Slashdot Mirror
Freedom of Expression in Virtual Worlds
PDHoss writes "NYTimes.com has a story on freedom of expression as it applies to virtual communities, specifically 'The Sims Online.' How should issues of free speech, community standards, and censorship be addressed in the virtual world (given that we can barely agree on those issues in meatspace)?" There's also a story in the Independent, and we've mentioned this guy before.
Simple -- censorship should exist in *either* world. Filtering for young people and such, fine, but not censorship. Virtual reality should be just that -- a representation of reality.
dmiessler.com -- grep understanding knowledge
the bottom line is that people are still going to say whatever they please, regardless of how little jimmy will interpret it.
Wow. That was lame...
dmiessler.com -- grep understanding knowledge
First of all, "Freedom of Speech" in America is a loaded phrase.
"Freedom of Speech" is a government thing. It deals with the relationship between people and their government. Likewise "Censorship". Properly used, the political term "censorship" refers to a relationship between a person or persons, and the government.
None of these have to do with the case at hand. This is not a "Freedom of Speech" issue or a "censorship" issue, but something else. This is the relationship between a services provider and a client, and the political concepts of censorship or free speech have nothing to do with it.
Mod down people who tell people how to mod in their sigs
The answer, or rather, question, may be simpler than expected. Should these be issues at all? The Internet has the potential to be the ultimate even ground for peoples of all race, color, and mentality to communicate and be heard just as loud as the proverbial next guy. The more regulation there is, the harder it becomes for such a vision to become reality. Yes, there are such things as t3h pr0n and abominations like goatse, but ideally a system would eventually arise that permits people to filter for themselves what they would see-this is to say that it would be automated somehow, as obviously anyone can filter what their own eyes see simply by choosing whether or not to hit Enter after typing a URL.
Censorship is something to be treated very, very carefully. And we're living in a world right now where all too many people are overeager to jump on the censorship train and start filtering everything under the sun. Be careful, or else you might wind up filtering the sun as well, and where would the light come from then?
Help protect civil rights from abuse by the TSA - visit TSA News Blog.
http://www.tsanewsblog.com
Consider slashdot itself. Most users browse at +1 or higher, so anything moderated below that is effectively censored (ACs have a default score of 0, but they choose to post at that level).
There's a lot of crap at the 0/-1 level, but there are also a lot of valid criticisms and opinions that the moderating community doesn't agree with.
Do you even lift?
These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.
what is that, my refrigerator?
...in the real world, you have your government's charter/constitution which allows you rights, and hopefully, a good amount of legal interpretation to further define your rights. Your government (one hopes) doesn't revoke them.
In an online world, you have the TOS of the company that makes the game, and they are the ones that define your rights, and you have to agree, or they revoke your account, as happened in this case.
It would seem that unless a collective of people started an online world like the SIMS, that it will be the game company that decides what is acceptable speech and what is not.
libertarianswag.com
I browse at -1 for the trolls. They're usually the most original thing on this site.
I demand this post be removed at once! The nerve...
Users should be able to form groups and communities within those worlds and those groups and communities should put into place their own cencorship policies. Or atleast rate their groups and other groups on self cencorship.
with every group or person with a rating on their cencorship and individuals with their self set (or parent enforced) tolarance levels the world would be self cencored.
Yes things would slip past, but when it does, that person (or group) would be censored by the users
either that or use slashcode and implement moderator and meta-moderator type cencorship level
Im a gamer, not a grammer major. This post is full of spelling and grammer mistakes.
Well, since the "virtual world" is privately owned, requires money to participate in, isn't tied to government in any way, etc...I'd say it's pretty clear cut; freedom of speech doesn't apply on private property.
Let's get real here folks- what's next, arrest for murder if I cut your Massively-Multiplayer-whatever-the-hell-it-is character's throat? Jeeeeeeezus...
Please help metamoderate.
No one in these virtual worlds should be allowed to paint their dwellings the color of the YRO pages.
-- Fighting mediocrity one bad post at a time.
Pat Cadigan wrote some stories where a major plot premise is that anything that happens in a virtual online world has no legal bearing in the outside world. No censorship, no legally binding contracts, nada. Then she explores the idea. Check out 'Tea from an Empty Cup' and 'Dervish is Digital' - both are worth a read.
Waw oo epo doo wa wa wa meeee hoo boo la doo pee maa naa too?
--- Ban humanity.
the one-eyed OSDN personals chick, and she moves in next door to me.
The Sims Online, as a subscription service, has the rights to prevent anyone from using their service. It's kind of like private property in real life: not everyone has to be let in.
Cyde Weys Musings - Scrutinizing the inscrutable
I don't agree that the method of selecting what to read constitutes censorship, though. If the posts were unable to be read (say, by being deleted, or moderated to -2), then you would have a case; but since "most" readers can (and do!) browse at -1 (particularly while moderating), the posts are still being read.
This guy plays by EA's rules, and when he doesn't, he gets kicked out. Seems like EA is exercising their freedom to associate (or dissociate)!
HCG 50a = 2MASX J11170638+5455016
11h17m06.4s +54d55m02s
I'm a big fan of meatspace and the rights provided me by my government (or at least the government I attempted to vote for in the last election). However, when I check into a online game, regardless if it is a first person shooter or cooperative environment, I make no illusions that the rules that govern my life will be (or should be) transferred to a place I'm taking a "time out" in.
Maybe I'm a pimp in The Sims Online because that's how I relax. I'm looking forward to the bloodbath if Grand Theft Auto goes massively multiplayer. (Imagine: I was kicked out because I was auctioning off GTA armor piercing bullets on E-Bay! No fair! Restraint of trade!)
particularly once you consider that not only is slashdot privately owned, but it has paying customers to consider as well.
It's the unused overall "Slack" unfilled area in your underwear that you will never fill because you are a limp son of a sea biscuit.
in Alphaville, I'd form an angry lynch mob, and torch my perceived enemies virtual properties.
I would then nominate myself as Alphamale and rule the city with an iron fist.
I'm all for freedom of expression, but the ability of organizations to control speech on their property is another right that government has. For instance, it would be ridiculous for the government to step in and tell companies that they are not allowed to tell their employees that badmouth the company. Similarly, restraints can ask disruptive customers to leave their establishment. There are exceptions-- these can't discriminate based on race, sex, etc.... The companies that make these video games have one objective: to make money. They have the right to modify these games in any way they choose, according to the contract made upon the user installing the game. Thus, to say that these companies have some duty to protect free speech at the expense of profits is wrong. If you want to spread racist propaganda, there are plenty of other places on the Internet to do it.
i'm not arguing for anything here except less simplistic suggestions.
There is no issue here. He who owns the server and pays its bills makes the rules. As a user, you are subject to the servers TOS and AUP. Don't like it? You don't have to participate.
I want a new quote. One that won't spill. One that don't cost too much. Or come in a pill.
These people should shut the F*U**C*K up, because there is no issue. The answer is quite simple: a toggle-able expletive filter. Turned on by default.
Oh, wait, looks like those filters don't always work...
You do not have a right to free speech on games like "The Sims Online".
These games are a privledge, and if the communities are outraged about censorship, or anything else, well they should fight with their money.
Sidenote: This may not be the case with TSO, but i've noticed in many MMORPGS (think EQ), people are so addicted to it, despite the fact they hate the company that owns it, they continue to play it.
They still piss and moan about it but they never actally cancel the game.
Maybe thats what happened here.
Browse at -1, because trolls are often the most creative part of
A group of people gets together under the premise of starting a virtual community. They let it grow, and eventually a fully fledged society emerges. Lo and behold, that society has evolved to the point where a breed of prostitution exists. It causes no harm unlike in meatspace, where STDs, rape and other types of violence are common. Since those of us in meatspace have linked all of these together under one disreputable roof, it stands to reason that prostitution online must fit in the same category. Let's censor it.
Let's censor it in desperate hope that nobody notices that the evil notion of selling sex really has turned out to be quite a human trait, not something derived from the devil as some religions would have us believe. Let's censor it so that nobody notices that true human nature just might not be mirrored by our current society's value system.
That's censorship. It's a layor of makeup to hide our "flaws."Quid festinatio swallonis est aetherfuga inonusti?
Africus aut Europaeus?
The real issue is the fact that Ludlow was pointing out the sick and bizarre things going on--prostitution, the engaging of cybersex between adults and minors, the scammers, the brothels, and more--in a game rated "Teen."
EA wants this game mass-marketed, which would be a little hard to do with some guy pointing out how sickenly adult the game has become, far above its given rating of Teen. So, he is removed from the system.
look at all those goatse.cx posts!
In an online world, you have the TOS of the company that makes the game, and they are the ones that define your rights, and you have to agree, or they revoke your account, as happened in this case.
This is all that really matters. It would seem that "community standards", in this case, will be derived from what people are willing to pay for. Governments, however, will obviously try to hold online gaming companies responsible for allowing their participants to do or say anything which is already illegal, and then things get interesting with international law.
It would seem that unless a collective of people started an online world like the SIMS, that it will be the game company that decides what is acceptable speech and what is not.
More specifically, in an online gaming or any other online environment (ie WWW), if there IS no content provider to hold responsible, government bodies may attempt to step in... (ie China) but how well is this working currently? Exactly.
Very interesting topic imho.
"where words meet intent, lies rhetoric's lament"
Everyone (yes, you), has a "line" that when crossed, it's no longer acceptable to them. Problem being, everyone's "line" is in a different place.
That is why (until some technology comes along that can automagically censor the world to your individual liking...) there will always have to be someone (or thing) in place to censor content so it meets an acceptable standard.
What that standard is, or should be, will always be debated and as a result, it means most of us will have to be willing to make consessions (*gasp*) either way.
This might seem like a minor distinction to many, but it's the difference between saying "Nothing in the Constution gives you the right to do X" and "Nothing in the Constitution grants the federal government the power to restrict X". Those are really, really major differences. Living under one model is vastly different than the other.
If we see government as the grantor of our rights, we have to go begging to the federal government every time we want to do something new and hope they'll take pity on us. If we see the Constitution as a contract between government and citizens where citizens grant a specific number of powers to government, no begging is required when something new comes up that government hasn't already restricted.
Specific to the /. crowd, it might be relevant that the federal government has no legal power to control personal communications, and that would apply to the internet, regardless of MIME type. The feds may think they have the power to impose restrictions, which they probably can exercize, but they have no legal authority to exercize a power like that. And they can't prevent you from becoming an ISP with a more reasonable (to you) TOS and running ISP's with silly TOS requirements out of business.
We are the collective of the people, or "We, the People", who have the rights (government only has powers), who can make this internet anything we want it to be, by becoming a part of it's infrastructure or paying to be members of this virtual community. Who's stopping you, unless you're a "subject" or citizen of a country where you've been fooled into believing that the source of your rights is some government?
I'm kinda surprised they don't have this in the game... It's kind of like a police force, it's only a little necessary in a civilized world.
I dared voice valid criticisms of the ipod on two occassions and quickly found myself blackballed by a moderator who mods my posts down at every opportunity (regardless of topic or content). I don't post often, and I see every one of my +5 posts modded down a point as flamebait, even if that pissy moderator has to wait a week or two before he gets another chance to vote me down. It's pathetic. In the meantime, I've lost the +1 bonus /. was giving my posts. Meta-moderating obviously doesn't work, or my fan club would have been banished by now.
Generally, non-government space means whatever a corporation does is not "censorship." But not always. Restaurants and shopping malls may be privately owned, but certain individual rights apply there because they are considered public spaces. A mall owner could not, for example, ban black people from his premises.
The owners/company running the online Sims game can and should filter out anything they don't like.
The users forfeited their 'freedom of speech' first admendment 'rights' inside the game when they agreed to the terms of service.
The Sims owners should not be forced to tolerate anything they don't want to.
Grow up. The first admendment is not a tool to force your words to be heard in private places (e.g., the online game, a private club of dues paying members).
Raph Koster, overseer of Ultima Online, and previously of Star Wars Galaxies, has had some very specific thoughts on this topic.
Read on if you're interested.
--I hate big sigs.
What makes anyone think that virtual space will be any different from meat-space? My point is: History is repeating itself. Not because of technological failure or societal collapse, but because of simple human nature . Flame away. Then call me back in 10 years, after you've changed your mind.
C|N>K
First, this is virtual reality. If we can't follow the constitution in virtual reality we should just set it on fire while we piss on the flag. I mean damn, if we cant have absolute freedom of speech in an imaginary fake world, well then whats next? Devices to invade our thoughts and censor them? There are limits to censorship. I agree with censorship when it is to protect someone, such as the president, or even to protect you or I from harm. I do not agree with censorship just because theres speech you don't like. The whole point of a virtual world is to have a world of total freedom. When you bring government even into the virtual world, its no longer a game. Its no longer fun anymore.
People don't exist to serve systems, systems exist to serve people.
Thats the whole point. Its an escape from the flawed reality. Why should there be ANY rules? Why should there be a government if we don't want one? People should have the right to roleplay anything they want, its their imagination, their mind, their thoughts. It's not real life, its a game. The only reason the game is fun is because theres no rules. When you make the game into "sim-world" its no longer a game. The content producers should not be the controllers of the environment. The communities will form and decide what they want.
People don't exist to serve systems, systems exist to serve people.
Well let's see. Freedom of expression can only lead to two things, it can either display the author's acumen or expose his stupidity. If it results in the former, then we must congratulate the author for his brilliance. But if it results in the latter then we can either rebuke him or simply ignore him. And hopefully he'll learn from his mistake(s).
I say that both outcomes can only benefit the author and his audience. So I must conclude that freedom of expression is good, not whacked.
The reason young people don't play these types of games is because they don't have credit cards to play the monthly fee. The only way a young person can play this game is if a parent allows them to. So whats the big deal here? I see no need to filter or censor the game. Even if you tried to censor the game it still wouldnt work.
People don't exist to serve systems, systems exist to serve people.
Not that I disagree with your post but your meatspace rights don't come from the government here in the USoA. It is the other way around. You were born with those rights and the government had nothing to do with that fact.
If you don't like what I write don't be a CS and mod it down. Refute it.
Yea I can't spell. So what is your point?
Not a big deal. Make an Open Source engine, an Open Source MMORPG server toolkit, and make an Open Source sims.
People don't exist to serve systems, systems exist to serve people.
on the mega-level, this story is about two huge things: 1) the connection between virtuality and reality ("rape in cyberspace" has been mentioned before - still interesting) - this is also the ongoing question about gaming "causing" violence, and porn "causing" violence against women - and
2) who determines what rules are used for given group of people
Penny-Arcade said it first and said it better.
I've devised a perfect system that lets the general public decide what they hear/read:
1. Everyone reads the questionable material.
2. Who ever reads it and regrets it votes "I wish I hadn't read this."
3. Once all votes are in, they are tallied.
4. If a certain percentage of the votes were "I wish I hadn't read this," the material is censored.
~To choose doubt as a philosophy of life is akin to choosing immobility as a means of transportation. -Yann Martel
The simplest answer is "my house, my rules". There is a clear separation between government censorship and private censorship.
In a sense, the People own the United States (irony, I know) and as such, the government (because it is owned by The People) cannot impose rules that prevent The People from speaking their mind. Now, certain allowances have been made for community standards and what not (and probably not wisely or justly), but all-in-all, very few compromises can be made to that rule without chucking it altogether. Since it is in writing, in principle, the People have the right to say what's on their minds, no matter how offensive or inane or stupid it is.
It's an entirely different matter when it's free speech on private property. The People don't own my house (or my server) and as such, I can freely tell others who speech I disagree with to go somewhere else. That is allowable censorship (although, to be honest, I don't think it's "censorship" in the sense that most people seem to). For the same reason that you can't walk into my house, take a dump on the rug, and leave, you can't just come onto a forum I've established and say whatever you like. Even if I imply that you can say whatever you like, unless you have a written guarantee, you are subject to my arbitrary whims about the content of your speech when posted on a forum I'm established.
The same holds true no matter the size of the forum as long as it is ostensibly private property. The publisher has every right (even a duty under their contract with their shareholders due to potential lawsuits) to monitor speech with they may deem harmful to the "community" and to remove such speech as they may deem necessary. They are not a government - they are not suppressing The People, just some people who use their services. Yes, it probably is censorship, but it is not Censorship, and they should have every right to do it as they see fit with their own property.
To celebrate the occasion of my 1000th post, I will post no more forever on Slashdot. Goodbye.
The censorship in The Sims, however, reminds me of malls. Laws vary from state to state regarding whether malls (almost always private property) have the right to censor speech by preventing public demonstrations, speeches, leafletting, etc... I think the point to remember is that as public spaces become enclosed and property rights are extended to more areas the public gathers, it is important that free speech rights allow democratic dialogue to continue.
Under capitalism man exploits man. Under communism it's the other way around.
Copied post
We all know that our favorite republic, which we like to call a democracy, is overall the best system yet to be implemented. But is it the absolute best? Does it give too much power to the rich? Would it work better if corporations had not been granted personhood? What if employment was abolished and every citizen earned his living as though he were running his own business with the product being his own labor or creative ideas?
As MMORPG's get more complex and people's participation in the virtual world becomes ubiqitous, these types of questions can be answered. Look at A Tale in the Desert as an example of something moving in that direction but also try to imagine what will be in another ten years.
Liberals call everyone Nazis yet they are the closest thing to it.
You mean good and not whack.
The main issue that I see here is a question of juristicion and who has authority. In this case the forum owner has the rights and they are governed by contract. What I believe needs to happen is that a virtual government needs to evolve, and then the anarchy problem would be solved. With a virtual government the Sims would be guarenteed certin rights and then adopt certin responsabilities. Further, Sim congresses or legislatures could evolve.
I guess the point that I am trying to make is that the application of civil rights cannot be enforced in the cyber world without some authority to do the enforcing. Asking a real court to enforce real rights in a virtual world does not make much sense. Rather the virtual worlds need to adopt a sense of sovergnty based on the virtual needs. Think of it as traveling to a different country. When you go to Mexico you don't have the same rights as those in the US. Likewise a Everquest game virtual world does not need nor warrent the same rights and protections as one in Sims Online. Virtual worlds need to rely on there own users and adopt a sense of responsability towards the rights that people need when using a virutal forum.
The views expressed are mine own and do not express the views of my employer.
I like what FriendFinder did.
Apparently a lot of people were using it for more and more "interesting" (various fettishes, etc) content that offended some people -- so they separated the community into adultfriendfinder.com and friendfinder.com -- in the former community you can say practically anything.
There comes a time when private property starts to act like public property, and where free speech should start to apply because the public interest should ethically outweigh that of a large corporate landholder (and even the very existence of private large corporations in general is morally suspect). Clear examples are shopping malls and convention centers. In the virtual world, free speech should apply to a newspaper's discussion forum. Less clear is an entertainment venue -- normally I would say "no", but with a phenomenon as large as The Sims, I'm not so sure.
... "The Sims" should be banned for being so adictive and pointless that it just makes society more stupid. It may be the worst game ever.
Do yourself a favor and never play that retarded game ever. If you have a copy of the game, ask for a refund or burn it.
Why haven't we heard Will Wright say anything about this? How come his mouth is so tight-lipped?
What's so bad about being lazy? What if there was a war and nobody showed up?
For using the term "meatspace" in a non-ironic context.
EA owns this game. If they think that banning a particular individual from their game will enhance gaming experience of other players, they should do it. If they thought wrong, they will lose players, and, with them, lose money. Similarly, if EA thinks that this player is "high-maintenance" and costs more money than he and those who might get upset by the ban bring, it's fine for EA to ban him.
meatspace? I'd vote to eradicate a word like THAT.
Community has the freedom to act as they please within the EA TOS/EULA, Muckraker has the freedom to... rake muck, Community has the freedom to complain and get the muckraker expelled from the community, muckraker's RL counterpart has freedom to embarass self by making a first amendment stink about it....
Now watch this drive.
Now, I could sue my employer for unfair termination, particularly if they had not detailed or educated me on their sexual harrassment policy.
But legislation has provided that operators of online forums have extensive safe harbor protections. For a while there, this was sketchy (see Stratton Oakmont v. Prodigy , where an investment firm successfully sued Prodigy over a defamatory post and Prodigy lost because it was ruled they took such an active hand in controlling board content that they became lost Safe Harbor protection), but later legislation broadened safe harbor provisions to such an extent that EA/Maxis can boot anyone, clean things up as they see fit, or leave them messy, and they have little or no legal liability to the people who got booted or the people harmed/offended by content that stays. IANAL, but AFAIK, they've got a pretty free hand and the only thing to govern their actions is the free market.
Of course, it's quite possible they were just getting in over their heads when they created the online world they did.
A friend of mine was talking at work Friday about a friend of hers who would create new Sims Online characters just to bring them back to his primary character's residence, kill them, and bury them in the living room.
When the world devolves to a place where a man can find a willing victim for cannibalization online, it's hard for weirdness not to filter into online worlds. When a search for "grief players" on Google turns up 1,800 results, you know that this is no limited phenomenon.
Perhaps the question is not whether there should be freedom within alternate worlds (or as absolute as you can get within the bounds of the program), but how you have to balance freedom against other needs and wants.
How much freedom is necessary to not only complete the objectives of the game, but make the game a fun place to hang out? Should you limit interaction between avatars to only that which is needed to complete game objectives and otherwise phase out community aspects? Can you take out the elements that grief players exploit and yet leave the game with enough oomph to make it popular with a big enough mass of people for it to be profitable?
It's too easy to just lash out at EA and Maxis for booting this guy. Given, it may be a knee-jerk reaction and probably wrong on a moral or ethical level, but virtual worlds are pretty new and the optimal construction and management of them for maximum player enjoyment with minimum grief player exploitation is not a set formula by any stretch of the imagination.
Honestly, a smart move would be to create a virtual world based on that "Manhunt" game they've been advertising on TV or based on GTA. Make a world of pimps, whores, seedy strip joints, dominatrixes, S&M clubs... Make a world where giving grief to others without getting grief is the challenge, and throw in a bunch of sex and sleaze to boot.
I'm not saying this is necessarily a big commercial draw (though it probably would be), but it would probably be a great way to siphon away grief players from other games.
No city ever completely cleans up its red light district or skid row necause they need them. People are going to sell and buy drugs. People are going to sell and buy sex. People are going to fall into the gutter and be more interested in staying there than getting out. These districts serve a purpose... keeping that stuff out of the suburbs and better urban neighborhoods.
That's the sociology of the games. If you conside
Start a happiness pandemic
From the 'Rules of Conduct' on ATITD.com: Most law petitions are designed by players to mold society by placing programmatic limits on behavior, but there are also punative laws that have passed to punish those that overstep the bounds of the collective community, such as this and this.
More information in the Lawmaking Supplement of the manual.
--Owen (not affiliated with eGenesis)
Solipsis, presented at Codecon, is a true P2P virtual world (no servers)...
-- Joaquin
When I was beta testing TSO, I started to get a few ideas about what might be possible with this sort of game. Obviously, the sexual deviance mentioned in the article occured to me (not in any vivid detail, I assure you). I thought the more interesting possibilities lied in more normal, healthy human relationships, however. For example, I was then (and am still now) involved in a long-distance romantic relationship. I began to contemplate the idea of a virtual date with my girlfriend. We could eat out, go see a show, take a romantic walk in the park. Of course, it doesn't compare to any of these activities in real life, but a virtual date, or "proxy intimacy", as I'll call it, is light-years beyond AIM as a communication medium for lovers. Of course, for single sims, nothing says you can't meet someone actractive at the club and begin a whole online relationship (once again, much more interesting than the lurid creepiness of singles chatrooms).
Unfortunately, my dreams for this sort of interaction never panned out. TSO, while trumpeted as being freeform and open-ended in the extreme, wound up digging itself into a rut pretty quickly. Some of its problems lie in the fact that it ranks users on ladders, and introduces systems of competition which are entirely artificial to a game which attempts to emulate "real life". Case in point: statistics on the richest and most popular sims. In the former case, you have a bunch of hyper-capitalists trying to outpace eachother in the generation of a hyperinflating virtual currency (more on the economic problems in TSO later). In the latter, you see an even more bizarre and surreal sort of competition, wherein online characters do whatever they can to get a "friend" designation from other players and then, for the most part, ignore those characters (what an odd definition of friendship).
Another difficulty is introduced in the zoning system used for property. On a basic level, there is none. This sounds good enough, as it should theoretically enable the construction of any sort of enterprise. The unfortunate result of this, however, is that most places just look more or less like houses. There's no concept of shared or leased property, either, as every property has a distinct owner or owners (thus, there are no apartment buildings, no malls, no office parks, nothing). And, although the game lays out properties with physical locations on a map of your chosen city, these locations have no real meaning whatsoever. Properties are not connected to adjacent properties in any special way, and thus the concept of a neighborhood is utterly nonexistent (the lack of anything approximating geography in-game is a very significant barrier to the formation of actual communities). Travelling anywhere in the game is a point-and-click affair, so there's nothing like walking down the street to the drugstore, or taking the subway cross-town to the nightclub. Similarly, you can't walk over to Bob's for the barbeque.
To be sure, people do hold many social events in the game world, but conducting them with friends (in the traditional sense, no the wierd in-game definition) can be difficult. There is very little consistency to online relationships, as the only people you're likely to run into with any frequency in a particular establishment (without having made prior plans) are the owners. Locations are no help, due to the fact that each is a node unto itself (I actually never met any of my neighbors in Alphaville. I doubt many people have). The chance of repeatedly encountering someone by chance then becomes exceedingly small. This, I think, contributes to some of the romantic and sexual wierdness of the game. In TSO, you can't see that cute girl at the Deli a few times during lunch and then work up the nerve to strike up a conversation with her. Better ask if she wants to do the make out action now while you can! Now, if TSO behaved like a more realistic analogue of life, there wouldn't be such a market for prostitution in the gameworld, as people would probably be dating and even
Anonymous Luddite: "What do you think of the dehumanizing effects of the Internet?"
Andy Grove: "Not Much."
I don't see how enforce rules or laws in there...
-- Joaquin
For instance Solipsis is a P2P virtual world (see Codecon2004)
and I don't very well how "Simple -- Censorship" could possible in Solipsis...
-- Joaquin
I first noticed these about a year ago, with my favourite MMORPG. Its about swearing. The company has a "don't swear in public"-policy in place. If you do, you might end up being thrown out of the game. banned.
Maybe this makes it a friendlier place for some, it definitly makes it a more hostile place for non-US inhabitants.
Why is that? Apart from the US and some very rigid religious countries, the whole world swears. Europe swears, from spain to turkey, from italy to norway. Everybody swears, and not just in his mother-tongue, but also in foreign languages. Even university-professors will say "fuck". Not only in private, but in the auditorium.
Given this culture of swearing, a ban of swearwords in online-games amounts to having the whole rest of the world to have something like scissors in your head, constantly censoring yourself (I suspect, however, that US-inhabitants do actually the same, maybe even without noticing). It's not funny. It's hostile.
Name things by its name. It's "fuck", and its not spelled "f*ck" or any other atrocity you do to the language in the name of bigotry and hipocrisy.
To be frank, such a ban friggin sucks and is a sure sign of some screwed-up state of mind, forcing the very same bigotry you're guilty of upon the rest of us. This is orwellian newspeak at its best. Congratulations, you're already half-way there.
Fuck you.
--
"The more prohibitions there are, The poorer the people will be" -- Lao Tse
Not to nit-pick, but the actual lines from the US Constitution are "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." It's article I, otherwise known as "the first amendment in the Bill of Rights" and it's quite a bit different from your line of "Congress shall make no law respecting the freedom of speech" Your paraphrasing couldn't be much more in opposition to what the Constitution intended. This is what we get for making the study of the Constitution a two week interlude in the middle of American History in 9th grade, and the silent masses stay silent as freedom after freedom is abridged because it is too easy to pretend that these freedoms were never ours in the first place.
A privately-owned-and-operated virtual reality is no different from a privately-held TV station: the owner can restrict the content. That's probably not a Good Thing, but the same thing is happening in actual communities, with public spaces disappearing. The solution is to create more public spaces (virtual or actual, same difference) where public rules still apply.
I think a far more interesting question applies to conduct in virtual reality, because what we "do" in a simulated environment is not something we're doing in actual reality. If I beat up someone in The Sims Online, that's not actual assault and battery. And it sounds to me like what's becoming a problem in this situation is what people are doing, not what they're saying. Even free-speech absolutists will usually support restrictions on conduct (killing, theft, etc.) in actual reality. But what about virutal reality?
Games are for entertainment, nothing more. Whether a game is about blasting aliens that are coming down a screen or being involved in a huge on-line MMORPG, it is still *JUST* a game that *JUST* provides mental stimulation and a way to escape modern life for a few minutes.
People that waste their time discussing "virtual worlds" to this level of anal detail probably need to get personalities and sort out their real lives before worrying about what their "avatars" cana nd cannot do.
I'm a huge games fan and gaming occupies a great portion of my leisure time - but it is *JUST* a hobby, nothing more.
Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
Let's not forget that in Sims Online, as in other gaming virtual communities the servers and the game are property of a corporation, and thus freedom of speech is out of place. Same as you cannot do a demonstration inside a mall, the owners of the servers can establish the limits of freedom. Their interest is making a profitable game, not having an open and free community. It's not in their interest letting activist "ruin the gaming experience for others" (that is, play and think little).
DON'T PANIC
The reason given by the admin was "there are children playing here". (In germany the game cannot even legal bought by people under 18 due to a lack of a rating (which makes it automatically 18 and above!)
Of course, Savage is a game were the only resource to solving conflicts is fighting, killed the enemy and abolishing it's home and structures, using all means possible, including rocket launchers, bows, axes, (anti-personal!) mines and other stuff.
But if you use dirty words, you get kicked of.
I'll never understand this..
Cheers,
Tels
And therein lies a huge difference. Public utilities have constraints that fully private entities do not. Their pricing, billing practices, etc are all regulated. Like they are required to give you service, even if you have a history of non-payment. They can require a deposit, require cash payments, but they can't say no. Likewise, in Arizona at any rate, they can't cut you off for non-payment without you being a minimum of 1 month late and having recieved 2 late notices.
Now try that with an ISP. They can boot you even if you are a day late, set whatever prices they like, and refuse to deal with you if you have a history of non-payment. They can also restrict what you can and can't do.
The reasoning is, that the public utilities are monopolies generally, and are also essential. Even where competition in generation exists, there is still only one power grid and one hookup at each house. Also power is considered an essential service to living in the US. Hence, it is regulated as to what they can do with it, even in competitive environments.
Whoever owns/pays for the virtual world gets to make his own rules on what can and cannot be said. If you don't like 'em, you can always go to another one, or make your own. This is assuming that the game/whatever isn't locked into one server/world.
Since no one "owns" the real world...
#include "sig.h"
But let the censorship or lack thereof come from the owners of the virtual space, not from legal madidates.
I don't get it - why would some one pay for a 'virtual' prostitute inside the Sims game? I was under the impression that you never see them naked anyway so what do you get out of it? Do they do the cyber-sex thing over voice chat or something?
Or is it just a form of mental masturbation?
The Sims online game could be commented on freely, under the 1st amendment, if a court would consider the comments newsworthy. For examply, Slashdot is allowed to discuss the events relating to this story via 1st amendment rights. It seems that the Professor's comments were more academic and should have been published via academic means where he would have an automatic license to comment on the game, via ip exceptions relating to educational use of protected materials.
Jax
They don't forfeit anything. The first amendment applies only to government, a private entity such as this can allow or disallow whatever they want.
11 was a racehorse
12 was 12
1111 Race
12112
Hey, genius...the Sims isn't real. It's a privatelyowned software construct. The constitution limits the powers of the GOVERNMENT. I know being a liberal, you don't recognize that government ends and private organizations begin, but here in reality such a demarcation exists.
Trolling. What's it all about? Is it good, or is it whack?
The US Constitution does not protect freedom of speech. The Constitution prevents the US Congress from making laws prohibiting speech. But entities other than the government are not so constrained, even if we have come to expect such freedom everywhere in the US. So private property owners can do what they want with your freedoms: a man's home is his castle.
That freedom loophole does not make our expectations of freedom, in any venue, unreasonable. The founding Americans expected those freedoms, and were justified in kicking the British out of the Colonies to protect them. It would be a century before their inheritors created the legal fiction of a corporation, a person with unlimited rights, but limited liabilities. In the century since then, the monster they created has proven to be a dangerous tool in the hands of its corporate masters, who can act with impunity against the rights of real people. The increasing privatization of public spaces and services means the Constitution protects us less every day, leaving our freedoms instead in the domain of these unaccountable corporations.
Americans are suffering under corporate tyranny. During the 2000 Presidential campaigns, unchecked corporate power was consistently at the top of the list of the electorate's concerns. Once the Republicans scammed their way into power with promises of "smaller, more limited government", they immediately created a hypocritical nightmare, building the vastest, most intrusive government possible for the people, and getting out of the business of governing corporations. People are now more oppressed by corporate greed and avarice than ever. And the continuing Depression doesn't offer much hope for people that we will ourselves own one of those lucky corporations getting the juicy handouts and get-out-of-jail-free cards. A crisis is looming, as Americans realize they're lower on the food chain than corporate predators. And it remains to be seen whether the inheritors of the American revolution will once again lead the world to freedom, this time evicting the corporate kings from our land, and securing universal freedom from its latest tyrants.
--
make install -not war
Quite old. Still applicable
m l
http://www.juliandibbell.com/texts/bungle_vv.ht
Apparently a rewritten version for inclusion in a book:
http://www.juliandibbell.com/texts/bungle.html
Virtual worlds and new media are confusing derivatives of the material world of precedent which conditions our expectations. So we can clarify the issues by looking at the acts we execute in the material world, which are actually governed by known laws, before we consider what virtual laws govern virtual actions in virtual worlds.
When I post a message in Slashdot, the Slashdot rules are considered *after* the rules that apply to me in the room where I sit with my keyboard and monitor. If I'm not inciting a riot, or lying about a clear and present danger, or slandering or libeling someone, or any of the other prohibitions we recognize on expression where other rights are protected from damage by that expression, then I'm free to express myself. The legal jurisdiction over private property like Slashdot's servers might be in question, but I am free to act, and it is up to those around me to cope with the ramifications (within the constraints against damage that I just mentioned).
If anything, virtual worlds offer *more* freedom, because the damage I can cause is less than in the material world, and remedies to any damage confined to the virtual world are much cheaper and easier to apply. Many opportunistic lawyers will be making lots of money by fooling technophobe judges into believing that virtual spaces are the jurisdiction in which virtual acts are to be judged. As geeks, we are experts in the overlap of the material and the virtual - we must remain cognizant of our rights in the material world, and not let the rise of virtual worlds eclipse them. When we talk with other people about what's "virtually right", either online, privately, in public or in the media, we will help everyone understand that the brave new virtual world offers *more* freedom, and we will not accept less.
--
make install -not war
One of the better comments I've seen in a long time on /. Thanks.
I hope Ludlow has already read Snowcrash -- anyone who does any sort of cyber-social research had better be familiar with cyberpunk inside and out!
No, you can't. There is no such thing as "unfair termination."
Does that mean your post is a "tale told by an idiot?"
Here's a Google-partnered link to the referenced NYTimes artical.
__________________________________
Free your mind - Flush your toilet
"The Bill of Rights applies to all law, and binds the legislature, the executive, the judiciary and all organs of state. "
:
---Constitution of the Republic of South Africa
It goes on to protect more rights than exist in the United States. In the end, only government is "bound."
How about India, the largest democracy in the world? Here's their preamble:
"We, the people of India, having solemnly resolved to constitute India into a Sovereign Socialist Secular Democratic Republic and to secure to all its citizens
JUSTICE, social, economic and political;
LIBERTY of thought, expression, belief, faith and worship;
EQUALITY of status and of opportunity;
and to promote among them all
FRATERNITY assuring the dignity of the individual and the unity and integrity of the Nation;
In our consituent assembly this twenty-sixth day of November, 1949, do hereby adopt, enact and give to ourselves this constitution."
Liberty, Equality, Fraternity? Sounds like they're taking a page from the French, not the Americans, non? Regardless, _the people_ are constituting _themselves_ into a form of government. Couldn't be clearer.
The point is that although the words may be slightly different, the United States is hardly the only country where the state is limited and bound by law and where the power of the government comes from the people. That is the case in nearly every democracy in the world. Americans are so quick to assume that either everyone discovered democracy through them or they must not have democracy. That just isn't true.
I won't be allowing my child to sign up for The Sims Online (which she would love to do - she is a huge Sims fan.) I am sorry that their solution to problems like prostitution is to silence critics. They sure as hell won't get any money from me.
Avoid Missing Ball for High Score
IMHO Virtual reality is not only a representation of reality. It could be a paralel world with its own rules and laws.
For instance Solipsis is a P2P virtual world (see Codecon2004)
and I don't know very well how "Simple -- Censorship" could be possible in Solipsis...
-- Joaquin
You state that you should be able to apply the First Amendment's Freedom of Speech to virtual worlds because you have paid money. The owners of the virtual worlds have the right to decide what happens on their servers. There is a big difference between their actions and the governments actions.
The First Amendment is part of the contract between our government and its citizens. As long as you are in this country, you have to obey its laws. The First Amendment is part of what the government gives to you in exchange for you being here and following the laws that apply to your actions. That is what makes the US different from most countries: there is a contract between the citizens and the government.
The legal definition of a contract requires both sides to receive something of value. That is why the "in exchange for $1" phrase is used for contracts that are basically one-sided. It would not be a contract without something of value being returned. Most countries have laws stating what the citizens must do, and some do not even apply the same laws to visitors. Few countries have a contract stating what the government must or cannot do. (And yes, it seems our government is violating our contract with the various new laws that get much attention on Slashdot.)
There is a contract between the company that provides a virtual world and the people who enter that world. They must provide the world, and allow the actions that are listed on the box. The Terms of Service usually grant the owners the ability to eject people for various reasons. You do not have the "right" to be a customer. Most business owners have the "right" to choose their customers.
We will exclude psuedo-government functions such as infrastructure providers. That DOES NOT APPLY here, however much you feel you NEED the game.
If I make a product, I can decide to sell it to people. I can decide not to sell it to people. Sometimes there are laws stating that I cannot sell my product to certain people. This usually applies to drugs, but sometimes the customers may not be children for moralistic reasons. (Any time someone talks about morals, you know logic has fled and they are trying to control your thoughts.) I may lose (transfer) the right to choose the customers by allowing others to distribute my product. I may have difficulty enforcing terms that the customer cannot resell it wtihout my approval, but I can decide who can buy directly from me, and who I will support.
People in business-controlled virtual worlds cannot demand their "rights" because the only rights they have is that of a consumer. They can decide to not be a consumer; they could even sue for their money back if what is provided does not match the product delivered. They can decide to live with the rules of the virtual world. They can build their own world to compete. But they cannot force the business to allow activities that the business does not want, except to (threaten to) remove the customers, and that will have no effect when the business thinks that the product will sell better without those actions, or that they will have legal trouble if they allow those actions.
those companies that take a freedom loving democratic approach to this will be more sucessful than those who don't.
You cannot dictate terms to a company unless you are an (influential) owner of that company.
But you know a competitive advantage for a new company. Start one. Build your own online gaming world. Allow total freedom of expression. (If you include virtual rape, you will probably get an audience. Look how well GTA sells.) Make tons of money. Feel justified that your approach worked. Then watch other companies try to follow your lead. Congratulations, you have made a difference in the world.
I spend my life entertaining my brain.
Except Slashdot doesn't have censorship (except when the regular staff interferes) it has user driven democracy.
If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
Fair enough; sounds logical.
But the net seems to blur the distinction between 'public' and 'private' places. Many of us have to pay just to connect to the net, so it's not as simple as saying that if you pay, it's private.
In the Real World(tm), another distinction between public and private places is size; private places are by their nature limited in their area/volume and in the number of people they can take. Again, this doesn't necessarily apply online.
A related issue is that of control. In a Real World(tm) private place, you'd expect the owner to be able to exercise control over visitors; online, that may be impossible due to sheer numbers.
So - the boundaries blur. Places online can be technically private (according to current standards) but exhibit many of the qualities we currently associate with public places. Should we lose the benefits that would give, or should we say that once a site (or whatever) gets large enough, once it has enough visitors/participants, once the owner loses a certain degree of control, then it counts as a public place, and be treated accordingly?
And if so, where do you draw the line? Is it possible to draw such lines at all?
Ceterum censeo subscriptionem esse delendam.
Surely virtual worlds allow a great opportunity to experiment. If there were both censored and uncensored VWs it would be interestiing to see how the participants in each of these function and which last the longest. Do the worlds with anarchy provide "true freedom" (whatever that means)? Does order make for a more useful and functioning society?
Engineering is the art of compromise.
Man, I wanna know why Slashdot don't email me when ACs respond to my post. I do want to see the replies. Fucking fags.
Karma: It's all a bunch of tree-huggin' hippy crap!
Maybe this is a technical question rather than a philosophical one. If a virtual community was setup with a moderated point system for each user depending on different categories of speech appropriateness and/or style and each user in turn could choose their own virtual experience to either omit or include their presence based on their own preferences then censorship would no longer belong to the general domain of virtual community as a whole but rather would enter the domain of censorship through the specific filtering preferences of each user. This would mean that each user would get a different set of virtual acquaintances based not on a dictated form of general censorship but through each user's own modifications and filter specifications. It would be like having a slashdot that was moderated separately for each user depending one what they were looking for and expecting regarding appropriateness of content.
Here's a case file from the National Labor Relations Board that mentions it. Or here's a search from Google that turns up 2,100 results for the exact term.
Maybe there's "no such thing" in your world. But in the real world, there is such a thing.
Greg
Start a happiness pandemic
I've seen your kind before...bright eyed, idealistic, a happy go lucky kid with stars in their eyes, thinking that everything will be right with the world that they've had a hand in creating.
Then you find out you're dealing with EA Games.
They really don't care what you think.
You have no rights. It's their game, their servers, and their world. You own nothing in it.
You want to cancel? Go ahead. Those that stay behind will pick up the slack on their bottom line.
Hell, you know they can end The Sims Online or any other game at a moment's notice like they did with Majestic Online, right?
The virtual world concept isn't new. It's been around for a long time. EA's got a lot of experience with it.
You and 10 other people (even 50 other people) mean nothing to their bottom line on any game.
To paraphrase The Tick, reality is a harsh mistress.
The simple solution seems to be to have different rules on different servers and let people decide for themselves where they want to "settle". People who want anarchy can have a server to spew on, people who want different levels of peace and tranquility can sign up for other servers. Then have some way for players to "cash out" a character so they can make new characters on a new server if they want to emmigrate without starting all over from scratch.
Alas, I think the only way to deal with corporate censorship is to take the game away from corporations. I think at some point, the game engine will seperate from the skins applied to it and there will be more community-run options. I feel the only reason corporate MMRPGs took off was because open-source MUDs didn't go graphical when the rest of the world was ready for it.
I would say that there's no reason to be angry really, since they have a product they obviously designed for adults and choose not to market it to your daughter.
Now that's kind of sad if there's no acceptable alternative, but considering it's a free marketplace I don't know why people in general get so upset about companies within whose demographic they aren't. I'm just saying that while it's perfectly fine for you not to support them, it's perfectly fine for them not to support you.
So to speak. Don't give them your money. I haven't.
Please stop stalking me, bro.
I would like to see a gameplay server set up with a sister website where players could try others and then assemble and vote for or against the defendant.
That would be awesome. You could also do hacker hunts.
"To try a hacker we block his IP. If he never comes back, then he was innocent"
Please stop stalking me, bro.
It doesn't necessarily take a central authority. Suppose you had to post a bond to join, and if enough people became annoyed with you, you forfeited the bond and it was paid out to all the other participants. All that requires is an escrow agent. After a year of good behavior, you get your bond back, with interest. Requiring a bond of about $100 to connect a server would be about right.
Without the AC vs registered accounts, and without the moderation system.
Freedom is grand, anarchy ain't.
While you give some valid points, in the lines of online-group-analysis, it must also be noted that on totally anonymous networks, where there is no moderator, chans are still viable.
It's strange people always seem to think there is a dichotomy between free speech and having a working structure. there does not need to be. If systems adapt an automated ignoring possibility (such as the '/ignore' on irc), then it's still fully possible to have free speech for all, and yet not be bothered by people that try to bother you.
Besides that, I think there is one big difference between online and rl: in the first, when push comes to shove, one can always redraw from unpleasant situations with a simple click of the mouse, something that ain't always problem when it involves reality.
The legal aspect of the novel was quite intriguing - a novel (pun) approach towards the cyberpunk ethos. A constructed reality normally amazingly devoid of lawyers... I guess we are all idealists at heart...
Q.
Insert Signature Here
I feel the notion that they could support children using their product inappropriately bunk when they are trying to sell to adults.
Like alcohol. Do people let their children buy alcohol? Are we angry at Wyborowa Vodka? The retailers and the parents can keep it out of the hands of the children, and the manufacturer to limited degree.
And quit saying they support child prostitution. Yahoo chat supports prostitution. You can even find links to escort services searching on Yahoo. I think it might be prudent to say the Internet supports child prostitution.
Please stop stalking me, bro.