One small piece of Nipplegate was Iridium Linden's response on Burning Man blog. After the attempt of censorship and all the things she said, her comment was:
I'd also like to remind you that pasting chat without consent is a violation of the Community Standards.
Well, let's examine that a bit.
Community Standards of Second Life, paragraph 4: Disclosure:
Remotely monitoring conversations, posting conversation logs, or sharing conversation logs without consent are all prohibited in Second Life and on the Second Life Forums.
Nobody said nothing about posting on other blogs. And this is not the first time we have this situation. It already happened to Honey Wendt, and it finished with Meta Linden's apology.
Only thing that is forbidden by Community standards is posting chatlogs on Second Life's official site and on official forums. But, even that is ridiculous. Public chat is (now, this is a clever one) public! It is something you've said loud on the street. It is not something you have whispered in your friend's ear. So what is the catch here? I guess it is the first word of the quoted paragraph. It says remotely. That means by placing a logging device somewhere on the sim. That means spying. Well ok, that should be a no-no. But, copy/pasting what you have heard on the street… let's use some common sense.
Ow yes, Honey Wendt, you are right. I mixed up her name with another avatar I dislike.
Yes, Vint and I have already been through the chat log posting controversy..thanks to Honey Wendt. As you said, public is public, if you don’t want anyone else to read/hear it, take it to IM. Though as Honey proved that can still be posted in outside venues..ie blogs, forums etc..
Somebody needs to get all the Lindens in the same room and make them read their own TOC..
You are kidding. I would be happy to get one Linden during own office hours.
Well now, that puts the Iridiometer, the Linden apology meter, to two already :)
iridiometer ROFL
Well I didn’t say it was possible…just that it needed to happen..
If they were all brought into the same room and told the same thing they would lose the plausible denieability.
Laetizia: hmmm. s/ri//g would make up for a better measurement instrumentation for this situation, imho.
They did had to agree (and declare they read) to the ToS before going on the grid, no? =d So all Lindens should have read. :p
Sslashrislashslahsg?
So do we… I haven’t. It is boring. Though not to compare with Microsoft’s EULA’s. That is the ultimate nightmare.
It’s a stupid rule anyway (not the monitoring, but the posting). It wouldn’t stand a chance if somebody made a case about it. Read any newspaper, it’ll likely be filled with quotes and people photographed published without consent. I don’t know how it’s in other countries, but in our Western world it should all be the same: as long as the person is not harmed (like a man cheating on his wife would be harmed if that were published), you are free to publish anything you see on the street.
Here in The Netherlands, you can even photograph from the street into somebody’s house and have it published. If there would’ve been rules against this, you wouldn’t be able to publish anything anymore. And we agreed to live in a world without censorship (or at least try to…)
In the case of a Linden this rule is even stupider. When somebody logs in as a Linden onto the SL grid, he is from then on representing Linden Labs. Anything he says can be considered Linden Labs’ opinion, not a personal opinion. Therefor, publishing Linden chatlogs (not remotely monitored) is nothing more than posting Linden Labs’ stance on a subject.
Exactly.
And then, it really sounds bad when somebody says something, in official position and important situation, and then says it is against the rules to quote that. Does it mean that Iridium changed the oppinion and don’t want it to spread what she said, or it is just being anal about Tos for the sake of it?
Just distracting. In stead of saying ‘yes we were wrong with that statement’, they say ‘you were wrong about posting the statement’, so they don’t need to discuss the statement itself anymore?
Why do I have a mental picture of a kid who is covering own eyes and says: “You don’t see me”?