Scoble & Son Banned — SL Not Fit For Families
Well, John Swords and I warned them when we interviewed the pair for our Metaverse Sessions podcast, but former Microsoft blogger Robert Scoble and his son have finally been banned from Second Life. Young Patrick Scoble is only 12, not even quite old enough for the Teen Grid, but Robert lets him use his main Grid account anyway. The mistake was to do so as part of a presentation at a conference. Linden Lab’s reaction was perfectly in keeping with their Terms of Service. But do the Terms of Service make sense?
Shouldn’t a parent be able to take responsibility for their child’s welfare by deciding for themselves whether the content is too strong for them? As a commenter on Scoble’s blog points out, you can bring your underage offspring to an R-rated movie. Why can’t you bring him to Second Life, where the bewbies are but virtual? Banning anyone under 18 from SL effectively makes the place NC-17 rated. Is Linden Lab in fact afraid of lawsuits? On a recent episode of SecondCast that will be posted shortly, CEO Philip Rosedale asserts the contrary. But perhaps genereal counsel Gene Yoon has more sway in this area.
What’s disappointing about this is that it’s a choke on community-building. You can inhabit Second Life as a singleton or a couple, or as a group of adults, but because adults and children can’t mix, you can’t come in as a father and a son, or as a family. That’s truly too bad, given the great potential of the place. It’s a difficult line to walk, but LL would do well to place more responsibility in the hands of its users — although this would represent more or less a sea change from how the company has managed its virtual world so far.
Feeds
I caught this on a number of blogs this weekend, and personally I’m with LL. Scoble shouldn’t be treated any differently than anyone else and should have known better. At least he’s basically admitted that he was wrong. It’s LL’s world and they have to deal with the consequences that arise from this new - and to some - threatening technology (and in our increasingly Red, litigious country can anyone blame them?).
That said, I do think that LL’s new registration system is a move toward opening up the grid, because if SL is to truly compete to be the next incarnation of the web, it won’t be able to maintain age restrictions. It’ll be a limbo dance and will take some time, but SL will eventually have to open up… right before it fragments into hosted sub-worlds controlled and/or restricted by barons/entrepreneurs/corporations/etc.
From LL’s point of view the decision is correct - they are enforcing their stated EULA, and they are not yet big enough to be able to afford massive lawsuits.
The problem is not with LL, but with the society in which LL has to operate. Csven, the issue is not red, blue, green or whatever. It is a color-blind loss of the sense of measure and rationality.
Society in the U.S. is currently being run by a “Red” president and a “Red” Congress, both of whom basically owe their political power to a mostly fundamentalist Christian base. So by Red I’m referring to those who are adamantly opposed to the kinds of activities that occur in spaces like SL and consider them a threat to their children, their society, their way of life and their religion. These are the people who want amendments to the constitution that legitimizes discrimination by defining marriage in such as way that it excludes productive members of our society.
For anyone who caught Stephanopolous’s (sp?) report on the growing split in the U.S. (ABC’s “20/20″ iirc), it’s arguably being driven by religion; and the Right says as much (you can view the entire piece on Yahoo Video). So, for example, those who are opposed to the rights of homosexuals (apparently including - based on some of what I heard on that report - prohibiting them from doing as they please in the privacy of their own home), would have a real problem with that sort of activity inside SL. A state like Massachusetts would be less likely to have an issue with homosexual activities in virtual worlds since they’ve legalized gay marriage. Massachusetts is a “Blue” state.
Hence, the more “Red” the more likely there will be problems in adult worlds like SL.
As a parent, I agree with you that parents should be the arbiters of what’s acceptable for their children. I think it’s fairly ridiculous that they got busted for doing this at a conference: you can hardly claim that he wasn’t receiving proper adult supervision.
I’m a parent too, but there’s a law in this country and LL is held accountable to that. It’s easy. And yes, Robert’s a good friend, and he’s no different than anyone else. We don’t have to like it, it’s just the way things work.
That’s just it, Eric: The law draws a much broader circle around acceptable behavior than Linden Lab does. You could have teens rampaging through SL all day long and I don’t think the law would blink an eye.
Interesting. Well, I’m sure that with the new open registration, the Scobles are already enjoying new accounts.
“The law draws a much broader circle around acceptable behavior than Linden Lab does. You could have teens rampaging through SL all day long and I don’t think the law would blink an eye.”
We need to define “the law” here. The Law - as in the authorities - would do as you say and draw a much broader circle. Those who actually enforce the laws put on the books (sometimes for all the wrong reasons) have to be pragmatic to some degree. I know in my state the police are understaffed and funds for emergency services has been severely lacking in some areas. I’d rather they go after real criminals.
However, the Law - as in the legal guidelines - often permits those with no real authority to use the court system to press their case according to their own priorities. No one has to explain to anyone here that there are other ways to “enforce” ideas (or an ideology) on a business. Ford has been dealing for some time with a very vocal group of people who oppose that corporation’s policies. Linden Lab doesn’t have such deep pockets.
So Eric is absolutely correct in pointing out that there are laws - however they’re enforced - that demand a level of accountability on LL. Don’t blame LL. Blame the people who waste time popular but effectively worthless legislation when there are bigger problems in this nation. Or responding to a vocal minority’s demands that the highest court in the land pass a law to save a woman in Florida when there are others dying in similar fashion on a regular basis. Heaven forbid someone take LL to court for selling a virtual adult toy in some states in this free nation. The sad truth is that we’re just not as free as we pretend to be. Neither from the Law, nor from the laws and those who would use them.
I hear you, csven, but as I pointed out above, LL’s CEO isn’t actually worried about prospective lawsuits. I think they wouldn’t have opened up registration if they were all that worried about it, to tell you the truth. I’d also point out that the more companies, citizens, Congress and the courts let the vocal minority roll over them, the more of a problem the vocal minority will be. Yes, in this area the vocal minority can probably better afford to prosecute lawsuits and buy off legislators. But I have to believe that’s not what will decide things in the long run.
I didn’t listen to the podcast so I’ll ask: is he not worried about lawsuits of the sort recently filed in the “back door auction” sense or in regards to this particular issue? There’s little danger of bad press from the former; quite a bit of danger from bad press on the latter. And right now I suspect good press has benefitted LL significantly. I have a hard time believing Rosedale doesn’t really care about a lawsuit filed against LL that somehow involves a minor. Even if he says as much in that podcast.
I think they’re walking a tightrope on registration. But I think I understand why they’re doing it. And they’re still very much a short run company for now. When LL is a “long run” company, then the issue Eric raises diminish. Until then, they’re at the mercy of a whole lot of reactionary types imo.
I am with LL on this one. They are expected to put reasonable efforts into maintaining the Terms of Service. Everybody understands that the rules are not possible to enforce 100%, but where they can be enforced easily, the company has to do it. Bad things may happen to LL if they do not.
So, they warned Robert in private the first time, trying to be nice. Then, he goes ahead and violates the rules again - in public, on purpose, recorded for posterity. There is no option but playing strictly by the rules at that point for LL.
If at some point the rules will change to ‘allow minors with supervision’, then they can reinstate Robert back. But until then, he is out.
Just to be clear: I too think LL were just following their own rules. I just think the virtual world would be a better place with a slightly different set of rules in place.
So would the real world.
Too true. It’s important to speak up in both realms.
While a parent does have the responsibility to decide whether content is too strong or not that doesn’t mean their decision gets to override the policies of the content provider. As an analogy if there is a movie theatre that has for whatever reasons a policy of not allowing those under 17 into an R rated movie, even with an adult, is is perfectly within their rights to do so. It might be a foolish choice for them to make but I doubt that anyone would argue that they legally do not have the right to do such a thing.