These kind of post make Mashable both fun and informative to read. Love it.
Mark "Rizzn" Hopkins
· 1 year ago
Haha! Thanks. Very much appreciated.
Nicki B.
· 1 year ago
Mark, your point is very well put. They do need to find a way to monitor things like Lively and Knol, unless they wish for them to be considered similar to the other spammy and disgusting content on the web.
Mark "Rizzn" Hopkins
· 1 year ago
It wouldn't take much work, just reorganization in the case of Lively, and change in certain governing mechanisms in the case of the Knol.
I really do think that Google, at least lately, is getting optimistic to a fault.
chris
· 1 year ago
Why is this even an issue? Teenagers "might" use a very odd and silly trick to simulate sex. By clicking a thing.
The whole: let's de-sexualise everything, for the chiiiildren, is a very silly concept. Teenagers are experimenting with sexuality and like it or not, online is the source of information most frequented. Making things "kiddy safe" and then expecting 14 year olds not trying to circumvent them, is not understanding human nature. Just like it is silly to think that teenagers don't have a hidden, encrypted porn folder they feel incredibly guilty about. Someone should tell them there is no reason to feel guilty, instead of trying to start another anti-notevenpornbutmaybeinaverysillywayarousing witchhunt.
We need to wake up and realise that puberty means that kids are interested in sex and will try to find out more. Of course they are too young to experiment with real sex, but this isn't real sex, it's less erotic than ballroom dancing or a swimsuit catalog.
If you want to save children from adult content, use a netnanny service or opendns. But your 14-year old may not be an adult yet, he/she also is no longer a child.
As long as your kid does not leave his personal data online, he is safely online on his computer, finding out what sex is the same way the majority of people do. Want to help and guide that? Sex-education is the only way to explain to them wat is safe and what isn't.
And an avatar that is not even meant to be sexually explicit is safe.
Mark "Rizzn" Hopkins
· 1 year ago
Again, you're right, and I think I hit on most of those points in my original review of Lively.
But certain measures can be taken to segregate sexual content out from main content - otherwise it'll just get over-run out of lack of a forum for it.
phil
· 1 year ago
@Chris, i totally agree with you. This article sounds like over protective nonsense. Someone please remind the Mashable team that its not real sexual intercourse. And yes, parents are ultimately responsible for monitoring what their children are doing with legit technology/anything else for that matter, not the tech companies.
If Google were to provide a strap-on penis in Lively, we'd have an issue, but they don't. And in my opinion, if anyone wants to simulate 'tentacle sex' then they're the one's with the psychological issues, not Google.
Mashable = The Nanny State.
digitalfemme
· 1 year ago
Mark, Chris, you both really pointed out some good stuff. I agree with human nature and that kids will explore - especially during the pubescence stage - and what with the internet and all. The thing that Mark said, "On the Internet, you must imagine all the negative possible uses for your product when you design it for mass consumption."
As a responsible company that caters to the masses, you really need to take into account the *negative* of how your product/service may be used or perceived to avoid scandal like this. Unless, it really is scandal that you're after for increased publicity.
I don't ban sex. I don't ban exploration. I just don't agree that it should be an in your face thing. When you log on to Lively, the first rooms you see are the PORN rooms. It's disgusting. It doesn't sit well for Google's image - my opinion. Thanks for the opportunity for sharing.
SuezanneCBaskerville
· 1 year ago
One should in general treat stories in the Second Life Herald with the same attitude one would give to stories that appear in "The Onion".
Not that the story mentioned isn't a valid story, but the Second Life Herald resembles Weekly World News more than the Washington Post.
Personally I'd like to see an exploration of why Lively doesn't have any menu options enabling users to communicate through Google Docs and Google Groups and Gmail and so on.
Becs
· 1 year ago
I agree with Chris. After 15 years in this business, and many of those years with teens, "there is nothing new under the sun" (even Sun's Java). I wouldn't want to print what I was doing at 12, 13, 14 etc. for fear of some YouTube backlash. But seriously, you can't stop people from expressing themselves ,sexually or otherwise. It is, indeed, human nature to experiment with sex in your teens and the virtual space has not changed what used to happen in hand written letters, behind the garage, in cars on hilltops, or at love-ins in bushes. There is nothing dangerous about experimenting with sex. The focus should be on what the stats show - and that would be offline predatory behavior. There is such a media mania about online pedophiles but in fact, there is a much larger issue in the physical world, which seems to be ignored in exchange for a handful of cases in the virtual world.
This isn't to say that Google doesn't have a responsibility to monitor "Lively" - in deed they do. But to remove virtual items because they can be construed as sexual objects is over the top. They'll find a way. Remember the Hanoi Hilton! The POWs tapped on walls for 7 years to communicate. You can't stop humans from expressing themselves, nor should we (in most cases).
Eric Rice
· 1 year ago
Funny how a ton of Second Lifers *hate* Lively because user generated content is so locked down (read: not existent) and yet people can STILL get around and do headline-grabbing stuff.
This is the kind of thing that will make more and more world makers (and gaming industry types, think Sony Home) have LITTLE desire to open up content to the users to create and this is why.
At its roots, it's not even about virtual worlds-- it's bigger than that. Do you open up things to the world to 'create'? Think LA Times wiki, comments on Youtube, and so on and so on and so on. Combine that with the recent rulings on corporate blogs being 'official sources of info' and that CNN memo Gawker posted today, a the new lockdown is upon us.
Torley
· 1 year ago
I remember initially uploading textures into Second Life, and it was one of my simplest pleasures — to this day, being able to share that experience with others and apply textures on grander creations is awesome.
SuezanneCBaskerville
· 1 year ago
Hi, Torley,
Nice to see you in Mashable.
I went out to your island "Here" the other day. Nice place.
I'm sitting in a rocking chair next to a submarine in Caledon at the moment.
Caledon is a good example of the user created content idea working quite well.
All Comments
These kind of post make Mashable both fun and informative to read. Love it.
I really do think that Google, at least lately, is getting optimistic to a fault.
The whole: let's de-sexualise everything, for the chiiiildren, is a very silly concept. Teenagers are experimenting with sexuality and like it or not, online is the source of information most frequented. Making things "kiddy safe" and then expecting 14 year olds not trying to circumvent them, is not understanding human nature. Just like it is silly to think that teenagers don't have a hidden, encrypted porn folder they feel incredibly guilty about. Someone should tell them there is no reason to feel guilty, instead of trying to start another anti-notevenpornbutmaybeinaverysillywayarousing witchhunt.
We need to wake up and realise that puberty means that kids are interested in sex and will try to find out more. Of course they are too young to experiment with real sex, but this isn't real sex, it's less erotic than ballroom dancing or a swimsuit catalog.
If you want to save children from adult content, use a netnanny service or opendns. But your 14-year old may not be an adult yet, he/she also is no longer a child.
As long as your kid does not leave his personal data online, he is safely online on his computer, finding out what sex is the same way the majority of people do. Want to help and guide that? Sex-education is the only way to explain to them wat is safe and what isn't.
And an avatar that is not even meant to be sexually explicit is safe.
But certain measures can be taken to segregate sexual content out from main content - otherwise it'll just get over-run out of lack of a forum for it.
If Google were to provide a strap-on penis in Lively, we'd have an issue, but they don't. And in my opinion, if anyone wants to simulate 'tentacle sex' then they're the one's with the psychological issues, not Google.
Mashable = The Nanny State.
As a responsible company that caters to the masses, you really need to take into account the *negative* of how your product/service may be used or perceived to avoid scandal like this. Unless, it really is scandal that you're after for increased publicity.
I don't ban sex. I don't ban exploration. I just don't agree that it should be an in your face thing.
When you log on to Lively, the first rooms you see are the PORN rooms. It's disgusting. It doesn't sit well for Google's image - my opinion. Thanks for the opportunity for sharing.
Not that the story mentioned isn't a valid story, but the Second Life Herald resembles Weekly World News more than the Washington Post.
Personally I'd like to see an exploration of why Lively doesn't have any menu options enabling users to communicate through Google Docs and Google Groups and Gmail and so on.
There is nothing dangerous about experimenting with sex. The focus should be on what the stats show - and that would be offline predatory behavior. There is such a media mania about online pedophiles but in fact, there is a much larger issue in the physical world, which seems to be ignored in exchange for a handful of cases in the virtual world.
This isn't to say that Google doesn't have a responsibility to monitor "Lively" - in deed they do. But to remove virtual items because they can be construed as sexual objects is over the top. They'll find a way. Remember the Hanoi Hilton! The POWs tapped on walls for 7 years to communicate. You can't stop humans from expressing themselves, nor should we (in most cases).
This is the kind of thing that will make more and more world makers (and gaming industry types, think Sony Home) have LITTLE desire to open up content to the users to create and this is why.
At its roots, it's not even about virtual worlds-- it's bigger than that. Do you open up things to the world to 'create'? Think LA Times wiki, comments on Youtube, and so on and so on and so on. Combine that with the recent rulings on corporate blogs being 'official sources of info' and that CNN memo Gawker posted today, a the new lockdown is upon us.
Nice to see you in Mashable.
I went out to your island "Here" the other day.
Nice place.
I'm sitting in a rocking chair next to a submarine in Caledon at the moment.
Caledon is a good example of the user created content idea working quite well.