I’m coming a little late to this, as my mind has been elsewhere over the last few days (annoying when real life interferes in things, isn’t it?).
To cut to the quick: could this be the real reason behind Linden Lab’s sudden moves to alter the way in which Adult Content is viewed and accessed within Second Life?
As is noted in the report, this is not the first time that Congress has grumbled at the likes of Second Life or frankly, rattled sabres. However, it isthe first time the finances have been appropriated for a specific investigation into how minors can access adult-themed material within virtual environments, quote:
“The Committee is concerned about reports of explicit content that can be easily accessed by minors on increasinly[sic] popular virtual reality web programs. The Committee directs the FTC to issue a consumer alert to educate parents on the content that is available to children on virtual reality web programs. In addition, no later than 9 months after enactment of this Act, the Commission shall submit a report to the Appropriations Committee discussing the types of content on virtual reality sites and what steps, if any, these sites take to prevent minors from accessing content.”
This statement was made in the Financial Services and General Government Appropriations Bill, HR110-920, introduced in December of last year. The investigation by Federal Trade Commission lawyers commenced in March 2009.
Yep, March…the month in which Linden Lab announced their proposals to alter adult content accessibility in Second Life. Coincidence? One can only think not.
So what if the investigation is the cause for Linden Lab to step in with – seemingly – “sweeping” changes to SL (and note I do not say “unreasonable” here)? Well, it certainly helps put things in to perspective.
While the investigation is not aimed solely at Second Life, it is certainly enough of a pointed gun to encourage Linden Lab to take steps to ensure that their house not only meets the current FTC-mandated regulations on virtual worlds access (which are, so far as I can gather, pretty lax – of which more anon), but that they are in a position to demonstrate that they have taken every reasonable step to ensure they have as far as is possible made Second Life an environment minors cannot readily access.
And one cannot blame them for this at all.
It matters not whether the proposed changes are foolproof or not – name me any system that is “foolproof” and I’ll happily show you a fool, as the saying goes. Sure, little Timmy can always find a means of circumventing the system, be it by “borrowing” Mum’s credit card to get his account verified or Dad’s driving licence to get himself age verified – but using such arguments as a reason not to have suitable verification processes in place are both irrelevant and idiotic.
And frankly, it’s about time they stopped, together with all the other idiocy floating around about such verification tools being against the likes of “EU Laws”.
Why? simply because it is not about whether Timmy or anyone else can circumvent the system, period. It is about Linden Lab demonstrating that they have met or exceeded every recommendation / requirement mandated by government to ensure Timmy cannot readily access adult content within Second Life – nothing more, nothing less. And some people need to get their heads around that fact.
Let’s use an example to demonstrate what I’m saying: all cars use ignition keys to access them and start the engine. So, is the fact little Timmy grabs Dad’s keys, gets into the family car and promptly runs it into the neighbour’s dog a failing on the car manufacturer’s part for not putting enough “anti-kid” failsafes in their cars – or is it Dad’s fault for leaving the car keys where Timmy can take them?
Age and account verification in SL is no different; providing adequate up-front blocks to open access are shown to be in place, then the fact that Timmy “borrows” Mum’s credit card to get his account verified cannot readily be blamed on any failing by Linden Lab to “protect” minors. providing LL can demonstrate the blocks are in place, then the fact that Timmy did circumvent them becomes a matter of parental not corporatefailing – just as little Timmy’s ability to grab Dad’s car keys is not a corporate failing on the part of car manufacturers, but purly a matter of “parental control”.
So why don’t Linden Lab simply ring-fence new arrivals into SL by locking them into a PG continent or by beefing-up the front-end sign-up process?
Well, primarily because neither of these acts would come as close to solving the problem in the timescales available, or successfully meet the criteria of preventing the finger of blame being pointed at LL should the most heinous of tragedies occur and a young person witness “adult” content.
For a start, given the apparently monolithic structure of SL, I doubt any “beefing up” of the sign-up process could be easily achieved within the time frame necessary. And let’s be clear on this; Linden Lab did not fail to ensure a robust sign-up process was in place from the start. Far from it. They adhered perfectly to the FTC’s stated requirements – and right now, they still do. It is not Linden Lab’s fault the regulations themselves have been wishy-washy or are likely to be changed as a result of this investigation.
And remember, the investigation is already underway. The final report is scheduled to be published in December. Given the way government agencies work, this likely means that Linden Lab have a very narrow window – perhaps months in which to demonstrate they are taking positive steps to address concerns over minors accessing adult content within SL. Thus, alterations to the sign-up process and ensuring all existing users are “covered” by it is likely to be exceptionally hard to do within such a time-frame – and equally likely to be far more disruptive to those of us already occupying Second Life.
Similarly, in the context of the FTC investigation, the implementation of a PG continent is not the most viable option for Linden Lab to safely ring-fence itself against the ire of Congress.
Why? Because such a continent would mean Linden Lab themselves would be responsible for policing the borders and ensuring little Timmy doesn’t climb the fence and fly off to see Things He Should Not See – because by the time he is able to climb the fence, he is already in-world, and so the onus is squarely on LL to ensure no fence-climbing is possible.
So long as the fences are positioned outside of SL (i.e. through account and age verification), then should little Timmy get through them, Linden Leb can justifiably state that his ability to do so was a failure on the part of his parents, and not on LL’s part. Move the fences in-world (around a PG continent) and this ceases to be the case, and LL are wide open to accusations, blame – and a possible lawsuit over the “trauma” caused.
Where Linden Lab have failed in this matter, and failed in the most deplorable manner, is in the use of smoke and mirrors in defining the reasons for the changes, assuming the FTC investigation is the real reason for the moves.
If it is, then far better that Linden Lab had been up front about it. Honesty really is the best policy. Certainly, it would have avoided the widespread wailing, gnashing of teeth and rending of virtual garments. Truth be told, it would have probably garnered them a lot of supportwithin the community and seen a lot of people who have otherwise ended up somewhat peed off at Linden Lab far more sympathetic and willing to work with them in developing a solution.
So why weren’t The Powers That Be up front with us? Probably for two reasons:
- Doing so might have been seen by those on the outside looking in (e.g. the likes of Congressman Mark Kirk of Illinois, who seems to have on-going issues with SL) as a tacit admission that there is a “big” problem within Second Life, and caused them to redouble their already vociferous shouts to have access to all Second Life content removed from schools, etc. (and leave us not forget, LL very much see educational link-ups as an important part of their future)
- Hubris: the leadership within Linden Lab have repeatedly failed themselves to grasp the fact that we, their user base, are adults. Time and again, rather than meet with us as equals, they’ve opted to look down upon us as a parent might look upon a wayward child and simplypatronise us. Most recently, this was demonstrated in the OpenSpace sim debacle, where the patronising attitude was very much in evidence from Mark Kingdon right down through to Jack Linden.
It does remain sad that Linden Lab continue not to be more forthright with their user base. If the FTC investigation is the reason behind their current proposals for adult content, then they’ve both shot themselves in the foot, vis-a-vis the aforementioned support they may otherwise have gained in being open, and they’ve further damaged the trust between themselves and their user base.
That said, one would hope that if it does become apparent that the FTC situation is the cause of the changes, that the community itself will show maturity and cease the foot stomping and lip pouting going around SL in the forums and on the JIRA, and try to engage with LL on a more positive footing to ensure the transition from “old” to “new” is carried out as positively and cooperatively as possible.
Inara Pey: Living in a Modemworld 