all prohibited in Second Life and on the Second Life Forums. Link to Community Standards

I recently read the updated profile of an SL resident who is notorious for sharing IM conversations (in violation of the Second Life Terms of Service).  She has updated her profile to include this statement: "Disclaimer: Chat/IMs may be recorded & shared (stating this, releases me from liability per SL TOS)" Is this true?  I searched through the Second Life Terms of Service (SL TOS) and couldn't find any such exception to the "do not share IMs" rule. Anybody know whether or not a disclaimer such as this releases this person from being in violation of Second Life Terms of Service?