• Advertisement
My Photo

Tip Jar

Support Blog

Tip Jar

Official Second Life Blog


« Saimaa | Main | FAQs on Ravenglass Rentals »

May 30, 2009


Frans Charming

I saw some possibilities of settings that others can't edit your posts. But very little attetion was given to that, compared to the zOMG lets edit everything parts.

I won't use it either if everything is editable all the time. But I'm not going to assume that just yet because that would make the whole product a fiasco, imho.

I have requested normal and dev access so will see if I get in and really see how it works.

Also what I miss is backwards compatibility with mail, if that doesn't exist then it will hard to adopt.

Gareth Nelson

I only read the first few paragraphs of this long post, so forgive me if this was already responded to, but - where precisely are google forcing you to use this service?

Google produce tons of new services all the time, their whole culture and business model is based around the idea of throwing EVERYTHING out there and seeing what sticks, and none of them are ever mandatory for anyone to use.

If google starts making "waves" mandatory for use with gmail, then you can worry (and so can I - I use gmail quite heavily).

Gareth Nelson

Oh, and as to the point of backwards-compatibility with normal emails, I already ask people to send me plain text if they send me a proprietary format of some variety that I either can not open or which I did not agree to.

Ann Otoole

What will really be great is when they force publish what your searches are. The fact you once searched for communism or homoerotic art or anything the christians revile is enough for you to be damned to the new version of the Spanish Inquisition.

More reason to place a death penalty upon anyone trying to force the end of anonymous internet accounts.

Gwyneth Llewelyn

I'm pretty sure that not even Google is above the law when it concerns the privacy of your mailbox, in the sense that unauthorised users can get access to your emails and edit them. Without a court order or explicit permissions by the email author, I cannot see how this can be legally possible — even if they put it in their ToS, i.e. "to use this service you agree to have your email be read by strangers without your consent".

To the best of my knowledge, you cannot create a ToS that overrides the law. Although I have seen a lot of companies not bothering with it much (and Google can certainly pay for lawyers and lobbyists). Still, not even Google go that far — I'm sure that the lack of attention on this point is an oversight of whoever at Google's marketing department was responsible for the promotion of Google Wave.

Prokofy Neva

Gwyn, I bet you didn't watch the 80 minute demo of all the way through. I suggest you do.

You're not realizing the principle of the wave is all-edit/all-the-time like a wiki. It really isn't 'email' anymore. The recipient of your email can edit your message to him.

You just aren't seeing it. It turns email inside out. Many people on Twitter (do a search) comment that it ends the privacy of email. already email is of course subject to constant copying and pasting, but now, it encourages such copying and pasting and changing as an inherent feature, not an aberration.

Like all opensourceniks who salivate at the prospect of OTHER people's information being free for your use, you'll solve the problem of YOUR OWN information needing to be private for proprietary reasons by putting Wave on a server behind a firewall, which you'll be able to afford and manage and code, unlike the rest of us masses of users who will have to be on the public terminals of Wave which are free and scalable.

You really are lacking totally in a proper conceptualization of how this is going to work, and the huge impact it will have.

cube inada

its designed to turn the entire world into one big northern california type 24/7 hr project status meeting.

oh joy.


A world where nothing is official, everything is turned into a work in progress. Forever.

Why would anyone want that? Except for people with criminal minds.

Gareth Nelson

"To the best of my knowledge, you cannot create a ToS that overrides the law"

You can create a TOS that asks the user to give up some rights (not all of them, but some) - I doubt that privacy of correspondence in email format is one right that is completely inalienable.

Basically, if you say "by using this service you agree to let anyone edit your emails" and you don't go out of your way to claim the complete opposite (even using it as a selling point, like google is doing with wave), I can't really see it being illegal - if this is illegal, the question becomes "who's going to sue?"

Are you going to sue LL for distributing your content to other people? Are you going to sue google for storing your emails on their servers and replicating them for reliability? Are you going to sue _anyone_ that performs a service for you which you agreed to?

If both parties agree, then in a sane legal system it's all completely legal, but even if it isn't one party has to actually file a lawsuit. Should you not like google wave (or any other service), don't use it - it's that simple.

Prok amuses me with all the screams of "OMG! Communism!" when talking about people willingly entering into contracts and willingly trading with each other..... sounds like capitalism to me.

Extropia DaSilva

A poem:

Techies rave,
Over Google Gwave,
Prokofy Neva's appalled.

Since his inspection,
He's got his protection,
Well and truly installed.

He won't trust the crowd,
Loose himself in the Cloud,
This version of Google is banned.

He never suspected,
He'd been resurrected,
His brain was destructively scanned.

Now that he is fated,
to be simulated,
There really is no way of telling,
It's all real to him,
But he's really a sim,
Computed by Gwyneth Llewelyn.

Prokofy Neva

Poem No. 1

OMG, Extropia DaSilva
A brain-uploader if you will -- ah!
Who would think
Such a time sink
So many neurons to link
When all in a blink
with death or a blackout -- bink!

God extracts the Extropians
And -- I'll throw the Pope in --

"We are moving toward a dictatorship of relativism.."

-- a fictional notion of techlibism --

"which does not recognize anything as for certain"

-- upon utopias we're drawing the curtain --

"and which has as its highest goal one's own ego"

-- the only avatar way to go

"and one's own desires."

-- hence she conspires.

Poem No. 2

There once was an Extropian named DaSilva
Who pontificated at Thinkers til it killed ya
When suddenly one day
She was uploaded away
And found she had nothing to thrill ya.

Poem No. 3

There once was an Uploaded Brain
Who looked down on us all with Disdain
'Til confronting Extropians
Found them all such Dystopians
From commenting then did refrain.

Extropia DaSilva

I think that I like number 3,
Its rythmn seems better to me,
the others don't fit,
and you had to force it,
With Gwave I'd edit for free:)

Micha Sass

I wont do a rhyme, cos' i'm lame
but c'mon, don't upload your brain.
when some coder fucks up
and your 'self' gets corrupt.
who's gonna write up the JIRA? explain?

Extropia DaSilva

No need to get stroppy,
I backed up some copies,
No trip to the virtual morgue.

Now we all live together,
and we do whatever,
As one happy communist Borg.

Micha Sass

Now you put it like that,
I am left looking the twat.
Reality's good
in my neighbourhood,
So I will sit, be a twat, and get fat.

Micha Sass

Its not that I think you are batty,
if brains in PC's make you happy.
but living so free,
how will you pee?
My'll be wearing a nappy.

Micha Sass

if (userLocale != $UNITED_KINGDOM) {

Danton Sideways

You're all completely nuts, but I love it. You're marvelous.

Gwyneth Llewelyn

Well, I'm bumping this thread (sorry, no poems, I have no talent for them) because I finally managed to test Google Wave out.

I have to say, Prok's 100% right on this. Google Wave is, in a sense, even worse than a wiki: you can delete everything someone else said and it won't even be seen on the logs (a.k.a. "playback function"). One wave lists feature requests, and privacy — or the ability to make your "Blips" read-only — is at the top of it. Since Google Wave is technically on "semi-open beta", I can imagine that they might add that — or not. We have no idea really.

Personally, I'm quite worried about that — but for slightly different reasons than most. As a "fun" tool, e.g. an IRC-like chat thingy, I guess I don't worry much about this. If your messages get deleted, tough... unless you're engaged in some heavy drama, one or two "deleted" messages is acceptable.

But Google tends to give the idea that this is for collaborative use in business environments. Well! Editing out a price list you're giving to a client, or deleting any aspect of a negotiation handled over Gwave, would be a dramatic and catastrophic problem! And before I get someone saying "it's your fault if you do business over the Internet", I should say that for the past 15 years I've been doing business over the Internet — via email and chat, and of course in SL too — and I was reasonably "safe" that, in most cases, my business conversations wouldn't be tampered with (except, well, for professional industrial spies :) ).

So there is something fundamentally wrong with Google's approach. Like on SL, the ability to edit someone else's blips should be something you specifically set to happen — not the other way round (which, in any case, isn't possible anyway).

@Gareth, the answer to that is that it depends on the country :) In mine it certainly isn't. A contract — and a ToS or EULA is a contract — cannot override basic constitutional liberties, even if both parties agree to it. What it means is that these clauses are automatically void. In some countries, the entire contract is voided if just one clause tries to override the country's laws. In others, just that particular clause is voided, but the rest of the contract is fine.

Granted, in the case of LL's ToS, almost all clauses are voided by my local law... :) However, the interesting thing is that there is little I can do about it, since the ToS is signed under Californian Law. What could happen is that a large group of countries just ban SL in their country if LL refuses to abide by local laws.

This is highly unlikely to happen, of course (although we've heard of a few attempts in the past!...)

Prokofy Neva

I thought they claimed it would all be on that playback. Why isn't it?

cube inada

Maybe that memo was erased in May... now long forgotten.

A culture of beta and obsolete.

Googles kids are beta, everyone else obsolete.

One day a SKIPPY<3DIDAC will have a Alan Greenspan "realization" moment in front of the Tribal council.

The the Robots will eat him.

Maggie Darwin (@MaggieL)

Glad to see Prok's opposed to Wave; this ensures a bright future for it.

Not that I was worried; I was at the @twephanie/@larsras rollout at #io2009 back in May and have been involved since then.

Friends with Wave access can DM me at @MaggieL for my Wave address; Good friends can contact me for preview invites; I don't have any left of my own but I know people who have spares.

The access control rules (what can be editied/deleted and by whom) are still in flux; there are several waves discussing possible approaches (I'll link them in a Wave pointing to this comment on Prok's blog.). Certainly contracts will need to be finalized in a different framework altogether; punditry to the contrary, Wave does not *replace* email even though the elevator pitch is indeed "how would email be different if designed today?"

Maggie Darwin (@MaggieL)

If ya really hate Google, maybe you'd like to see it crash:

The comments to this entry are closed.


  • Advertisement


  • Advertisement
Blog powered by Typepad

Networked Blogs

  • Networked Blogs