Raph Koster announced that Metaplace will use his heralded Avatar Bill of Rights as the foundation of the Terms of Service for Metaplace. And in so doing, Metaplace has put down another marker that will shape the experience, and thus discussion, over the evolution of virtual worlds.
Does the TOS Matter
But why does it matter? I mean – let’s face it, for the most part you sign up for these worlds, you skim through or bypass the EULA, which is really just a bunch of legal mumbo jumbo, you click “accept” when that Code of Conduct or TOS thing pops up, and you’re off. Most of the time, it will never make a tiny bit of difference – you’ll never be abuse reported, you probably won’t know anyone who is, and the times when it DOES happen it will seem like, ‘duh’, “don’t take my stuff” or “don’t hack the code” kinds of things.
And in most cases, the TOS is irrelevant anyways – we sign up for all these games and worlds and rooms and social Web 2.0 things and promptly lose interest, so our EXPERIENCE tells us that in 95% of the cases we can bypass the TOS because we’ll never get that invested in the space anyways.
But then again, we also discover, when we DO get invested in something, that this stuff IS important, and we only have to glance over at Facebook to see how policy impacts community, and how it gives rise to dangers and restrictions related to stuff that can actually matter – stuff like my identity, privacy, who owns what, and whether I can take it with me.
You change the privacy policy and all bets are off. You can leave (although taking the “stuff” with you isn’t going to happen, so you have to leave it behind or jump through hoops to get your account deleted), or you get USED to it, and then we’re not always talking about just you and me making compromises on what we once believed were fairly secure principles about our digital identities in popular spaces, now it’s a benchmark or standard for the wider community.
We Don’t Know What It Means Until It Means Something
The problem is that we’re not generally in a position to parse the implications of the TOS when we START a game, or enter a world – we don’t understand the mechanics of it all yet, we don’t know whether we should care about property and IP rights because we don’t know whether we’ll even want to make stuff and sell it or own it. Or we don’t know whether it’s some kind of Wild West (as Mitch called the early phases of Second Life which means, um, a year ago) in which freedom of speech and cutting people up is the lingua franca or whether it’s meant to be more perky, or polite, or like a high school dance over on There.com.
And it doesn’t make a lot of difference anyways, because even if we KNEW how the whole thing was set up and we read “Making Your Second Life” or “Second Life for Entrepreneurs” or whatever, and we faxed the TOS to our lawyers, we also know, intuitively or by direct experience, that the TOS will only be as good as how it’s enforced and interpreted. It’s like jay walking – there might be a law against it but in one city you’ll be thrown in jail and in another city it seems like part of the culture and the cops aren’t about to interfere with our inalienable right to freely step into traffic.
OpenSim Is Making Stew
The most interesting development in virtual worlds today isn’t interoperability between OpenSim and Second Life, or the emergence of “browser-based worlds”, but is instead in the emerging philosophies, approaches and mechanics arising at the intersection of games, social media, and virtual worlds. This intersection is best exemplified, I think, by looking at Second Life and Metaplace, one because it has a track record of struggling with these issues and a particular mindset, and the other because, well, it’s Raph, and Raph knows games and Raph knows MMOs.
Now, I still firmly believe that OpenSim is the current hotbed of technical innovation (outside of chips and their impact on 3D rendering, about which I’ve frequently posted). And I won’t get into a debate right now about why I think they’ve moved beyond “copying code” – I touched on all that in my post and follow-up comments by Prok and others. I do believe that OpenSim is pushing the envelope on technical innovation. They’re integrating, modularizing, adding and enhancing at a pace I haven’t seen in other virtual world spaces – whether the open source ones like Croquet and Wonderland, or the closed ones like Icarus. (I’ll give passing credit to Multiverse and Mycosym for trying).
But technical innovation does NOT necessarily mean that it will be transformative innovation. That kind of innovation will emerge when the technology gets used by actual people, and the OpenSim folks take the attitude of ‘build the code, and the policy will follow’. Whether they can actually pull this off, I’m not sure – by building a buffet, this will lead to a mish mash of policies, and quite probably a tendency by the folks who deploy grids to default to the lowest common denominator protections for their users simply to stay competitive.
On OpenSim, we’re all supposed to construct our own policies, and as a result there won’t be the sort of aggregated learning that would come with widespread adoption of a few principles – we risk ending up like much of the Web, where keeping some sort of control over your identity or following the privacy policies of every Web site, or trying to get some handle on spam is now out of our reach. It will be a lot like ACCEPTING a TOS – who cares really, it will only matter when it matters, just cherry pick a few things and throw up a TOS, you can always modify it later, or deal with copybots on your own schedule, and who’s going to come after you anyways? The shoe makers?
The closest OpenSim seems to be getting to some sort of policy innovation is through thinking about the mechanics of transportability and protection of objects – but so far, as best I can tell, we’re still at the thinking stage and a lot of gabbing on listservs about lawyers and clause 4.2 and snarky comments at office hours.
What I find ironic about this is that an open source platform, by lightly skipping around policy as a structural underpinning of the ‘platform’, will more likely end up being more frequently deployed as closed off and locked down. OpenSim is creating passcode protected Intranets, whereas Metaplace is more likely to end up visibly ubiquitous.
Webby Worlds Aren’t Worlds
At another end of the policy spectrum are browser-based worlds which are generally sticking to the tried and true, paternal “Thou shalt not” model, the same one that Raph argued against for MMOs, an attempt to rein in the game gods and their ban buttons. One of the most intriguing recent developments was Lively and I previously wrote about their struggles with the TOS, enforcement, and ‘adult content’.
But there’s something important in this. I recently suggested that most browser-based worlds are entertainments, and that as entertainments they have a short shelf life. And I’ve been struggling to articulate why I think there’s something broken in the idea of “bolt on socializing” – the idea that if you give people something entertaining to do, and then give some tools to talk or socialize around that activity, that this is wrong. I mean – it makes sense, right? Create something fun, people will cluster around it, fun will arise, communities form, the platform owner wins.
And I think I’ve partly cracked that nut (although I’ll wait for a future post to explain, I can only write so much, right, and you probably didn’t even make it this far).
But to cast one angle on it, in this context at least: if a site doesn’t have a need for a robust social or economic policy to make it work, it’s probably a publisher and not a world, and in this day and age publishing proprietary content is expensive when there are so many other fun things to do, like watching Sarah Palin spoofs on youTube or writing tiring and lengthy blogs.
The Fields of Innovation
When I put Second Life and Metaplace head-to-head I was looking at two competing (although complementary) views of how the metaverse will unfold. You either view the Web from a world, or a world from the Web (OK, or a phone, or a digital billboard for all I know). That over-simplifies it, I know – because you can have mixed reality and alternate viewers with Second Life, and you can have “distinct” MMO destinations arise from Metaplace. But it’s a philosophy of how the technology facilitates the expression of 3D space.
I extended the implication into the question of whether this meant we would stop seeing virtual worlds as places:
But it leaves a question: are virtual worlds places? Or will the technologies that enable 3D spaces become so ubiquitous that we’ll stop thinking of them as distinct places? Because in Raph’s view, the tools and technologies to create 3D artefacts, the system for managing your avatar and identity should be EXPRESSION-agnostic. In other words, we should have the tools for creating content and then be able to seamlessly publish that content to cell phones, browsers, Flash, separate clients – whatever, it’s not the viewer, it’s in the engine from which content is derived and creating standards and tools for expressing the content from that engine.
But in both cases – Second Life and Metaplace, the truly deep innovations arise (or will arise) because of the intersection of policy, protection, identity and economies.
And maybe that will happen on OpenSim as well – at least anyone can grab a copy and give it a shot. Their focus on code followed by policy, and their attitude of grabbing “best practices” from the rest of the Web (Live ID? PayPal? Are THOSE what they mean by best practices?) leaves me waiting for – well, it leaves me waiting for the rest of it. And every time I hear a Linden go on about spatialized voice or 3D cameras or brain wave machines or whatever, I get a little shudder – because I start thinking that the Lindens STILL haven’t learned their lessons.
As Hamlet so eloquently pointed out in the Making of Second Life – most of the innovations in SL didn’t happen because the Lindens came up with some new gadget, but because they executed policy, or unintentionally introduced policy through technology, and the result was unexpected. Issues arose. Wars broke out. And I’m sorry, but wars don’t break out because you have a 3D camera, they break out because of the sometimes subtle and sometimes monumental impact of how a world is managed, the tools you use to do that, the codes and policies you have in place to reference it, and the interpretation and execution of your enforcement models.
We’re not at the cusp of being able to fly through a virtual sky here. This isn’t the beginning of a new generation of casual games. Social technologies, games, augmented reality and virtual worlds are blending and blurring.
Deep innovation isn’t arising because I’ve come up with a new way to render virtuality or because I’ve ‘modularized the code’, its arising because of how our concepts of sociality, personal identity, narrative, the nature of work, governance, privacy and protection are being challenged and changed. I don’t believe that these changes are unique to virtual worlds, but I believe that virtual worlds give us insight ahead of other technologies on the impact, options, promise and peril of the road ahead.
With uniform rights as an avatar, I feel more secure in my search for that promise than I do in interpreting the fine print of someone’s tossed-together, modularized TOS.
Long time reader and first time commenter… I’ve enjoyed your posts so far, but I have to say I think you’re missing the point on this one.
“With uniform rights as an avatar, I feel more secure in my search for that promise than I do in interpreting the fine print of someone’s tossed-together, modularized TOS.”
Okay… for a start… Raph’s rights are for players, not avatars… the two are completely different things.
A universal bill of rights for avatars (or players) just won’t work.
Different world builders are going to want different rules for their worlds. Raph is working out a set of rules for his world(s), which is fine, but there are always going to be people who want to set up worlds with different rules. A Christian world is going to have a very different set of rules from a Gorean world. This is why Linden Lab has had so many problems coming up with a lowest-common-denominator set of rules for everyone.
And what about jurisdiction? Everyone in SL misses out on gambling because of US laws. And age of consent gets lowered to the lowest in the world.
This is where world-building tools like OpenSim come in. OpenSim is just software, like Apache is software (whereas Raph is running a service, like Linden Lab… or flickr or YouTube). When someone sets up a webhosting business they say “this is what you can and can’t do on your website” if you choose to host with us. They get lawyers to develop their TOS which is relevant to their situation and context (e.g. the laws that apply where they are hosted). If you don’t like their TOS, you take your website business elsewhere.
OpenSim grid hosting services will operate the same way. And because OpenSim is modular and extensible, if there is a feature required to support a specific TOS it can be added. For example, if a Christian TOS doesn’t allow nudity I’m sure they can add a patch that ensures that even when unclothed an avatar’s private parts are covered with underwear.
So no… TOS will not be tossed together… they will be developed by lawyers familiar with the issues customising them for different grids.
Raph’s list is a good template, but it will be taken and modified appropriately. In parallel, virtual world building software will be developed to ensure the desired TOS is technically possible.
Addendum: In my Christian underwear example I didn’t mean to suggest that all behaviours will be controlled by software. Obviously the more flexible a world is the more reliance there will have to be on a TOS to govern user’s behaviour. My point was the TOS isn’t embedded in, or determined by the software, which is what you seem to be implying.
Thanks Sean, your comments are really useful because you’ve pointed out my lack of care in defining my terms. You found the same thing, in your correction to your initial comments (although I disagree, about which more later).
So first – and I want to make this as clear as I can because these are confusing waters.
First, I’m not implying that OpenSim NEEDS a universal TOS. In fact, my comments about OpenSim are meant to be related to policy, not the TOS – although I do use the example of a menu or buffet from which folks will eventually construct their own individual terms of service.
I think that policy is important and I also believe that there are a few fundamental policies that should underpin the development of OpenSim, and that these policies should be articulated sooner rather than later….and the OpenSim community seems to agree that there’s a need for this, they talk about developing policy in parallel to code.
What arises from policy are a number of things. It might be a EULA, a TOS, a storage system, central registration, or enhancements to the code. Policy is arising right now, for example, through AWG and interoperability with Second Life. I’m not saying I agree with where those policies or headed or that they’ve been sorted out yet – but policy is arising because no matter how many times I hear that OpenSim is like Apache, even Apache is built against certain policies.
I buy conceptually that OpenSim is a platform, it’s not a world. I’ve read the arguments, I’ve heard them talk about it, and hey – who can’t agree with Tarah5 Oh at UgoTrade?
It’s a bunch of bits and pieces from which worlds will arise. Those bits and pieces will be assembled into worlds when you add to them all the stuff that makes a world – sociality, place and drama as Prok says.
But that does NOT mean that policy doesn’t arise even before worlds are built. The best example I can come up with is still e-mail. I’m sure there are other examples or there are flaws with my example but whatever: e-mail is not a world (duh). It was built to let people send messages to each other. You don’t worry about how it’s going to be used, or Codes of Conduct over what the message contain, or rules over whether you should ever forward jokes to your entire friends list right? But the problem is, that policy WASN’T considered in how e-mail was developed (or maybe it was, they just didn’t know better). Because policy would say something like:
“E-mail should facilitate the option for the recipient to verify a trust relationship with the sender.”
If we had this type of policy, then maybe there would be no spam, and maybe I wouldn’t have a canceled ticket to Nigeria in my desk drawer.
That’s the type of thing I mean by policy.
Now, specifically with OpenSim, I’d propose that there are a lot of policies which if they were discussed and transparent and generally agreed upon would influence all those bits of code that make up this modularized platform from which worlds will emerge.
To give an example, and I’m making this up off the top of my head, but here goes:
“Users should have the ability to see what information about them is being communicated to individual servers.”
I’m thinking here of a parallel, say, to cookies. To the best of my knowledge, very little consideration has been given to user-side storage of digital identity data. I’d like to see a policy that says something like the above and then to see the code built and/or “scrubbed” to allow this policy to be executed. How would it work? Who knows, but what I’d like is that as I roam from grid to grid in the wide open future interoperable universe, that each grid sends me a packet of information, and that this packet is stored in a little “portfolio” which I always have the option of accessing. This portfolio would tell me what information has been collected and/or shared about me, what information has been transported from one grid to another, so that I have an ability to manage my identity. Now, this information could be a simple string: a series of 1s and 0s, each of them tagged to a particular type of information. Doesn’t matter what the mechanism is. What matters is that the fundamental policy of the “Apache platform” is that it should be built in a way where the gathering and sharing of user data isn’t hidden behind the veil of the platform owners, and that users have the right to know what’s going on behind the scenes.
I think if we had a policy that said “Systems should be built so that users always have the option of a) seeing what’s going on and b) because they have the right to see, modular systems can be built that will always allow them the option of not visiting sites/sims/grids where they don’t like how that information is handled.”
Think of it like your lag meter or FPS dashboard or whatever, except that in this case it’s an information flow widget.
OK, so I’m making this up off the cuff – but can you see what I mean by policy? A few universal principles about what the system should accomplish – not laws, but rather an articulation of some general principles. If this was a policy or principle, then as the little code bits were written they’d be mentally scrubbed for whether they aid or abet that principle.
Now, OpenSim is open source and all that and there will always be branches and hacks regardless of what policies are put in place. So, sooner or later, other policies will need to arise – there are standards in the code, but standards around things like trust and protection WILL need to arise. Think of it like a Verisign system for Web sites, or SSL (as soon as I give an example like that I always figure I’ll be jumped on for some giant hole, but it’s not my point whether these particular examples are the right ones, it’s that there are things that a USER looks for to assure trust, for example).
So, that’s what I mean with OpenSim. Policy not TOS. Because its open source, the policies will need to be quite broad. But these policies would help to shape what modules and codes get developed, would hopefully aggregate the developers to a degree around a few broad statements of principle, would create a sense of buy-in from the broader user community who doesn’t, frankly, CARE that it’s the Apache of virtual worlds.
And that latter is a critical point. Because OpenSim keeps going on and on about how this is like Apache. Users DON’T CARE.
Users didn’t care either that Web sites were built on HTML. They didn’t care that “The Web is as safe as using your credit card at a store – both are equally open to fraud and abuse.” They didn’t care about the stuff behind the scenes, what they wanted to know was “will I get ripped off on this big bad Web thing” and it was only when there was enough aggregation around a few policies that people started trusting the system, and seeing those little tick box signs on e-commerce sites, that they started buying stuff.
So, I hope I’ve clarified that what I’m saying OpenSim needs is a discussion of policy, around which I’d hope that the development community might rally, and in so doing would provide a focus to code development governed by a few broad principles that would hopefully become widely adopted.
But what I’m also saying is that even if they don’t, then bless them. OpenSim is still a technical innovation. It will still lead to a wider use of virtual world technologies. But I also think that the next wave of “deep innovation” will come from tackling the big challenges related to identity, trust, and portability. Because OpenSim isn’t the venue for that until you have large-scale experiments building on this “Apache-like” backbone, then it will be places like Metaplace that are first to see new approaches to commerce, microtransactions, identity toggling, etc. occur.
OK, so back to the TOS. I’d propose that Raph got it right when calling it avatar rights – it’s not a player that’s in a world, it’s their avatar. The player is subject to laws and whatever, the avatar is subject to the rules of the world, primarily governed by the TOS and its mechanisms of enforcement.
I’d propose that the EULA is the document that governs the player and the TOS is the document that governs the avatar, although the TOS can also be embedded in the EULA so that egregious damages under a TOS contravention can be pulled “out” of the world and applied to the real person – but the EULA is the vehicle for accomplishing this.
Thus, the TOS governs an avatar, because the damages and enforcement of claims is within the realm of what can be done to the avatar and the avatar’s possessions (or right to enter or use the space) rather than the player. The EULA governs whether the platform or other players can go after the player behind the avatar for damages and recourse outside of the direct actions WITHIN the platform – and it’s the EULA that opens the gateway to “real world law” rather than the TOS (which, again, is still embedded in a clause within the EULA).
So, if the TOS governs the avatar and the EULA governs the player, then isn’t software pretty much the only way that the TOS would apply, unless a judgment is “rolled up” into the EULA? Let’s not confuse the process of making or judging a claim here with enforcement, but I’d propose that software is the ONLY mediator for the enforcement of the TOS. That’s because the only tools that the platform owner HAS for enforcing the TOS are software-derived ones. It might not be like the underwear example, but all of the options are software-derived: banning, a message of warning, taking away objects or money, whatever. The TOS is meaningless if there is no equivalent software mechanism for enforcement. It’s ALL about the code. If it’s not about the code, then it’s EULA, and its courts.
And finally, I’ve heard this argument before about lawyers. And please. Give me a break. I was invited to a discussion of a TOS for an openSim program. There were no LAWYERS present, and there was no one who had the money or intention of using a lawyer – they were a bunch of people who thought “the risk is low, why bother with lawyers, we’ll just make this up on our own and swipe bits and pieces from other sites, and hopefully those OTHER sites used lawyers but even if they didn’t, who cares.”
I’d hazard a guess that 75% of privacy policies on Web sites were never vetted by lawyers – they were swiped off another site, or it was considered a low risk issues, and a lot of Web sites aren’t built and hosted in the US anyways where lawyers seem to stand on the street corners selling advice.
Now, having said that, I think you WILL see a few leaders who develop thoughtful Terms of Service AND EULAs, and that these get publicized and people pick up on them and so you end up with a few “templates”.
It’s kind of irrelevant – your point is correct. On OpenSim the whole objective is to let people tweak their approach to hosting worlds. I’m not particularly arguing against that. I suppose in conclusion because I’ve just commented more than I blogged…there is a great deal of ‘deep innovation’ arising at the intersection of games/social networks and virtual worlds, and that this deep innovation is arising not because of code but because of the application of code to different forms of policy.
OpenSim will eventually also be a source of this innovation, which is what I meant by the “I’m waiting for the rest of it.” In the meantime, the fact that OpenSim is currently for the most part an Apache rather than a source of innovative models around policy, it’s mostly technical.
One of the innovations I care about is how platforms view the user. As a user, Raph’s TOS is a model for how virtual worlds will stimulate a new level of innovation in which the user’s experience is shaped by an avatar-centric policy around rights.
It seems then that what you are talking about are the underlying protocols of how OpenSim works and interacts with other instances of OpenSim. Actually, a better example than email may be the Internet itself, as engineers are now saying if they had the opportunity to design it again they would do it in a way that would have more security built in, amongst other things.
As far as I can tell, the OpenSim team are alert to these types of issues, and are making the protocols and the software as extensible and flexible as possible so down the track they don’t say: “Hey… we should have built it so it can do X.” Hindsight provides 2020 vision, but all they can do is the best they can for now.
As for your example, I’m all for openness myself, but some grid owners might choose to not reveal what’s going on with my data behind the scenes. It’s their choice to do so, even though I may not choose to use their service. If their TOS says they have no obligation to make my data open and available, I can go to a grid where they say they do. It’s caveat emptor when I enter someone’s virtual world. It’s up to me to familiarise myself with their TOS in the same way I should be familiar with the laws of any country I visit in the real world. I can’t blame anyone but myself if I get busted for drinking alcohol on the streets of Dubai.
I think the fact that the protocols, standards and software are all open sort of satisfies your example anyway. The openness is the policy that will ensure your data is treated transparently. Anyway, I’m no developer, so I’m talking outside my realm of knowledge, and I’d rather leave it to developer to continue on this issue.
As to the idea that the software can reflect the TOS, I can’t see how. Sure, in my example you can use software to enforce the rule that no avatar can be naked, but how can you embed the rule that “No avatar should discriminate against another avatar on the basis of sex, sexual orientation, age, race, religion etc.” in the software? I disagree that the only tools a world owner has for enforcing the TOS are in the software. Apache can’t tell if something being hosted on a website is porn or not. That’s what the web host’s TOS is for. The interesting thing about virtual worlds is that they allow for a range of behaviours, just as in the real world. The only way to enforce many rules is through either a TOS or a set of Community Standards which are enforced by the world owner and his/her minions. At the end of the day the world owner is a dictator and their interpretation of their TOS is totally up to them. The users just have to cop it. I’m sure you can find any number of SL residents who have run afoul of the Lindens for doing things they thought were within the TOS or Community Standards.
As for the issue of lawyers, I find it had to believe that web hosts haven’t thought long and hard about their TOS. They are the sort of business that would have to deal with disputes all the time, disputes that can cause lots and lots of money. If someone is running an e-commerce site and they lose money because of a fuckup from the host you don’t think there is going to be some serious suing going on? Once again, this is outside my actual experience and is just my opinion, so I’d like to hear someone with some legal experience in these matters.
But I do agree with you lawyers should be in the room when OpenSim developers are making their plans. It can’t help having someone around to raise the sorts of issues that can influence the protocols and coding. And I agree that these sorts of discussions need to be had, because some of the decisions around the most fundamental protocols are harder to fix down the track, and the broader the issues discussed and thought through in the early stages of development the better.
Hmmm….this stuff is so tricky, I figure I need to create a glossary or something. In any case, I think we’re agreeing with each other but just don’t know it. I am NOT saying that software can be written to INTERPRET a TOS – I’m saying that a TOS is only relevant insofar as how it’s coupled with code.
The ONLY tools available for a TOS to be valid are code-based. I know this is going to sort of sound self-evident but a violation of the TOS only occurs because the software allows for it, and the enforcement of the TOS is only possible because the software provides mechanisms for doing so.
Let’s say the TOS says “Thou shalt not steal.” Perfect. You try to build systems to prevent stealing, you put permissions in place maybe, or like Warcraft you can try to embed all kinds of snoops and devices on the user’s machine. I’m not saying these things SHOULD be done, I’m just saying that out of the TOS arises the need to make sure that it’s synched up to a degree with the code.
You won’t write a clause in the TOS that says “Users have the right to be anonymous” and then (like, say, Twinity did) have the user’s real name floating above their head as they wander around the grid. So, obviously, you try to synch the TOS with the code.
This doesn’t mean you try to write the code in a way that monitors behavior, enforces it, or prevents it – all it means is that the code and the TOS work together.
I think this is really critical, because over time, worlds evolve. And I pointed this out on Raph’s site as well – that one of the critical elements in all of this is the fact that the TOS and its enforcement is evolutionary. You can try to be as specific as possible about your codes of conduct or TOS, but there will always be things that are open to interpretation over time. Second, being evolutionary as code is built and deployed platform owners will need to be keenly aware that there is an interplay between conduct and code.
Look at Facebook. They build a system, they build code, and that system denies entry to anyone who’s not at a university. Or later they open it up, and deny entry to anyone without an invite from a friend. Each shift in policy is accompanied by code, and the more tightly coupled you can make these, the more consistency you can create, and the deeper the sense of commitment by the community.
Now, I am NOT saying that code needs to be developed to monitor or enforce individual elements of the TOS – just that there needs to be a consistent coupling – whether loosely or not. Second Life is a hotbed of lessons learned on how the code and policy can become disjointed, or can result in unexpected outcomes, or can work beautifully to facilitate benefits to both the user and platform.
The ability to sell your work. That’s a TOS item. And it leads to code that includes micro-transactions and permissions.
The code is also the only source of enforcement. You’re not going after the PLAYER’S bank account, you’re going after the avatar. You don’t ban a player from heading down to the local mall, you ban the avatar from entering the world or sections of it. If the code isn’t constructed in a way to allow the platform owner to enforce it, then obviously there is no TOS.
And this is also an important point, because the TOS and enforcement, coupled with code, allow the platform owner to set a context for the community – but there will always be griefers or, well, people who want to understand where the limits are and will push up against those limits.
I can’t remember which platform introduced a “jail” for people who broke the TOS. The problem was, people got off on seeing their avatar behind bars, and so they purposefully broke the TOS so they could get thrown into jail – and who knows, maybe there was some RP that happened in there, I leave it to your imagination.
But users will press the edges of the TOS to test limits, either for fun, for commerce, or because that’s how they get their kicks. And they’ll look for exploits in how the code allows enforcement as well.
Finally – on the lawyer point….who knows what the stats are. I can only tell you from my own experience working with Fortune 500 companies – I’ve launched dozens of Web sites on their behalf, and only ONCE did they actually have their lawyers look at the privacy policy, disclaimers or copyright notices. We’ve typically used one that was drafted in 1998 – 10 years ago, as a placeholder on a site, kind of like saying “Privacy Policy Goes Here”…and the client generally has come back and said “I don’t want to have to go through legal, it will hold up our launch” and just lets it ride and prays for the best.
And I hate to say this, but some of these are Web sites about medical issues and they just shrug – a product or brand manager doesn’t have that much on the line, and to them it’s all just a big hassle that exposes them to little risk and who cares anyways. From my end, as long as they sign off it’s their business not mine.
Where I think we’re bumping up against each other however is in the attitude that ALL of the decisions about how these things get done rest with the platform owners. I have never understood why this conventional wisdom needs to remain conventional.
Why is it ALWAYS buyer beware? Um…check the newspaper…buyer beware didn’t do the US economy much good now did it?
We have obligations as users, obligations which people are slowly starting to realize have much deeper and more profound implications than they realized. But platform owners have obligations also, and is it SO wrong to say that there should at least be SOME kind of low threshold benchmark for what these obligations are? Why is that so harmful?
And please – don’t give me the “you don’t have to come here if you don’t like it” response. I realize there are laws that govern the ‘real world’ and many of these laws apply, depending on your jurisdiction, to virtual worlds as well (like hate crimes, say).
But there are also emerging issues about avatar/user rights that I’d rather embed into the discussions around policy NOW before the government steps in and sorts it out FOR us, thanks very much.
Mind you – I also think we’re agreeing, because as you say, “I agree that these sorts of discussions need to be had, because some of the decisions around the most fundamental protocols are harder to fix down the track, and the broader the issues discussed and thought through in the early stages of development the better.”
It’s just nice to agree, um, forcefully.
But, but, but…! The examples you use are ones that are related to those rules you can support (to a degree) with the software. You haven’t addressed my example of discrimination, or something like Raph’s rule against simulating harm towards minors, which cannot be embedded in the software and are open to interpretation. In many cases the TOS has nothing to do with the code. Flickr won’t let me upload hard core porn, but that’s not hard-coded in the software, it’s in their TOS. Even those things that can be embedded in the software like IP permissions and swear filters can subverted (remember copybot?), so the world owners have to revert back to the TOS to enforce the rules. Anyone could have subverted the limitations of Facebook if they really wanted to. Where there is a will there’s a way!
There is a lock on the door of my house that makes it clear to people that this is my space and I don’t want people to enter without my permission. But it’s not really the lock that stops honest people from entering – after all, any serious burglar will jimmy it if he wants. The lock represents a social contract to not enter. But that social contract is backed up by law.
I still say the answer is to be as open and flexible and extensible as possible, and then let world builders create a TOS that will create the type of community they want then enforce it. Sure, add things like permissions where you can, but don’t rely on them. You will always need to fall back on the TOS, especially for grey areas. We are talking human behaviour here, and there’s nothing black and white about that.
And if OpenSim doesn’t have a feature you want, patch it. You want to let users choose any name they want for themselves (which seems to be the default at this stage), fine. You’re a boring ol’ business who wants to insist that all users use their own name, or use their corporate login, add a patch. I see no universal rules that can be associated with the software. That’s not OpenSim’s responsibility (even if it were possible).
As for the legal veracity of TOS… if a website or web service doesn’t do due diligence then it’s their own fault if they get done. Anyway, I was talking about web hosts, not the websites they host (although in the case of large services like flickr, facebook or Amazon they are one and the same).
And I’m sorry, but of course platform owners get to decide the rules for their platform. If I don’t like it I can go elsewhere. If YouTube won’t host my porn videos I’ll just go and find a video sharing site that does. This is the freedom of a free market. If they do choose to have responsibilities, like Raph is doing that’s fine (although I personally think it’s problematic), but platform owners are under no obligation to do so. You seem to have fallen for this myth than many SL residents labour under that because it’s a world (albeit a virtual one) users should be treated like citizens and have rights. Nope – not unless the world builder/owner grants them (and they can always change them without notice).
Hmm… I wonder if we aren’t talking a bit at cross purposes here because of the confusion over platforms, hosts, world builders, world owners and software. Perhaps we do need a glossary!
To me the future of virtual worlds should look like this – if you find a virtual world you like and are willing to abide by their rules, great! If not, find a hosting service and build your own world with your own rules! The underlying software needs to be so open, flexible and extensible you can make it do anything you want. The rules are in the TOS, not the software.
What an interesting thing, we the citizens, live like an ant farm. Only that in this case the ant farm wants some rights, and pretends to change the “constitution”, have a say on its “world”.
Wasn’t this a private company selling a hosted service, to users=clients? Don’t we understand that there is huge pressure to become profitable, have growth, expand to international markets, maybe become a public company?
Whats does this have to do with, citizen rights, and stuff?
This is not a constitution, its a contract, like in a restaurant, you don’t like the food? you can leave. And we are not a society, we are bunch of personal interests hosted and linked in a virtual scenario.
Well anyways, of course I am totally joking, if virtual communities want to grow as they plan and become this huge phenomenon, they NEED to release control, specially to the citizens. Who in return will always understand the community is run by a a profit oriented company. Managed by not perfect human beings.
Such a balance needed!
But our virtual community owners will never release control, or act (apparently) against their best interests (money and growth) until we prove, as a virtual society that, this is precisely the best thing they can do for their capitalist interests.
Our good is a common good. Etc. you know the drill.
Lets go prove it.
Mony – Good point, and I think what’s interesting is that Raph is intending to make money, and that he possibly sees a strategic advantage in shifting ‘rights’ to the ants. Maybe he raises the bar for the rest of them.
OpenSim on the other hands is NOT for profit it’s the companies who use it who will be profitable. Which is why it’s so odd that there’s always so much resistance, I feel, to discussions of policy. I mean – look, the Mozilla Foundation has POLICY, why is this such a stretch?
They have a manifesto, they have a Statement of Direction, and all of these things help govern how all the bits of code help end users – the ants. That’s the point of open source really, or I thought it was – to rip coding out of the hands of closed off corporations so the ants could have rights and the common good could be advanced.
I mean…do the OpenSim folks subscribe to the following for example (just sub in the words virtual worlds for Internet):
1. The Internet is an integral part of modern life–a key component in education, communication, collaboration, business, entertainment and society as a whole.
2. The Internet is a global public resource that must remain open and accessible.
3. The Internet should enrich the lives of individual human beings.
4. Individuals’ security on the Internet is fundamental and cannot be treated as optional.
5. Individuals must have the ability to shape their own experiences on the Internet.
6. The effectiveness of the Internet as a public resource depends upon interoperability (protocols, data formats, content), innovation and decentralized participation worldwide.
7. Free and open source software promotes the development of the Internet as a public resource.
8. Transparent community-based processes promote participation, accountability, and trust.
9. Commercial involvement in the development of the Internet brings many benefits; a balance between commercial goals and public benefit is critical.
10. Magnifying the public benefit aspects of the Internet is an important goal, worthy of time, attention and commitment.
So, sure….Linden Lab is a company. Metaplace is a company that decided to give avatar rights and perhaps will benefit strategically. OpenSim I’m told is Apache and is a bunch of code, and is divorced from the policy that’s built on top of that code, and yet OTHER open source projects subscribe to policy and principles, I just continue to be baffled.
OK… I see what you’re getting at.
But first… making money is a red herring. Many of the virtual worlds of the future will not be about making money. There will be non-profits, educational institutions and groups of like minded people setting up virtual worlds for themselves and their friends (e.g. furries). The hosts they will use will be making money though, by charging for hosting services (in the same way that web hosts charge for web hosting).
On to policies… So Mozilla Foundation has a policy. But OpenSim is not a foundation – it is a piece of software being developed by a team of programmers from disparate backgrounds. At this stage, anyone can contribute to it. They do, however, have a policy with some Core Values – http://opensimulator.org/wiki/Contributions_Policy.
Would it be a good idea to set up an OpenSim foundation to help guide the development of the software along beneficial lines? If this is what you are asking, then it’s a good question.
I believe that the metaverse (whatever shape that takes) has the capacity to greatly enhance humanity, as the Internet and the WWW have, but that can only happen if it is based on open standards, protocols and formats. A foundation and a policy at this early stage sounds like a good idea. The Apache Foundation looks like a good model. The Mozilla Foundation policy you list looks like a good guideline for a policy. One day the OpenSim guys might form into a foundation, but until then it’s just a team of individuals working on software.
I’m neither a programmer or a member of the OpenSim team, so perhaps the next step in this discussion is to ask one of the lead OpenSim developers what they think about the idea of setting up such a foundation and developing a policy.
I will point out though that a policy guiding the development of the software upon which virtual worlds are based is very different from the end user bill of rights and responsibilities that are used *inside* those worlds, which is where you started.
And Mony is right – if you want it, maybe you have to build it. Perhaps your next post should be about what you think the guiding principles of the coming metaverse should be (you have a great start with your substitution idea above).
Even better, if you believe in open source, then stick it up on a wiki and get the community involved.
Even better still, how about suggesting a meeting in-world to discuss setting up a foundation and a policy? Contributing to open source projects is not just about contributing code… there is a lot of admin type work too. I’m sure Adam et al are very busy with what they are doing and would probably appreciate you taking an initiative on this.
I’m up for it. I don’t want to leave the evolution of the metaverse in the hands of the hundreds of commercial virtual worlds startups that are training kids to be good consumers. And who wouldn’t want to get in on the ground floor of developing the rules for the New World?!
*applauds*
Thanks Sean for such an amazing discussion. I’m sure most people have other things that excite them on a Friday but this is as good a way to end the week as any.
I believe there’s a movement afoot with the OpenSim folks on the foundation idea – something I ran across today:
http://mrtopf.de/blog/secondlife/1-year-architecture-working-group/
And I love your final paragraph, because on that we can unequivocally agree.
Yes, I know about the AWG, and there are a lot of knowledgeable people in it talking about the types of standards and protocols that are needed for an open metaverse, but I’m a bit suspicious of it because of its alliance with a commercial entity.
More to the point though, would or should the suggested foundation be one to guide the development of OpenSim?
[...] Dusan Writer: Sources of Innovation: Metaplace, Second Life, OpenSIM, and Rights (also excerpted at Metanomics) [...]
Buy wholesale adderall….
Buy adderall no prescription….