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
...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
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.
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.
i'm not arguing for anything here except less simplistic suggestions.
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.
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).
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
Wasn't there a lawsuit a few years ago over some kind of an online "virtual rape"?
One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
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.
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
This depends on where you are. In sweden it is for instance illegal for a nightclub to select their guests based on origin (there's been some cases of bouncers not admitting people from middle eastern or african origin).
Trust the Computer. The Computer is your friend.
this transposition (obverse::observe) is so perfect, I almost wonder if it was intentional.
in the context of the thread, it's a legitimate point that in some cases, private property owners' rights are indeed misappropriated, resulting in the obverse of freedom of speech being enforced.
chuckle.
La via sola al paradiso incommincia nel inferno
I think that Alphaville is interesting, esp. in that Lawrence Lessig argues in Code that the larger threats to fundamental liberties now originate from powerful economic interests moreso than government.
The norms embedded in the code (proprietary or open source) of Alphaville are not so different than the norms embedded in the rules of real life.
In Code, Lessig writes about a virtual "rape" that occurs in a MUD called LamdaMOO. The event --- though it is not "real" --- catalyzes a real change within the LamdaMOO community from happy-go-lucky anarchy to a more democratic format. (pp. 74-77).
Slashdot is another example of a similar tension which it addresses through moderation. AOL is another e.g.
The point is not so much that virtual democracy is better than virtual despotism as that choices are necessarily being made about these norms --- whether deliberately or by default.
I'm laughing at clouds.
1) Not all online games have a monthly fee. Some are free.
2) Some online games have set-ups which allow something other then credit card payments. I can't think of any right off-hand that will take cash if mailed to them, but I have heard of ones that will accept checks or money orders. For the former, it's unusual but not uncommon for teenagers to have checking accounts, but practically anyone can get a money order.
3) Some kids do have credit cards.
4) Some kids use mommy or daddy's card without letting them know. Sure, if they get caught, the game (ha-ha) is over, but for upper-class/rich parents, who could conceivably have hundreds to thousands of dollars of credit card purchases per month, it could go unnoticed for quite some time.
5) Filters work both ways. On many MMOPRGs, it not only keeps "impressionable young minds" from seeing some other character swearing like a sailor, but given the ToS on many (if not all) of these games, it also keeps the offending player from losing his or her account. (And lost accounts mean lost cash for the company running the game.)
6) Most online games do not fall under the "I paid my monthly fee, now I get to do whatever the heck I want!" setting. There are responsibilities and rules to follow, aka the Terms of Service. The company running the game can (and in many cases) and has changed these to reflect changes in the way the game is played, or to stop new cheating programs, or to deal with existing problems.
It may not be perfect, but hardly anything is.
Kierthos
Mr. Hu is not a ninja.
And what that equates to is a "virtual death penality" for somebody who spoke out against the "virtual government". Yes, EA has a right to do that.
However, this is a rather interesting decision... rather than fight the "crimes" he pointed out, they decided to silence the critic. That makes it seem like they're starting to become a virtual police state, which surely they didn't have in mind when this thing started. How can EA keep order in the community without becoming so oppressive that they also kill the fun of being there?
True, but if the thread is flagged by the editors as a troll, you will lose your mod points and never be able to moderate again. It's called $rtbl, or "Real Time BlackList". Flamebaits and crapfloods may be blatantly obvious targets, but there are some crafty trolls that generate a lot of comments where you won't know what's troll and what's not.
My point is this: it up to the editors and fanboys what is insightful, and what is crapflood. Joe_User has very little control over what they see here. Sure, setting your preference to -1 will let you see everything, but try finding the rare gem among the crapfloods and goatse links. Yes, they do occur, because moderation abuse is rampant, particularly among anti Debian and Gentoo posts. Browse the next Debian or Gentoo story at -1 and observe every post critical of those two distros wind up in the shitter, no matter how interesting they may be.
I'll probably get modded down for this, but WTF, I'm $rtbled anyway.
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?
If some form of governmental legislation is passed regarding online gaming consorship, i would hope the companies providing the content would move the servers offshore and out of the range of such nonsense.
My ghEtt0 webpage.
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
You miss a VERY important point: We're paying for it!
The company gets their money from us, and if they don't respect our rights we're not going to pay them. It is not as clear cut as you seem to think.
Over time, people will demand their rights in online gaming worlds, and those companies that take a freedom loving democratic approach to this will be more sucessful than those who don't.
And secondly, this virtual world thing is a whole new concept unlike anything that has ever been done before. To just gloss over the problem "well they signed a ToS agreement" does a complete disservice to this issue. This is a horrificly complicated issue and it's going to take a lot of time to work itself out.
In fact, I think just like our governments it never will. There will always be some problem.
These companies are not building games, they are building online societies and that has real world consequences that can and will affect their bottom line. The sooner they realize this, the better.
Bryan
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
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.