Breaking Clickable Culture

Some of you who have taken on the ornery and obsessive csven concord yourself can appreciate what you are up against with this relentless tekkie mind. His occasional contributions of something useful "to the industry" or "the community" (as the elitists often describe themselves) can't be allowed to obscure his basic pernicious role in defending the destruction of free thinking. He does this *in the name of* free thinking so it because especially pernicious. If you need to brush up on some of the basic premises of a free society in which free thinking is possible go read even the Wikipedia entry on Karl Popper. This debate may seem sectarian, stupid, a flame fest, a troll-frest, but it's actually quite important. It seems to have "broken" the website Clickable Culture in that you can't even pull up the thread and read it through much less post it anymore. I'm not sure why that is -- Tony had written me earlier that it was a bug.

When you get a real harassing public menace like csven, it really pays to fight back hard, I find. Someone like me who is outspoken and disagrees with him openly of course will have to suffer the laser-like focus of his obsessive freak-outs, but it's actually educational. And when he begins to stoop to the level of sexual harassment, disclosure of real life, and really hardcore insult language, I think it's important to fight back and get people to condemn it. I don't wilt and declare blogging boycotts or refuse to answer posts like this, I fight back. If you find it obsessive and tiresome, don't bother to read after the fold. But I hope you will join me in thinking about how we will defend *the right to be wrong* and the right *to support even unsupportable hypotheses". Both of these are CRITICAL to independent thinking and keeping societies free on the Internet as in real life. It's impossible to have free debate if there are technically proficient actual makers of the Metaverse who tinker around in it who can get at the controls and then close off all criticism, debate, even modes of thinking by overwhelming force. csven rings all the chimes in the illegitimate tekkie methods, not only personal insult and the ubiquitous tekkie literalism, but insult culture -- calling me a worm, a liar, a wriggler, etc merely because I chose to debate him, and in doing so, I make errors -- errors that I invited him in fact to correct.

I'm calling this post as I am not only because of the literal breaking of this forum, but because I wish to really work hard to break the "clickable culture" owned by tekkies who think that being conversant in technology means they can force others to behave in a certain way.

Prokofy: Um, there's no "lie" here and no "hypocrisy" but a
statement that I believed to be true. A statement I believe to be true *is*
a fact until it is *disproven*.

csven: Bullshit. You KNEW you had claimed something you had no reason to believe
was factual. Let's revisit the sequence of events:

a) Prok made a factual claim
b) csven asked for source
c) Prok tried to avoid answering by suggesting the sources were already
provided
d) csven found nothing and had to ask again
e) Prok told csven to find it on his own but provided a "discussion" link
and claimed "One of these articles indicated that it had."
f) csven found nothing in that link to substantiate the claim nor anything
indicating a law had been passed
g) Prok got all hot 'n bothered, ranted & railed and eventually asked for
"proof" it *didn't* pass
h) csven first reminded Prok that the burden of proof was on her but then
provided proof the bill had been defeated
i) Prok is now trying to wiggle out from under her LIES

Prokofy: Let's revisit what ACTUALLY happened, shall we:

a) Prok made a factual claim and placed links, in good faith, believing the claim was supported
b) csven asked for sources even though links were placed
c) Prok, not fearing to be "caught in a lie" or "caught without supporting evidence" re-directed csven AGAIN to the source links already shown, confident they would provide information
d) csven found that these particular stories didn't contain the information and demanded more links
e) Prok, not concerned that this would be somehow difficult to find and would be a matter of easy public record, what state passed what law, urged csven to go Google himself if he was so obsessed about it
f) Prok did not get "hot and bothered" but *shrugged* that csven was on such a rampage
g) csven claimed the burden of proof was on Prok, but in fact Prok had already obviously implied that it was a matter of public record. Referring to something so easily found -- although not READILY found when I first looked for awhile! -- is ample proof that there is no "weasling" or "hiding" but just being too busy and not obsessed enough to go find it.
h) csven found that the bill hadn't been passed -- great! He was motivated to obsess about it, and had been invited to obsess and that's precisely the point -- you can't hide from the truth, and I sure don't on something like that, I invite others to go fetch it.
i) I can hardly be accused of "wriggling out of lies" when I invite anybody to explore the facts and show an ample willingness to be corrected. And what if I am corrected about the Fact of a bill passing or not -- which I could hardly dispute! It matters not -- as I had a more over-arching point to make.

Prokofy: Some states DID buck the iron federal hand, and tried to pass
laws -- they had significant support, they failed, possibly foundering on
the reality of losing that road funding.

csven: And as I stated, you didn't "discover" anything because the states were
bucking that national pressure since BEFORE the Feds made it a law. So all
that so-called research of yours did only one thing: it gave us a chance to
catch you in a LIE.

That's fucking ridiculous, of course, since duh, I *did* discover it at least *for myself* and *for the purposes of this debate*. csven himself only researched and googled it as I did, and had no deep prior knowledge of what pressure existed -- if he had, he'd have cited it much earlier. And assuming that a bill that had significant support became a law because an article appeared to say as much isn't a "lie" -- it's merely a mistaken reading. Given the fact that something like this can't be hidden -- the status of a bill -- I can hardly be accused of plotting to keep a "lie" going about a bill. If someone is going to *lie*, they have to have intent, and a belief that they lie won't be uncovered. One can hardly *lie* about something like whether a bill became a law or not, as it is a matter of public record! Only in csven's harsh and feverish imagination can someone conceive of "lying" about what any fool can see is a matter of public record.

Prokofy: I will go on insisting on my right to put forth statements that
may or may not be true or false, but are what I believe to be the
case.

csven: And I will go on insisting that they're LIES (in the common language).

This is apparently an ageold debate, in part about the falsifiability of statements, but also about the right and the freedom to make unsupported/unsupportable hypotheses and incorrect statements. If the Thought Police Tekkies are going to call them "lies" each time someone argues with them, what freedom of thinking can there be? It's a completely inadmissible mode of argumentation. It's hardly common language whatsoever. No one can be assumed to be attempting to perpetrate a "lie" when they are discussing *a simple matter of public record like a bill that didn't become a law*. One can operate in good faith; one can be mistaken. To assume and impugn to another the motivation and planning for "lying" about what is obviously available in Google is preposterous -- and a threat to free thinking -- the very freedom that csven claims to be supporting -- but of course, like his other claims, is misleading.

Prokofy: That's the essence of an open debate. If every time a person is proven mistaken, they are called "a liar" and "a hypocrite," then no free debate can occur. So I reject that method of blasting people who are
incorrect in their suppositions and statement -- it's demonstrably made in good faith.

csven: and I reject the method you use:

1) do half-assed research only up to the point you think your argument is
supported
2) make a "supposition" that the remaining research supports your belief
3) claim that "supposition" is an "illustrious fact"
4) provide no support for this declaration
5) deflect requests supporting the declaration
6) claim it was all done in "good faith"

No one can expect in an Internet forum that people in their leisure hours are replying to, not as paid work, can do anything more than a "half-assed Google search" -- the SAME kind of "half-assed" Google search that csven himself did by finding the exact same Wisconsin PDF document (his computer didn't freeze on trying to open it; mine did).

There is absolutely NOTHING wrong with reading a series of news clippings over a year, seeing there is a bill, seeing that it had significant support, and even seeing a reference to it as passing, and making an assumption that it DID pass. NOTHING WHATSOEVER. It's not bad journalism, it's not bad research, it's not bad debating or bad thinking. It's merely *a mistake*. One that is made *in good faith*.

The idea that people who are obsessive cranks like csven being told to go look for their own back-up is "deflecting requests" is absurd. A matter of public record is a matter of public record! Those who are obsessed and go look! anyone not wishing to waste time can tell the obsessed ones to go look!

My mentioning of the bills was made in good faith; it does not require me to turn in a peer-reviewed bound manuscript ready for publication.

csven: That's being dishonest and deceptive... in the common language.

No, it's merely not wishing to be *as obsessive and literalist as csven*. It's accepting what was readily found in Google after a half hour or so -- and calling it a day.

Prok: Um, there's no lie, and no cover-up, just an attempt to reason with someone who is appearing more and more to be deranged.

csven: And you have long appeared to me to be mentally ill. Stalemate.

I frankly think csven suffers from some condition, as I've seen this play out now more and more, and deteriorate to really epic proportions lately. One can easily appear mentally ill online. I am certainly not "mentally ill" and no one who knows me makes that claim -- it's fake Internet psychology. I think others who have tangled with csven online have the same concerns about him. I guess he's the last to know and we can't expect progress on this condition.

>Difference is, you were caught in a LIE.

That kind of malicious and gleeful google-gotcha isn't being caught in a "lie" -- it's being victimized by an obsessive googling crank. Again: you can't be "caught in a lie" about something so normal, mundane, and obvious as a bill that either did or didn't become a law.

Prok: I don't see any link. And so what if quote from the very article? I obviously didn't see it as the blanket admission csven did.

csven: Try clicking ON the quote. OR just go back to the Information Week interview with Philip if you can't manage that. You found it once, one would hope you could find your way back.

It simply doesn't show up as something "clickable" to me. That's the limit of the so-called "clickable culture". But so what? I don't agree on the reading of Philip here.

csven: For everyone else, I recommend reading it. It's clear to me (and I believe to the author) that Philip's lack of consideration is a frightening admission. And even Prok, in comments, seems to think it is.

At least I have the good judgement to distinguish between the real threat coming from Philip, which is his casual dumping of universality and human rights, and don't ascribe to him fake threats, based on his proper limitation of endless licentiousness with which people want to have at his platform.

csven: Read it yourself and form your own opinion.

A fake claim, as csven will not accept someone's formed opinion that would differ from his own.

Prokofy: Nice manuever and manipulation, in true Bolshevik spirit! My reference isn't to Philip's knowledge or lack of knowledge about the German TV and police; my reference *is to the form the Linden response
took* which I don't expect him to be involved in the details of.

csven: I think it's pretty clear we're discussing a rather broad issue when the sub-issues include everything from virtual child porn to inter-religion dating and the legality of sex toys. No one (at least no one
with any common sense) expects Philip to manage the minutia.

Typical non-sequitur. Now all of a sudden it *is* clear to csven that Philip doesn't manage everything? He concedes that? But five minutes ago, he didn't.

csven: Now either you have no common sense or you're trying to wiggle your way
out again, wormwoman.

Ugh.

Prokofy: No, csven's untethered, deranged take on reality.

csven: Funny, I and many other people think it's you who exhibit unhinged
behavior.

There aren't any "many other people" that csven is in touch with; that's his hallucination. A few people have bothered -- or risked -- to take on csven. They get the problem with him. Clickable Culture is a good place to mine for that.

Prokofy: I would suggest that societies that oppress women, and give away child brides or make assigned marriages to little girls of 9 or 12 don't advance, economically or socially. And I'm not terribly concerned
that these are the people dialing into Second Life anyway, as their countries are not likely to have broadband.

csven: Not likely???

csven: Hate to break this to you, Catherine, but the U.S. does NOT lead the world in broadband adoption. Nor does it lead the world in wireless.

Here csven adopts the abusive tactics of a Plastic Duck or an Ian Betteridge, using my real-life name to try to bully and shame me into silence, thinking that if my debates under my avatar name are somehow linked and "outed" that I will flee in humiliation and shame at being "outed with my lies".

Nothing could be more preposterous because there isn't any shame, nor any lies. I prefer not to have my avatar and my RL names linked. There's nothing with that. There is no inherent evil in such a thing. It's not my choice that they are linked. People link them -- and usually when they do it's precisely because they *imagine* that if they can "rub my face in it" or "force everybody Googling me to see both names" that I will be "discredited, humiliated, shamed".

Ugh, such is Google culture, such is tekkie culture, such is clickable culture -- my God, it's totally fucked. It's wrong. The idea that you can silence a person by connecting their anonymous avatar to a RL name; the idea that you can FORCE a writer who is essentialy opting to write under a pseudonym (even an obvious known one) to somehow be "shamed" is really sick. It bespeaks a force and violence and coercion that is really frightening if you imagine the people wielding this method become too powerful. It's good for people to take accountability for their posts, especially abusive posts, by linking to a name in SL or RL -- I have that rule here on this blog. But to then push that into saying that someone's RL name should be outed and linked with a discussion that is *not related* to their RL is preoposterous.

In the back of csven's fetid mind is probaly some notion that if he can connect my names, my colleagues or employers or readers in RL will "help shame me" or "keep me in line" or even "punish me". It's sick.

But I stand by what I wrote. The users of SL aren't from countries that have child brides and agents of consent as low as 13. And even if there are some (even North Korea has some registrations), what of it? They're not going to be able to impose these significantly different norms, differing very far from the liberal norms of California, on Second Life.

Note how csven goes off here on a technical tangent, too, hoping to impress with "superior knowledge" about broadband this or that. What if there are countries with more users than the U.S.? They aren't the countries with child bridges and low ages of consent, not typical of industrialized nations. Huh? What the hell is his point here? One doesn't have to make any sort of U.S.-centric gambit to make a common-sense point about the sheer inadmissibility of csven's invocation of countries with child-bride tolerance or low ages of consent as a rationale for Linden Lab to become paralyzed in enforcing its own policy of intolerance to the promotion of "ageplay".

csven: Are you familiar with the term "leapfrog nation". That's when countries leapfrog a technology and adopt a more modern one. That's why cell phones are so prevalent in even the poorest parts of the world; it's cheaper to put up towers than it is to bury cables. So what you have are just these kinds of societies jumping on at increasing rates of adoption.

Uh, yuh. And...they not only get broadband, they uh...get high-end graphic cards, really fast computers with loads of memory AND leisure time and technical knowledge. Sure, they leapfrog. But...not the areas of the world with child brides. And if for various reasons some of these countries DO have some residents in SL, they aren't likely to be the proponents of child brides, hmmm? And...even if they *are* that doesn't mitigate against LL developing a reasonable and balanced policy, not hobbling itself by the presence of all kinds of restrictive or overly licentious laws in the world.

csven: I've read reports that broadband adoption is slowing in Europe, and the U.S. is considered a laggard (we rank somewhere in the 20's last I read). Meanwhile China is probably the current leader in broadband adoption. And adoption is spreading throughout the "backward" world:
http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/12/03/technology/btdivide.php
(url code not working with .php , apparently)

csven: Breakthroughs in the delivery of the Internet have created a variety of ways to spread high-speed Internet in developing countries, in some cases bringing remote regions online more rapidly than expected.
These technologies, although mainly used to bring broadband access to customers in wealthy countries, are now being employed to upgrade and leapfrog Internet delivery networks in developing countries.
"The penetration of broadband in developing markets suddenly feels like 1999 in Europe and North America," said Michel Rahier, president of fixed communications at Alcatel-Lucent. "The broadband equipment we sell into developing markets has increased from a small percentage to a significant amount." - (Link IS the quote)

Um, note the sleight-of-hand here -- and here one would *like* to credit good faith, but knowing of the huffy hysteria of csven one now has to assume duplicity. Why? Because first he claims that child brides and low age of consent in some countries is a reason for LL to become paralyzed with inaction and not make an "ageplay" policy (!). Next, when I say those countries aren't likely to be using SL or dialing in, he gets superior and huffy and third-worldist, trying to "shame me," and *implies* -- duplicitously! -- that in fact the leapfrogging phenomenon and the rapid spread of broadband will prove me in error.

But...then he cites *China*. Not Nigeria or Pakistan. But *China*. Which doesn't have any child bride or low age of consent issues, and maintains a public culture of modesty in fact totally unlike the licentious West. Now, I could be *wrong*. I'm basing this on general knowledge. I never heard of any Chinese child-brides and 12-year-old prostitutes as the norm. Of course csven or anyone else can go on a gleeful Google gotcha gallop and disprove me. The public record will disprove me or not. I do think the center of gravity here, however, is that broadly speaking, countries that oppress women and also have low ages of consent or even child brides are a) unlikely to be able to access SL; b) unlikely to use it; c) even if they do, unlikely to influence LL in any way.

Um...of course...I'm quite ready to concede that in their violent and zealous quest for legitimacy, the pedophiles of SL, representing the excesses of licentious and hedonistic and nihilistic Western culture, might go halfway around the world and find common cause with the oppessive, patriarchical, and restrictive cultures of the East. Anything is possible in SL. Citing the oppressive cultural norm of child-brides in justification for "ageplay" as simulated child rape in a virtual world puts pedophiles and their apologists in common cause with some of the world's worst human rights abusers. Not surprising.

>Morocco had a 100 fold increase since 2005. What is Morocco's definition of "normal". Does it include recognizing homosexuals or does it outlaw homosexuality? Whoops. Homosexuality is illegal in Morocco. Good thing they're probably too small to affect Linden Lab's grid-wide policy. But... will Linden Lab reveal the identities of those engaged in Pretend Homosexual behavior to the Moroccan authorities in respect of their local laws... and get those people thrown in prison (at best) or beaten to death (at worst)??? We
don't really know, do we? I consider that uncertainty a failure of Western "civilization". And to think, Morocco is considered a "liberal" country compared to plenty of others.

So? We can all find it oppressive that Morocco outlaws homosexuality. Any gay person using the Internet in any way then, not just in SL, will be vulnerable to their draconian laws. Are we to burden Linden Lab with that problem inherent in some countries of the world? Why? Just as the entire Internet and its makers can't always come to the defense of every single person thrown in jail for its use wrongfully in oppressive countries, so LL can't be expected to champion the cause of those using SL and winding up in trouble. We'd like to think they are that enlightened. But they aren't. We could hope for them at least "above all do no harm," that they will not help a repressive government in a China or a Morocco to jail people. LL could strategically refuse to turn over information to oppressive countries, citing confidentiality, and there's not a thing that that country and the U.S. could do about it. LL can be *selective* about which authorities it does cooperate with.

The presence of a *potential* (not actual) threat from Morocco is no reason for the Lindens to remain paralyzed by tekkie literalism, however. They can make a policy, resolve to do their best, and move on. They can work with authorities on things they can broadly agree are broadly offensive. On things they don't find offensive, they can punt or even forcefully decline. But...where are the cases of a China or a Morocco banging on LL to get information? Fact is, their information-grabbing abilities are so great in the first place that it's no trouble at all for them to know what's up without any LL. In that sense, it's just the Internet. At what point do we cease expecting LL to be more than any other common carrier or ISP? Or less?

The spirit with which csven comes after this debate -- hectoring, literalist, know-it-all, abusive, corrosive -- is NOT the spirit with which these complex issues will be resolved.

We already know what LL thinks about the law -- it's in the TOS and CS. They can be expected to enforce that much! That TOS and CS doesn't allow for an age of consent and child brides at 13 now, does it? It says adults are 18 and older. Full stop. It has language about not tolerating intolerance, and it has a jurisprudence of a police blotter punishing those who make anti-gay actions and hate. So there's no reason to think LL will cave and go *below* their own TOS, is there? I don't see that there is. csven is manufacturing false problems, to which he then implies he and his clan are the solution -- more freely configurable hardware to put tekkies outside the reach of governments with civilian control in any format.

csven: Just wait til the real cultural collision comes. Anyone out there, besides the wormwoman, thinking it won't be a mess?

This is a totally wierd statement, as I often write about the clash of civilizations in SL, which I believe to be an evolving reality, and one in which SL will accelerate and worsen, not solve, in many cases.

But the real cultural collision here is with "Two Sciences" -- csven's insanely literalist and violently zealous orthodoxy about licentiousness and relativism, and my moderate humanitarianism saying that a balancing of the interests of freedom and protection is possible. It's one LL strives to make. It's doable. It is done each day already.

Prokofy: csven has truly gone over the top with this one. Imagine, trying to argue backward from the existence of countries with "the age of consent as young as 13" to a policy that should apply for Linden Lab to
limit its liability for litigation in countries that prohibit child pornography. Oh well, csven is untethered from reality.

csven: Only that's not what I'm doing. I'm clearly asking a question:
"Should the West now dictate standards to the rest of the
world?"

And why can't it? I'm unblinkingly firm here on this one. If the concept of universality coming from Western civilization can ensure freedom for all, and even the freedom for the unfree, why on earth or in cyberspace must I adopt some oppressive dictate from "Asian values" or "African unity" or "Latin American liberation movements" or whatever amalgam csven comes up with. One can be multi-culti and liberal til the cows come home, affirming that the West shouldn't 'dictate standards'. Except...the very concept of NOT dictating standards DOES come from the West, is one that the West should be proud of, and one which csven unwittingly takes advantage of in his very jihad here. So I stand by it: yes, it's more than fine for the West to dictate standards. The West's standards have proven to be more free, more tolerant, and more open than any other standards that might come from the East or South. Why should we go below those norms???

csven: Catherine doesn't want to answer that question and instead takes the unthinking, unreasoning, emotional Mob Rules approach.

I don't know where csven concocts these concepts that I "don't wish to answer a question" merely because I'm not as obsessive about posts as he is.

csven: In order for me to "argue backward" to a policy would mean I think Linden Lab should have an age-based policy. I don't believe I've said they need such a policy and Catherine hasn't provided support for such a supposition.

Talk about wiggle worms! csven has spent pages and pages insisting that LL is all wet and all wrong with trying to make a policy in the face of what he claims to be wildly different laws even with ages of consent as low as 13 (or lower!) making a mockery of any notion of "ageplay". Of course he's been proven to be a hysteric and a crank in doing so.

csven: Does the Internet have a totalitarian age-based policy set by a single company? Not that I'm aware. So if Linden Lab's goal is to become the future 3D internet, why would they start imposing totalitarian policies?

csven: Mob Rules.

Um...as distinct from the Mob Rules that csven and his tekkie ilk would impose on us by forcing their brand of extreme licentiousness and "code-is-law"? Huh? All ISPs have TOS. They are all pretty similar. They all talk about forgoing hate speech and libel, thereby considerably going below the standards of the U.S. First Amendment. Whether this is good or bad, can't take away from the obvious fact that what LL is doing is just like any other ISP or hosting service. There isn't broad acceptance of simulated child rape on the Internet. Services and communities have rules. And that's ok! And these are all more alike than different! There isn't any broad acceptance of the extremes csven is hysterically fighting for in some misguided crusade for "the freedom of the metaverse". His clamouring to make LL bear the burder for his clan's desire to push out the boundaries of the extreme is curious. He can't do that at Flickr or tripod or Myspace. Why does he think LL should be crusading out at the extreme edge?

Prokofy: Everything in Second Life is pretend activity; we are finding that even pretend activity falls under the jurisdiction of real life law. That's life in the big city.

And this is Catherine Fitzpatrick acquiescing to the Rule of the Thought
Police.

No, this is merely reporting on the real consequences of simulation and virtuality. It's a report. It's not me deciding, oh, let's have the German police. The German police come on their own! And could it have been different? Maybe. Maybe it LL listened to the community's disgust with "ageplay" a year ago. Maybe if it had self-policed in keeping with what the community rightly found "broadly offensive" it wouldnt' be dealing with RL police now. But ultimately, RL and its authorities trump all. You can't claim that something is "pretend," and then not acknowledge that the real trumps it.

csven: Don't know about the rest of you, but I still tend to think of America as a FREE country. I know that's increasingly unrealistic, but then maybe that's *my* fantasy.

Broadly speaking, the freeness of America isn't used to create simulation of child rape in schools, malls, movie theaters, and public buildings. The idea that the extremes csven is reaching for must become permissible norms is sick.

Prokofy: Oh, and here csven -- untethered from common sense and any smidgeon of reality! -- goes off on this toot again about "Wacky and Wierd and Downright oppressive Laws of the World That He's Dug Up"

csven: Nope. Just reminding Catherine of what she said: "local law asserting itself".

Here we go again with csven a) trying to goad and harass using a RL name and b) assuming everybody is a hypocrite if they don't see it his way. Local law will assert itself. So? that's no reason for LL to make a policy going far below its own existing TOS. Furthermore, one could point out that the countries with child bride tolerance aren't likely to also expouse a licentious BDSM culture -- they aren't compatible in that particular way. Laws assert themselves -- local law of RL assserts itself at misguided tekkie utopian constructs trying to trump the popular will -- and local law of more free states working against less free.

Most likely there will be a tug of war going in both directions, but I think it's safe to say that as LL's TOS embodies certain principles, so it will stick to them in dealing with RL authorities.

Prokofy: Only whether a local law will assert itself isn't really the issue here. The issue is most obvious when asking this simple question: Will Linden Lab support local authorities trying to enforce local laws which they consider repressive and uncivilized? will Linden Lab cave in like Yahoo and others when their business might be adversely impacted?

We don't know. "Full stop".

And Linden Lab can talk all they want, can hold town hall meetings, post stuff on their "official blog" and enter their business policy into their ToS; it doesn't matter. That's because Linden Lab can do whatever
they want, whenever they want. "Full stop".

csven: Linden Lab is a dictatorship. Always has been. And where once Catherine railed against that, she's now supporting it... because in this one particular case, it suits her to do so. "Full stop".

Hardly. A *report* that LL is able to do what it wants as a proprietary company with a subscription model to what amounts to a private club isn't an endorsement of their methods. And criticizing them on their uneven enforcement of their TOS, and even their arbitary and indifferent interpretation of their TOS, doesn't somehow then bind me to always and everywhere criticize their TOS.

See, this is where the steely minds of the tekkie go very, very wrong and become very, very sinister. They can't hold two things in their mind at once if the extremes of them somehow contradict some uber Platonic ideal they hold in their brains (they, who are more often than not religious). They can't have a BALANCE. They can't have some things right, some things wrong within a holistic whole. That's what's so problematic about letting them run things. They cannot make a realistic, tethered world that doesn't lurch to extremes.

And are the Lindens really inconsistent here? No, because they always said the service was for 18 years and older, and they always had a ban on "broadly offensive" and "obscene" material. In the effort to keep out under 18, they would have to include not only real-life child porn, but any situation that RL law found to be enabling to real-life child porn that was under investigation. Sorry if that rains on your pretend parade, but they have a service to run and a TOS to enforce, not an abstract hysterical idealism to vamp on forums because they have no real occupation to tether them.

csven: I call that being a self-serving Hypocrite. "Full stop".

Again -- disagree with csven, and suddenly, you are a self-serving Hypocrite capital "H". Freedom of speech and expression and assembly doesn't include crime. Crime is defined as virtual child porn, and crime is defined -- under the TOS -- as that which is broadly obscene. There you go. Case closed. Someone may differ in their interpretation, based on their judgement and their belief system -- that's their right. I've made my case. It's my perception and my interpretation that has more going for it -- everything from the German police to Linden Lab -- than csven has, frankly speaking.

csven: I fail to see how countries with standards far below the standards that LL sets in a democratic liberal country like the United States can somehow overthrow that liberalism, introducing draconian
concepts like "no interracial dating" or "no interreligious dating" into Second Life "just because" they happen to exist in Pakistan or India or wherever they exist. Huh?

Prokofy: They're already doing it. "Virtual child porn" isn't illegal in the U.S. and Linden Lab was, iirc, pretty clear during earlier flare-ups on this SAME issue, that they wouldn't get involved.

Wow, such another obvious sleight-of-hand! First, quote draconian laws of other states like Pakistan or Saudia Arabai, let's say, about bride-burning or interreligious-dating, standards far *below* the norms of RL California and LL -- and then whoops in the next sentence castigate LL for having the OPPOSITE problem in csven's view which is having standards that go BELOW the more laissez-faire US First Amendment law -- even though First Amendment protections aren't a requirement in a private club with subscriptions and a TOS, hello? Very neat magic trick, that one!

And once again, "virtual child porn" may at this time "not be illegal" in the US -- but says who? csven? Any court that has examined it? Any ISP? whatever the extremist abstraction of this notion that csven may apply in general to be true will, unfortunately for his hysterical hedonism, be trumped by whatever ISP, EULA, club, association, school, library, workplace that encounters this Internet service. The First Amendment, for all its wonders, cannot intrude into every private space and sphere of First Life. To expect that Second Life can extend and enforce the First Amendment domain is absurd -- it can't.

We may *wish* it too -- I think the sooner that LL can manage itself to become more like a Mall of America and less like the Boy Scouts the better -- but how to reach that goal? They don't agree with me or most people who wish they cared more about civil rights. They think that spreading the gospel of the service and platform itself is more important than values. That's troubling. But since I also value SL, I could urge them to pick their battles. I wouldn't want them to destroy the entirety of SL even for one country by caving to the hysterical lobby of conniving pedophiles and their misguided apologists in the quest for extreme utopianism in SL. It's not necessary to broadly protect and extend free speech that you capture extremism of sadistic and brutal pedophilia into the bargain.

csven: Suddenly Germans are a major part of SL's population and - whooops - Linden Lab dumps its previous hands-off policy and not only helps *local* German authorities enforce *local* laws but then does two things:
a) changes the rules for everyone
b) implements a new Age Verification system
So much for Second Life is the future Internet!

Actually, they didn't institute a policy AFTER the Germans came; they developed a card that they distributed to clubs in violation of what they themselves determined to be "broadly offensive" under their community standards. It *is* broadly offensive. And they acted because phenomenon was growing more aggressive and widespread and feeling a sense of impunity and more and more people were abuse-reporting the "ageplayers". I watched this phenomenon. It's silly to imply the Lindens lurched into action over one RL politician or TV show -- it was a series of actions over time.

And yes, if Germans and similar EU-law states are now a major portion of SL, they have to take this into account. It wasn't what they or anybody anticipated in those heady days when they imagined this immune utopia would be built, but there it is.

What rules did the Lindens change? They didn't change any rules. As they had a extra- TOS policy on a notecard to urge the end of promotion of "ageplay". They've enforced their warnings and removal of content. They also can, at their discretion, terminate any account -- and do. This is always unnerving and I'd be happy if they enjoined themselves from ceasing that practice and only ended accounts under the law, with due process. But I certainly wouldn't wish to battle for pedophile practitioners in SL as the way to wage this battle -- it's not good judgement. Second Life is about picking battles.

csven: no reason to go off batshit insane and claim that all restrictions of the world's restrictive countries must now fetch up at the door step of this California software company.

csven: "must"? I believe you're going "batshit insane" here, Catherine.

csven always dodges the consequences of his words, it's true.

Prokofy: next thing you know, csven will be telling us that all female avatars must manditorily undergo female circumcision on their X-cite parts.

csven: More batshit insanity. Funny to watch a melt down, though. Carrying Catherine's insane thought forward: what if Linden Lab outlaws virtual genitalia! That would solve the sex problems in SL, right?
And then they can force all avatars to be a certain height so no one will be too short relative to another avatar. And then they can force avatars to have certain proportions so they look
more generic.

Always funny to take csven's words to their logical conclusion, hear his insane cackling, and then watch him profess shock at how they've been taken to their logical conclusion. What's particularly choice about this comment is that right after csven claims that he isn't diong anything insane and would never do something batshit insane like claim that LL was enforcing female circumcision on X-cite parts, but...in that very statement, he claims that they'd actually outlaw virtual genitalia and force all avatars to be the same height. The obvious internal contradictions of csven abound. It's why he is so hell-bent and vindictive about trying to eradicate them when he sees them in the world, and in other people.

csven: And then, because they claim they can't "police" content, they'll remove avatar skins to prevent skins that look too young. And because clothes are an indicator of age, the avatar clothing industry
will be removed to ensure these generic avatars can't remind ANYONE of unrealistically rendered, low-polygon visual simulations of something that might... MIGHT... be used to do something that reminds someone somewhere of something offensive to people in a Real world locality. Yep. That'll solve these problems and make Second Life the 3D Internet. Via Sony's "Home", Makena's "There", and every other 3D virtual space ruled with an IRON FIST. (sound familiar?)

Uh, yeah, and then wow, the next thing you know, uh, they'll be having female circumcision on X-cite parts, you know? AMIRITE?

Prokofy: Seriously, csven is deranged.

csven: NOTE: I consider this Statement made by Catherine Fitzpatrick to be an open license for others to make factual (as defined above by Catherine herself) claims regarding Prokofy Neva/Catherine Fitzpatrick.
Knock yourself out, folks. Catherine has waived her rights.

Note how csven only trumps the case for his untethered state by engaging in more bullying, RL disclosure, forceful linking, etc. Sick. But it at least lets everyone else know about his character and warns them away. Meanwhile, I'm no stranger to deluges of personal attacks of even the most outrageous and vicious character, and I can only say that such methods discredit their own user.

Prokofy: All the Lindens did was make a reasonable restriction given concerns for some countries about something that's pretty awful stuff -- simulated child rape.

They ruled on more than "simulated child rape". That you keep trying to enforce that once particular perception is a typical Mob Rule justification tactic.

1) Sex with underage children *is* rape. It's not like it gets to be mere "pedophilia" because somewhere, in some country, there might be child brides. We all understand what's at stake here. Simulating it is despicable. It creates an environment whereby the act is legitimized, even trivialized. As we saw from the statements from law enforcers in the New York Times, child pornography and discussion groups in which pedophiles egg each other on and justify each other are enabling environments that help them to act on their sinister impulses. Even a tiny correlation is enough to remove that enabling environment entirely. Lindens found that argument persuasive. Anybody would trying to be decent and remove an occasion for crime and the perception of crime from their service.

Prokofy: Who wants to promote simulated child rape in the name of freedom? No one.

csven: Who wants to defend the right of consenting adults to creates unrealistic avatars (with even less realistic strap-on genitalia) which bear *some* likeness to real children to engage in virtual
activities simulating consensual sex? Sane people who recognize the difference between fantasy and reality.

csven's notion of "unrealistic" is false and tendentious. Avatars are realistic. Strapping on genitalia doesn't make it look less real or cause it to be less immersive. Consent of adults doesn't remove the problem of the enabling environment and justification it creates. One doesn't have to be a puncturer of the balloon of fantasy in order to realize quite pragmatically that the creation of a fantasy realm that justifies and enables the rape of children is a contributing factor to crime AND SHOULD BE REMOVED.

Prokofy: and this has...what to do with Linden Lab's policies in Second Life? Exactly nothing. Because they have a TOS against anti-gay intolerance.

csven: A ToS which is meaningless and fluid; subject to the corporate whims of Linden Lab totalitarian rule.

I really think it's begging the question entirely to claim "totalitarianism" out of the Lindens. Whatever their aspirations, their actual jurisprudence is anything but. Permabans are almost non-existent. And most of the time, they do act consistent with their TOS.

Prokofy: And...what reason did csven have again for hysterically imagining, untethered from any common sense, that the Lindens will suddenly start allowing the beating of gays?

Linden Lab's OWN policy of respecting local laws. If homosexuality is illegal in a country where people have access to Second Life, then by LL's own statements, they'll disclose Pretend homosexuals to Local authorities.

Where has csven found backing for this hysterical and extreme spin on the problem of Linden Lab's arbitrary and discretionary executive rule? It is important to distinguish between Morocc and Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan -- and LL is like none of them, and they all represent ranges of enforcement and law. LL hasn't said that every time a RL authority comes knocking, they will disclose their customer's information; they've chosen to cooperate with German police in removing criminality that they themselves had created a notecard policy about earlier. End of story.

csven: But will they really? Who knows. Linden Lab makes up the policy as they go and enforce the parts they feel like enforcing. And hypocrites like Catherine rail against their practices... that is, until they align on a particular issue.

I think by and large, while LL is uneven in enforcement on sensitive areas like their own management, their own chosen pets, and the open-source project, they do a good job of keeping racism, anti-gay sentiment, anti-religious bigotry, anti-Semitism etc. out of Second Life. They had a policy about what is broadly offensive. They had a notecard on ending promotion of "ageplay". It is not a stretch nor some leap to extremism to see them cooperating with German police.

I don't notice any German human rights groups; the ACLU, such as it is, in RL or SL, or any other rights groups or groups of any kind from Germany disputing what happened. That's an important indication, too, of what the norms are that people generally find acceptable. I'm all for the rule of law, and not code-of-law created by "communities". But on this score, the rule of law of RL, and the rule of law in SL are in harmony.

csven: Let's not forget Linden Lab's (current) ToS position on "Privacy":
6.1 Linden Lab uses your personal information to operate and improve Second Life, and will not give your personal information to third parties except to operate, improve and protect the Service.

csven: Did revealing the real life identities of those two Germans "operate, improve and protect the Service"? or did it protect the expansion of the Service into an increasingly important and lucrative market? I
believe it to be the latter. And who's to say the words in the ToS won't change today. That's Linden Lab's choice. And what we have is The Soviet Second Life.

Hardly. You can't use the service to commit crimes, and elsewhere in the TOS -- if I'm not mistaken -- there is language to that very effect (I'll go look when I have time, and meanwhile invite anyone else to look). Nothing in the TOS can be construed as a blank check to use it for crime. That's not being Soviet. That's just not enabling crime. Child pornography, even the virtual kind, is a criminal offense in many states; in the U.S., it is not an enforced norm of any sort in most settings governed by a TOS or EULA. I hardly think LL can be characterized as "Soviet" for removing the notorious crime of Beria himself, who used to grab little girls off the street and abuse him in his Black Maria.

Prokofy: To argue *for* the permission of simulated child rape (ugh) by claiming all of a sudden, whoops, the Lindens are going to become gay-bashers because that's the norm in some states is just plain RETARDED.

csven: Except I don't know that "child rape" is what those two adult Germans were simulating. Do you?

An allegation is a reasonable reason to suspend an account, under the TOS. Child pornography was connected to the account -- the RL kind. Simulated child pornography of the "ageplay" SL type *is* a crime in Germany. The Lindens are within the bounds of NORMALCY and not out on some Soviet extreme totalitarian limb by enforcing this.

csven: Proof, Catherine. Provide some substantiation to your claims that I wouldn't consider LIES.

Robin Linden's office hour transcript on Second Citizen, which I already quoted on the Herald. Consider it "LIES", consider it whatever, it doesn't change what Robin said: a) they were shown RL child pornography and even though they didn't locate it on their servers, had to assume there was a legitimate allegation and suspend the accounts accordinly; a) their lawyers counseled them that even in the US, such virtual simulation of child pornography that is ageplay in SL might be a crime, and given the ambiguity and the concern about the service as a whole and their reputationh, they had to act. I find it all persuasive and reasonable. Most people do. csven's hysterical defense of the extreme edge on this is peculiar. I don't know where else he can go on the Internet, except for a few anime sites viewed in the US, to find that there's some implementation of Ashcroft that admits for his perception of reality. It's not the norm. And it won't become the norm.

In the meantime, while I know you're searching for derogatory names to throw at me, please be cognizant that the term "retarded" is broadly offensive to decent people when used in this base manner. We're all aware you're foaming at the mouth on this Fantasy issue, but I'd respectfully ask that you not belittle those people with mental handicaps by carelessly using a distasteful term to do nothing more than vent your
little mind.

"Retarded" is now a very common slang word. The politically correct have already long since lost this battle. People who used to be called "retarded" because of mental retardation are now call disabled, challenged, or something else, not "retarded" precisely because the word does have a stigman.

Prokofy: It's within the Lindens' purview to put ANY pretend activity on the list.

csven: Yes. It is. So why have you been kicking and screaming all these years?

I'm welcome to kick and scream and so is anybody else. Foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds. csven's basically faltering on the age-old problem of foolish consistency here, showing the stark limitations of his little tekkie mind, whatever it's capacity in some areas, it is stunted in these areas of debate. I think my battles for pushing the limits of their tolerance on criticism of themselves and their pets is more important to the health of the civil society than creating enabling environments for crime.

Prok: But common sense dictates that they will come up with some reasonable policy that befits a multinational virtual world that has to serve for entertainment as well as education and business.

csven: I disagree. Common sense and historical record indicates they'll blunder along without
due consideration for the bigger picture (something one might say is a "tekkie-wiki" failing; a reliance on "code as law"). So now Catherine is a tekkie-wiki supporter. hahaha

If csven was sincere in this comment, he could have made it in 1/100th of the space, and with 1/1000th of the hatred and vitriol. I expect it to flip-flop on the next round.

Prokofy: It's wrong to string up anyone for their beliefs.

csven: Unless they don't fit Catherine's idea of "normal"; in which case she'll jump on the tekkie-wiki bandwagon, forget her arguments against Linden Lab's dictatorial behavior, and lead the lynch mob herself.

Interesting casebook example of tendentious hystery. I don't view a company's prevention of an enabling environment for RL crime to be dictatorial; I merely see it as good enforcement of a TOS that does have these broadly similar norms to any country's penal code. I also have refrained from making the kind of really awful personal attacks, name-calling, sexual harassment, and RL disclosure that csven is guilty of here.

Prokofy: It's worth pointing out that lack of a belief in anything higher than oneself leads one to invest overwhelming power in one's own ego and make overweening assumptions about one's rectitude.

csven: Source for this FACT? or is this another Catherine "fact" (aka, a "supposition" parading as a LIE)?

Oh, dear God. Now csven is not allowing anyone to state opinion, without demanding that it have links to Wikipedia supporting it as fact. I stand by my opinion, which I think is an aphorism and a truth that is based on my observations in a long life.

Prokofy: Even if the Lindens "can't find" the images (and that may be their convenient excuse), they can't do otherwise than to close those accounts once those kinds of serious allegations are made -- full stop.

csven: Only from what was posted - the order in which Linden Lab's actions are described - they closed the accounts BEFORE the real images surfaced.

I don't see any evidence for this claim.

csven: Get it straight, Catherine. And if you're going to refer to comments and policies, quote them with a link. There's NO reason to trust what you say is factual.

Robin Linden described what happened, again, in an office hour or inworld conversation that took place after another Linden meeting. The transcript is on SC and on the Herald. Go look for it, or someone can supply it. I've cited it already. The Lindens said they were contacted by German TV. In the course of the interview suddenly the pictures were sprung on them. Whether they closed the account immediately upon the first request for information, or after they saw the pictures, isn't material to this case. They acted with reasonable due diligence to limit their liability for litigation -- full stop.

I'm so glad THEY have good REAL LIFE lawyers unlike the Internet lawyers that csven represents.

Prokofy: This is a complete mangling of the story as the record shows. The Lindens have made it clear that they were shown real pornography in connection with these accounts.

csven: Provide the evidence. I tried asking the guy on Information Week to provide a source, but apparently my comment was deleted.

Go and watch the German TV show itself, in full, which is understandable, even without the language. Read the transcript on SC. And shut up.

csven: Quote and Link, Catherine. Or shut up.

Read the Herald thread on this. I excerpted it there. Go on SC and read it. I'm not going to take time for googling now, it's enough of a time suck as it is. It's definitely the case that the Lindens were shown this RL pornography. This is not disputed -- by anyone.

Prokofy: AND just to do some pre-emptive warfare here -- even if somehow csven comes up with some sort of Linden "smoking gun" sort of "proof" that first the Lindens banned the accounts THEN saw the
pictures.

csven: Uh-Oh.

csven: Catherine is WAFFLING!

No, just saving myself from having to return to this point. I'm pretty sure that first the TV contacted them and showed them the porn, RL German police were alerted, then they shut the accounts. But go read their account. I wonder if csven will be able to admit he's wrong on this one. No waffling involved.

Prokofy: The Lindens had to close the account *once it became the subject of a RL investigation*.

csven: Why?

csven is so untethered from reality, that he can't envision a world where companies have to limit liability for litigation. *Sighs*.

csven: If virtual child sex was not verbotten before (which is arguably what led to its growth in SL), and virtual child sex isn't illegal in the United States, then WHY did Linden Lab HAVE to close their
accounts???

RL German police, and RL U.S. legal advice. Full stop. That's all she wrote. That's all she needs to write.

csven: Explain this please, Catherine.

I don't have to.

Prokofy: I'm not "lying" about anything, I'm relaying the reasoning of the Lindens, recounting what they explained in the office hour.

csven: Considering that you tend to LIE, we can't believe any of your
"recounting".

*shrugs*

csven: Provide attributable quotes, not hearsay and conjecture masquerading as "illustrious fact".

*Wonders what csven will do when he reads the transcript. Oh well*.

Prokofy: If csven were really concerned about creativity, I guess he wouldn't leave a plywood box out on his lawn in Second Life, with 3 vendor-like or pose-like objects hidden under it for weeks and weeks.
He'd...get done with his project *cough* and take away the eyesore.

csven: hahaha.

What csven could be doing is either spying on my tenants trying to entrap them, or purposely luring tenants there to try to entrap me or them, who knows. But let the record show that csven has put strange contraptions on his parcels right next to mine.

csven: And btw, let's remember, those ban lines you complained about earlier: those were the result of YOUR tenants spamming everyone in sight - multiple times - with landmarks.

I don't have any tenants who spam with landmarks. If someone squats and uses my land for one of those things, it's removed. Landmark spamming is not permitted. The idea that putting up banlines on one parcel could stop landmark spamming is also absurd.

csven: And would you like some names of Ravenglass tenants engaged in cybersex (of all kinds) out in the open for everyone to see? There's good reason why Catherine is still in business! haha So much for "community standards" among Catherine's clients.

It's good to know that csven is admitting to spying on people and possibly recording chat -- those are TOS offenses to be abuse-reported.

csven: Truth is: Catherine Fitzpatrick is an ENABLER of the very activities she finds offensive.
Hypocrite.

(I wonder: what would I find if I decided to investigate the activities that occur in the little skyhouses above Catherine's virtual land?)

I fear not. I don't permit any kind of sexualized ageplay on my land. If it is found, I remove it. I can't police it 24/7 -- no one can, not Lindens, not landowners. If it is reported or seen, it is removed.

What csven has indicated, however, is that as a vindictive, deranged, and malicious asshole, he is prepared to go spy on my tenants, copy their chat inworld, and report it to the Lindens or whomever. That's interesting! Do we need any further evidence of csven's bad and malicious character! I don't think so!

I'm not unfamiliar with this tactic. I used to have hordes of BDSM apologists that I attacked in TSO because there were children as young as 9 there in TSO for their open profiles touting their violence and slavery. EA.com eventually removed that sort of content as a violation of their TOS. It took awhile. These people endlessly harassed me; they are the ones who first found a way to link my RL self and avatar and connected it and outed it as a way of trying to humiliate and silence me. They also got a story-telling site of mine shut down that had some "adult" content movies on it that various Sims players had made, and various porn spoofs. They simply got it shut down by blasting the provider with constant specious notices. They worked assiduously at this -- because they're hypocrites. They engaged in the most violent and extreme and horribly sad activities, and wished a pass from everybody and even a ban on any criticism of such a "lifestyle" -- they responded to critics by going against their far milder adult sites and getting them shut down. So be it. If that's what happens in the struggle for free expression and an open society in cyberspace, there it is. The record shows it.

csven is guilty in reality -- now, in real time -- of the very things he accuses others of only aspiring to.

csven: Arguably the people most supporting the behavior Catherine rails against are people like her who rent out places for them to engage in these activities. One wonders just how much Prok profits from the child sex
activities her tenants engage in.

As far as I know, I have no "ageplayers" that I "profit" from. If there are people engaged in public "ageplay" and promotion of ageplay activities in violation of Linden policy, they can abuse report to the Lindens or me, and it will be removed promptly.

csven: Sounds like the kind of expose' the Second Life Herald would LOVE!)

Go for it csven, now we realize that you are involved in the most base forms of retaliation with people who don't agree with you.

It begins by disagreeing with your take on LL's actions; it goes on to an escalation of you using sexual harassment, character assassination, ad hominem attacks, and RL disclosure to try to humiliate me; and it ends with a thuggish attempt at blackmail -- a claim to find child porn even on my own land in SL, and a stated intent that you will spy on me and my tenants in order to "trump up something". The very totalitarianism that you see in Linden Lab is in your own heart and soul, and you willing to use it on your neighbours. Sick and wrong! What a world of difference -- my desire to prevent simulation of child pornography which is broadly offensive, and in keeping with the Linden TOS -- and your desire to silence your critics with blackmail -- shut up, or I will smear you with a claim of child porn in SL.

I think we'll be seeing more of this.

Prokofy: THey've explained over and over again in blogs, forums, inworld meetings, that the police concerns explicit and promoted behaviour.

Linden Lab: On Thursday May 3, we were contacted by German television network, ARD, which had captured images of two avatars, one that resembled an adult male and another that resembled a child, engaged in depicted sexual conduct. Our investigations revealed the users behind these avatars to be a 54-year-old man and a 27-year-old woman. Both were immediately banned from Second Life.

csven: I missed the part where these two were found to be "advertising" or "promoting" anything before Linden Lab banned them.

Prokofy: See transcript from inworld Linden meeting *shrugs*.

Quote and Link, Catherine.

www.forums.secondcitizen.com
www.secondlifeherald.com

*yawns*.

Prokofy: I'd have to go back and see the context.

csven: You do that.

I'm quite confident that it explains the Lindens' action. Go look. Also ask your own queries, as I have.

Prokofy: If she's talking about sexualized "ageplay" that one should leave for the privacy of the home, unfortunately, the German police don't hold to those values. So the Lindens are telling us basically that if the
German police see fit to intrude into your "home," they will cooperate.

csven: The Lindens did more than that. Did the German police tell Linden Lab to close their accounts?

csven is more like the German police than the German police. And here's a person who is willing to spy on a neighbour in order to trump up an ageplay case.

Quote and Link, Catherine.
www.secondlifeherald.com

Prokofy: csven conveniently forgets to explain whether this context admits for sexual or non sexual RP.

csven: Why do I need to explain to YOU what's on YOUR blog??? hahahaha

?

Prokofy: They had a notecard that made it clear that explicit ageplay could not be tolerated.

csven: Ah. A "notecard". How consistently inconsistent and unprofessional of this corporation. That's akin to telling residents that their Answers on the old forum were "policy"... and after I requested they document their policies elsewhere, they refused. And now? Threads with "policy" answers have disappeared ( Previously noticed ).
This is the blind leading the blind, afaic.

I made the exact same point in my blog of months ago on this notecard, which I said wasn't due process, and which also invoked not "law" but "the community finds" as a reason to stipulate against "ageplay". They should just say "our TOS tells us".

Now...why didn't they do that back then on the notecard? Why won't they do it now? Because...they are limiting their liability for litigation, full stop. I can't take the time to explain what that means, but as csven is an Internet lawyer, he can look it up.

Prokofy: simulated child rape is *hardly* to be compared to the right to criticize the Chinese government.

csven: The only person focusing on ONE aspect of this - the most emotionally charged which incites Mob Think - is you.

I stand by my call for balance here, and rationality, and reason. Child rape is not like criticism of the Chinese government. One is a crime in most societies; even simulating it is a crime even in a liberal democratic society. Criticism of the Chinese government is only a crime in China.

csven: I, and others, can and will compare Consensual activities between two Adults engaged in a simulated behavior to other activities involving Thought.

csven is seriously untethered, unable to distinguish thought from action, and declaring in advance all ACTIONS and SIMULATIONS in Second Life to "not count" and not be actions at all. I simply disagree on the face of it. Of course they are actions for which people must be accountable.

Prok: Because there's a world of difference ...

csven: No. There is no "world of difference". This is all Linden Lab's world, and everyone - EVERYONE - is their subject. There is no "democracy". There is no such thing as "fairness" or "freedom". And Second Life, because it's *owned* is moving further and further away from the implied freedom the Internet represents, but which even it is moving away from as governments start blocking access to anything they don't like and wish to repress. In the end, what you get is this little, sanitized world where the Thought Police ensure everyone thinks "normal" thoughts and everyone is "equal". Sounds like a virtual version of the USSR, to me.

Child rape is crime.

Prokofy: Says who? That's completely specious, given how realistic avatars DO look; even exactly like people; and given how immersed people are in SL, and how they take their SL into RL all the time. Sorry, no sale there.

csven: Says me. As someone who professionally creates realistic images (and most human beings with anything better than 20/2000 eyesight) can attest, SL's avatars are a long, long way from being indistinguishable from photographs such that law enforcement couldn't tell the difference between real and virtual. This is NOT an issue of immersion.

csven is not an authority on the subject. *Stamp*.

csven: The Lindens can draw the line ......wherever they choose and whenever their corporate mandate and business plan tell them it's in their best interests. And that goes beyond laws; it goes to public opinion and media frenzy and Mob Think. This isn't about "child rape" - the sensational, emotion phrase you keep
using. This includes consensual behavior between two consenting adults involving the unrealistic virtual depiction of what to some people *appear* to be children but which in some countries (e.g. Spain, with an age of consent at 13 last I checked) are individuals who can legally engage in those activities. Rape isn't about sex; it's about power and control.

It's hardly "mob think" to urge what is commonly found to be obscene and extreme everywhere not to become sanctioned in Second Life.

csven: Pedophilia isn't rape; it's the attraction some people feel toward children. It's more akin to homosexuality from what I understand. It's your ignorance that keeps blurring the lines between issues; that and your emotional urge to incite Mob Think and have a lynching.

I hardly think it's "lynching" when all that happens is that these pedophiles lose Second Life as a venue for their actions. So...they can go to all those other free-thinking groovy kinda spaces that csven believes are out there *cough*.

The emotionally charged witchhunters want to ensure they distort this issue and twist it so far out of whack that it becomes so politically uncomfortable that people who believe in the American system of justice -
where a person can defend themselves from accusations before they're lynched - will back down and let the Mob Rule; will let the Unthinking, Unreasoning "LIE masquerading as FACT" Hypocrites, burn real
lives at the stake. Catherine is now part of a mob. Comrade Catherine. And Comrade Catherine is so desperate she's been violating her own standards; the one's she throws in other peoples' faces.

I find it more than consistent with my standards that a distinction be made between human rights and crime. And I think the entire human rights cause depends on human rights activists being able to make that distinction between civil rights and crimes. If human rights activists permit terrorists and pedophiles acting out impulses in virtuality with the danger of taking it into reality, and other criminals, to hide behind civil rights and scream "human rights" at every turn -- if rights and liberties in fact are mere screens to cover extremism and licentiousness, then the cause is lost. If human rights activists cannot concede a legitimate sphere for democratic and elected civilian police authority to investigate and prosecute crimes, their cause is lost. If they cannot concede that communities will have standards revolving around norms for decency and against obscenity that may not be in syn with a larger public sphere's protected activities, *their cause is lost*.

csven: How? She is now making claims that someone with whom she doesn't agree is "deranged" and in need of "medical" help. Attempting to discredit, and engaging in something moving clearly beyond mere internet name-calling into libel and defamation of character.

I haven't claimed a need for medical help; I'm not a doctor and don't play one on the Internet. I think "deranged" is a precise label to apply to someone who carries a debate to this level of extremity that csven does, even breaking Clickable Culture! I think "deranged" is what you call someone willing to spy on another person in SL to try to set them up and trip them up with their tenants' perceived or real activities.

I'm simply unwilling to let a bully and an Internet nutter like csven concord from cramping my Second Life and restricting its freedom of expression. I refuse to live in fear on my land next to his, afraid to rent it out because some tenant somewhere might violate the TOS. If there are TOS violations, they can be reported and acted upon. If there aren't, then csven should shut up -- he's discredited himself utterly with this sort of activity.

csven: That's the mark of desperation. Of unreasoning hostility. Mob Rule. Mob Think. One set of "normal" standards. One ruler. Totalitarianism.

Um, what I would call "mob rule" is what csven does by bullying, harrying, harassing, and threatening and blackmailing with inworld retaliation with sting operations. That's what real mob rule is.

csven: The problem is, of course, that as she employs every effort to feed her mindless rage - distorting truth, LYING and justifying those lies with ludicrous reasoning, attacking someone in ways she tells others are
off-limits in "civilized" society - wormwoman Catherine opens herself to just those same tactics.

My promotion of statements that I felt to be true and which supported the thrust of my argument is not "lying". I'm not in any "rage". And I'm still in a civilized society in my side of this debate. Csven is not.

csven: Catherine Fitzpatrick is now fair game because her own actions validate anyone else's behavior. The griefers against whom she so often rails now have their excuse.

Yes, you can always tell a criminal by the exceptions they make just fo themselves.

csven:

Or jail that resident who mocked him. Or ask LL to turn over information -- which LL may ignore

csven: Or not, because they can do what they want. Totalitarian rule, courtesy of the Unthinking Mob led by Comrade Catherine.

*rolls eyes*.

Prokofy:

But what's legal for the Lindens is what is legal in California. Therefore, to keep going on and on about clown suits, gay-bashing, and interracial dating is RETARDED.

csven: And "virtual child porn" is legal in California. Yet that didn't seem to matter, did it?

As Robin Linden explained, their legal counsel advised that it may be found illegal and they wished to LIMIT THE LIABILITY FOR LITIGATION.

csven: The obvious counter-argument is: And if VIRTUAL child sex is legal in California, then Linden Lab *isn't* beholden to the Germans. So why did they react? Seems like the obvious answer is: for their own
selfish interests.

(As an aside, I find it extremely unfortunate you now think the word "RETARDED" to be an acceptable insult. It doesn't insult me. It makes me feel sorry for people with mental handicaps who encounter nasty people like you. I can only try to imagine what kind of person finds this pathetic attempt at a meaningless swipe worthwhile.)

Like I said: the politically correct long ago lost this battle. The word is sweeping everywhere in usage.

Prokofy: and will they cave to China when the time comes? Gee. We don't know. Possibly, but in what form?

csven: "Possibly".

csven: How accepting and docile Comrade Catherine is becoming. I suppose that's her heritage; to eventually conform to a central authority without question and without explanation. To conform.

I'm simply finding it a remote liklihood at this juncture.

To be continued, there's another page but I gtg.

Comments

[Baba]

Does typepad have a character limit?

[Lorelei Patel]

Huh?

[Baba]

And now Prokofy, I award you a trophy for winning an argument on the Internet. Maybe you can put it above the fireplace and explain to your grandchildren how you fought the good fight against that guy on the Internet back in 2007, and you won.

Better break the story up in to a trilogy series though, kids' attention span these days isn't what it used to be.

[Prokofy Neva]

Oh, BTW, csven is banned from my blog because he objectively wished me harm, linking my RL name and avatar as a means to intimidate me from posting.

[Patchouli Woollahra]

My grandaunt, four times removed, got married at the tender age of 9 in my ancestral village in Fuzhou. The thing to remember is that what you and I may consider normal and common jars with someone else's idea of normal and common.

To be fair, the groom wasn't much older. And the kids were amazing once they started popping a few years later - Having parents only about 13 years older than you tends to produce these insanely small generation gaps. They still don't get it, but they usually can understand their kids somewhat. which is a start.

[Prokofy Neva]

Patchouli, you are just being idiotically contrarian. It's not normal in Fuzhou to have children of 9 be raped. Not even 12. And you know it, and we all know it.

My grandmother used to call herself a "child bride" because she was barely married at the age of 18. I had a great aunt who lived to the age of 107, and it wasn't until her funeral that someone dug up an ancient newspaper clipping from the Columbus, OH area showing that she and her groom had fled over to the next county to marry evidently in something of a rush, and apparently not able to put up all the banns, as they are called in our church, i.e. the notices of impending marriage and call for any man who has a claim to speak up against it.

My grandmother never learned to drive; she never held a job outside the home; she had three kids, an ill husband, and was constantly wedded to the hearth and home, toiling and providing for free the kind of social services that now many states provide. I don't consider marrying very young and having a raft of children necessarily to be progress, to be a good thing for women, and to be something we should all find quaint and humorous and even celebrate if it occurs at the age of 9 in Fuzhou, let alone at the age of 17 in Columbus, Ohio. It doesn't make for progress; countries that cannot emancipate their women and remove them from the grind of household and childcare with numerous children simply never advance out of poverty.

[Matt Mihaly]

"Linking my real name and avatar"

Weak excuse. You publicly expose that link in magazine articles. It's clearly something that doesn't bother you except when you decide that you want yet another reason to get upset about something minor.

--matt

[Eyu Rang]

"Does typepad have a character limit?"

doesn't seem to no.. However, just for fun here are the stats:

12,456 words
60,187 characters (no spaces)
72,413 characters (with spaces)
1,002 lines
261 paragraphs
28 unformatted pages (8 1/2" X 11")

I tried reading through it all, just can't do it.. My eyes start burning about half way in. I could have printed it, but I'd probably get in trouble for using that much office resource :P

[Prokofy Neva]

"Linking my real name and avatar"

>Weak excuse. You publicly expose that link in magazine articles.

No, Matt. Everyone should have the right to CHOSE their pseudonym and name use. And it's especially important in a SECOND LIFE where there is a TOS governing disclosure. Of course, that doesn't pertain on third-party blogs. But it's a good policy to follow.

Like I said, if I tell professional RL journalists my name, they mention it merely for ID purposes. They quote me precisely or don't quote me at all and use the interview for background. They are not trying to bully me, hector me, create forced Googlizations, and behave like dicks -- which is how Ian Betteridge and csven Concord behave and you know it.

The idea that we have to put up with bullshit like and bad behaviour like that just because of the use of an avatar name is preposterous. I always notice that men in particular of a certain type always use this bullying and silencing technique. They think they can make a person be cornered or shamed. But it doesn't work. I long since foiled this particular blackmailing technique by simpling being the person to show up and link my name myself if necessary.

But that's not my choice in this realm. And I will go on fighting for this choice.

>It's clearly something that doesn't bother you except when you decide that you want yet another reason to get upset about something minor.

No, hardly. And I don't think someone attempting to link your RL name with a libelous accusation of failure to report criminal activity is a laughing matter whatsoever. It's serious -- and you'd hate it if it were done to you.

No, this is seriously bad stuff, and the bullying and intimidation and malice inherent in all this really should get a hell of a lot more condemnation than it does from men like you who proclaim to be enlightened game gods.