Tag: SL News

Some time ago, LL opted to shift their method of accepting foreign payments away from PayPal. A deal was struck with Dragonfish – which in a sort-of bizarre twist, given LL’s attitude towards gambling – is operated by 888 Holdings the, er, online gambling giants.

There have been numerous issues with the payments system (which also appears to be linked to Cassava Enterprises, another subsidiary of 888 Holdings, registered in the tax haven we call Gibraltar). Now it appears as those woes might be growing.

As reported on the official forum, members in Europe using the payment system towards the end of last year are finding themselves subjected to directed mail shots to the e-mail accounts that they have specifically set-up for use with Second Life. What is more worrying is that in at least one instance, the mail sent to the SL-related mail account has called the recipient by their real first name. Elsewhere, another use who has used a partner’s Credit Card to make payments to LL via Dragonfish has found themselves receiving directed e-mail to their SL-related e-mail account addressing the card holder by name.

Frank Ambrose (FJ Linden) has attempted to pour oil on troubled waters by suggesting that those affected have been victims of malware  / spyware on their own computers, and that no data has been leaked via Linden Lab or their “third-party” operative (Dragonfish). However, an increasing number of people are doubting this explanation, due to the number of coincidences concerned, perhaps the biggest of which is that the directed e-mails (mis-named “spam” in the forum posts) are from – wait for it – another on-line gambling organisation.

In other words, someone possibly in competition with 888 Holdings.

As Que Niangao points out in the thread, while it in not entirely above the realms of possibility, for FJ’s explanation to hold, the compromised computers used by those receiving the e-mail need to have been infected by some very elaborate spyware / trojan / key-logging system. However, a more reasonable explanation might be that the issue lies at the other end of the pipe and that while no-one is accusing 888 / Dragonfish / Cassava of deliberately passing on user information, it is possible that their own systems have or were compromised at some point.

Either way, it would seem that a more involved investigation is warranted – and neither Linden Lab nor 888 have anything to lose by ensuring the matter is fully and properly checked.

There is a danger in issuing what can be read as trite / suspicious and almost throw-away explanations (as some on both the forum and on Twitter are treating FJ’s response). That is that is deepens the belief that Linden Lab does little more than pay lip service to matters of privacy. This feeling has been rife among the user base for a good while now, and has been exacerbated by recent events around RedZone.

While no-one expects LL or 888 to hold a hand up and admit the specifics of any leak (should one have occurred), one does expect them to work fully and properly to ensure that all fears and concerns that their might be a leak are properly alleviated, and evidence given that customers’ data is in fact secure. If there has been a breach that is not connected to customers’ own computers, then it is also in LL’s best interests to ensure they understand what has occurred and when so they can inform users of the appropriate actions they need to take, if any.

A “Thanks but not our problem,” response – which is how FJ’s reply tends to read – doesn’t really help anyone.

I’m going to go out on something of a limb here. Just why are people getting so worked up about having their “SL Accounts” on Facebook deleted?

Over the last 24 hours, FB have been mass deleting accounts linked to SL avatars (and no doubt other accounts that are “not linked” to “real information”), and people have been shouting about it across blogs, Twitter and Plurk as if it is so kind of outrage.

Well, sorry, it isn’t. I’m not Facebook fan; I wouldn’t even use it – but the Facebook Terms and Conditions of use are clear: only “real life” account information should be used on Facebook accounts. Quote:

“Registration and Account Security

Facebook users provide their real names and information, and we need your help to keep it that way. Here are some commitments you make to us relating to registering and maintaining the security of your account:

1. You will not provide any false personal information on Facebook, or create an account for anyone other than yourself without permission.
2. You will not create more than one personal profile.

However fond we are of our Avatars, the fact remains that they don’t fall under the classification of “real names and information”; ergo, however much it hurts, creating a Facebook account using avatar information has always been a recipe for disaster. Given this, it’s hard to see how anyone can be outraged when Facebook seek to enforce their rules; it is their playground, after all.

I appreciate this may come across as a cold reaction, especially to those who have invested many hours in developing their Facebook presence, but it is honestly hard to be anything else. Had it been a case of FB suddenly changing their policy and wiping out accounts as a result, it would be a very different matter, one that would call for more sympathy for those affected by the move.

But it is not. As quoted above, the rules are clear. Foolish is the person who gambles against the house odds in matter like this.

However, there is another side to this situation. Leave us not forget that for well over a year now Linden Lab have been actively encouraging people to flip over to Facebook and join things over there. For example, we’ve had:

• The 2010 Valentine scavenger hunt, the top prize for which could only be won by those registering with Facebook
• The 2010 advertising campaign that (at the least) required SL users to connect their Avatars with their RL identity on Facebook
• Wallace Linden’s heavy-handed FB push that marked his one (and only?) attempt to “start a conversation”
• Amanda’s Linden’s own clumsy juxtaposition of announcing a forthcoming new “community platform” for “better communications” while at the same time telling people that “the” place to find out about SL is….Facebook…

While it might be argued that few / none of these initiatives have required people to sign-up to Facebook using their Avatar details, such arguments entirely miss the point. Facebook and Second Life are – for the vast majority of SL users – simply a bad fit, precisely because of FB’s “no ‘fake’ information policy.

Of course, there are those who don’t mind linking RL and SL identities: those operating a RL business with SL ties; those working in education in RL and SL, those operating non-profits, etc., may have few qualms in linking one to the other – and are excellently placed to use the likes of FB and services such as LindedIn to help promote themselves and their activities.

But for the vast majority of SL users, making FB a bedfellow has not been in our interests. Some at Linden Lab (/me waves to Amanda) have been using a form marketing kung-fu that can only be described as kicking oneself in the head, in that they seem to be of the opinion that pushing SL users to FB will be reciprocated in a flow of FB users to SL. This clearly is flawed in so many ways, it’s not worth rehashing all the reasons why, especially given they’ve been pointed out time and again by so many SL bloggers.

Hopefully, this latest move from Facebook will convince TPTB at the Lab that it really isn’t in their best interests to be so cosy with FB. In the meantime, for those who want an SL-related social network, why not give 2ndhub a try?

In December 2010 Nelson Linden announced the Second Life Advertising Beta, a programme by which merchants could, for a fee or two, enjoy wider advertising exposure through various Second Life “properties” (or “websites” as we call them elsewhere) such as the SL Marketplace, the SL Land Auction site, and (I assume, as it came along later) within the advertising spaces of Web Profiles.

Essentially, the programme allowed merchants to target niche markets, thus allowing them to have their products advertised directly to those with a specific interest in that market. So, for example, a merchant selling animals could set-up their ads to appear on SL Marketplace pages displayed to those people searching for animals. Prices were based on a number of impressions per month for the add, the size of the ad itself and a minimum purchase amount of some $10.00 USD.

While payments could initially only be made in USD (i.e. via credit / debit card), the basic idea seemed sound enough, and it seems that a number of merchants did sign-up to the programme.

But not enough, it seems, as the programme has now been cancelled, and will formally close on May 31st.

There has been no official announcement of the programme ending; all that has happened is that merchants who did sign-up received the following e-mail yesterday:

“Hello,

“Thank you for participating in the Second Life Advertising Beta program. Based on our evaluation of the SL Advertising Beta during the last six months, we have decided to discontinue the program on May 31, 2011. Access to advertise.secondlife.com for performance information and data downloads will remain open until June 7, 2011. For those that have active campaigns, we will ensure that all of the impressions that you’ve already paid for are delivered prior to closing the program.

“Thanks to all of the Merchants who have helped us test this display advertising beta and for all of your helpful feedback. Your participation and insights will help us drive our ongoing efforts to help you promote your products and services to Second Life shoppers. We look forward to partnering with you on future promotional endeavors.

“If you have any questions regarding this announcement, please email sladsbeta@lindenlab.com and we’ll get back to you as soon as possible.

“Signed,

“The Second Life Advertising Team”

In addition, if you try to reach the advertising site, you’ll simply get this message.

Precisely why the programme is closing remains unclear. Whether it proved difficult to maintain or whether too few merchants signed-up to make it viable long-term as a revenue generator for LL is simply anyone’s guess. It might even conceivably be because LL are planning to replace it with something more refined – although one would have thought those that had made the effort to participate would be given some indication that this was the case, if so.

As it stands the cancellation of the programme, coupled with what appears to be an attempt to quietly sweep it under the carpet does suggest the performance of the programme was less than stellar. If this is the case, then there is a question as to why it didn’t – and forgive the unintentional pun – make the desired impression.

Certainly those merchants that did participate had a favourable view of the programme and tended to find it did help boost sales. But if we’re honest, it wasn’t exactly the most well-supported initiative where LL is concerned: after the initial launch announcement from Nelson, and the video tutorial from Torley, the programme was never given another mention. During the six months it was operating, LL didn’t seek to promote it, report on it or give any further encouragement for merchants to sign-up.

Which is a shame, as with more participation and the promised means of paying via Linden Dollars, the scheme could have become very popular.