M is for Myg

Not a sexy headline, I know. Stick with me, there’s some extensive analysis in this post, but I think it’s important, and from the conversations I’ve been having the past few weeks, I think most of you do, too. The pic above is from the United Protest location in Second Life–United Protest InfoCenter, Startup (50, 89, 26)–that is serving as an organizing point for residents concerned for their civil liberties in virtual space.

Most of you reading are aware of the community uproar over Linden Lab’s miserable community relations. You’ve read and commented on the original Linden Blog statement by Daniel Linden that appeared after the sexual ageplay scandal caused by a publication based in Germany, and you’ve likely seen the follow up comments made in a short interview with Daniel by James Wagner Au at New World Notes. Fear is rampant that these statements tacitly approve of, if not outright endorse, abuse report witch hunts by reactionary “offended” residents and fascistic crackdowns, and that they hint at Big Brother types of governing mechanisms in the works for Second Life. Rumors, that I will not perpetuate here, are circulating like the latest virus.

At Second Life Insider, Tateru Nino has a very good round-up (though not comprehensive) of the discussion in the Second Life blogosphere.

As a result, groups of residents are now organizing to advocate for civil liberties and human rights in Second Life, notably, the “I am for a FREE Second Life” group, which you can join inworld and read about at the United for Protest location (slURL) or at October Hush’s blog where she has reprinted the text of their platform.

I got hot under the collar after the first Linden blog statement (I was already wary of signs of encroachments on freedom) and was amazed at how vague Daniel Linden’s answers to James Wagner Au’s questions were the following week. I’m concerned that they seem to support the grievances of a small minority of vocal reactionaries. Was this intentional newspeak? Is Linden Lab covering their asses and attempting to appease prudish conservatives? Are they actually prudish conservatives posing as liberal San Francisco coders? And is this possibly more of an issue of plain old poor communication?

So I went digging. And I believe the answers are yes, maybe, no, and yes. What I’ve found to be particularly enlightening is a publicly viewable video that a reader of Second Life Insider linked to in the comments to one of Tateru Nino’s posts. It’s video of a Stanford University workshop at which Daniel (Linden) Huebner spoke. The video was then shared at Google Video and posted by Second Life Creativity here. It’s over an hour long, but provides valuable insight into who Daniel Linden is, and Linden Lab’s position on freedom, community, and governance.

Though this video was shot April 7, 2007, slightly prior to the German press expose, I don’t think it’s likely either Linden Lab’s policy or Daniel’s position has changed all that much. What I do think is that the Linden Lab policy on deliberately not drawing a firm line on what is acceptable and what isn’t acceptable has come back to bite them on the ass–and mostly because it has been poorly explained to the residents. In the video it seems clear to me that Linden Lab had, and probably still has, a desire to stay out of governing–they actually want the rules of the community standards, now at six, to be reduced to three. Daniel says they are in favor of allowing residents to work out their own disputes.

It’s likely they’re concerned over the Lab’s legal exposure, but for the most part, they are the crunchy granola types who tend to err on the side of more freedom. I think they’re caught in a tough spot right now between what they want Second Life to become (still a bigger open source free 3D metaverse) and issues over tough laws in countries where they may house the servers (thanks Hamlet).

So, I’m very happy to be part of “I am for a FREE Second Life.” Personally, I am a die-hard proponent of civil liberties in First Life. I intend to be one in Second Life as well. The events of the past few weeks are the big sign that we all have to get off our asses and start organizing to come up with truly grassroots systems to assure the continuance of our virtual liberties and the growth of the metaverse. I’m not as worried about Linden Lab’s intentions as I was, though vigilance is the key. Many people will quit. I’m not ready to. I think it’s worth fighting for–rather than waiting for some other corporation with “better” politics to provide me a playground or 3D business platform. Though Second Life is actually “owned” by Linden Lab and not really the residents, I don’t believe they want to curtail the virtual civil liberties of residents, just cover their asses so they can continue to push the platform toward something that really does resemble the web, with separately owned servers and open source development. Sure, they may want to cash out at some point, but I don’t think they’ll sell out completely. In any case, I intend to cover my own ass and push for my virtual liberties as freedoms and rights that are directly connected to my FL civil liberties.

I don’t think the current mess is all communication–the stories of editorial control and deleted content have me worried. We need answers and better communication from Linden Lab. And if their behavior continues to be capricious and heavy handed, then I’m ready to fight back.

And to the folks at Linden Lab, Daniel seems like a good guy–get him some solid communication consulting to help him, so he can get his point across clearly in print–his explanation of Linden Lab’s intentionally vague guidelines in the Stanford video would have gone a long way toward stopping the current confusion. Then have him post regularly to the blog. Once every two weeks would be nice, regardless of need. Or, hire a good PR person to post regularly. And by good I mean someone who favors transparency and responsiveness. They do exist.

————-

Update:

Here’s the link to a transcript of Robin Linden’s office hours posted at the United Protest forum site.

It’s much clearer that there has been, despite repeated statements to the contrary, a change in whether certain situations are viewed as acceptable (it’s just verbal brinksmanship on LL’s part using an ambiguous term–”broadly offensive”–to cover changing standards while insisting things are exactly as they have always been). The key is that LL is worried about legal issues in residents’ RL nations and the laws of nations having remote servers. She states that changes–and potential future–are directly connected to “business” concerns. (As if anyone thought this wasn’t the driving factor.)

At the moment, they’re not going after Gor and BDSM, and “extreme violence” seems to be equated with Rotten.com levels of graphic depiction, while GTA videogame violence should be okay. Still pretty vague.

I’m not happy with LL’s continued insistence that they are trying to be “hands off,” but then acting very “hands on” when threatened. Perhaps it’s just the price we pay for living/renting server space in a relatively benign dictatorship. When that dictatorship starts taking some lumps, it will use whatever force it seems necessary to insure its survival–it’s not so concerned with the survival of individuals. Fight back, people.

This entry was posted on Wednesday, June 6th, 2007 at 3:51 pm and is filed under Bloggers, Burgess, Second Life.