every time you turn around you wear another face

Why are people still reading old blog entries of mine? No clue, but someone did, so I looked into their contribution, and added it to the, so far, sole autism page on this entire blog. Yay?

In the meantime, this was mildly amusing. I got this error searching for a link on Marketplace:



So I copied that string of numbers and searched for it:



And we have Numberwang! Seriously, Google gave me the error number, and now they can't find that error? Are you feeling okay, Google? Need a bit of a lie-down, or a spot of tea?

Meanwhile, a bit of chat nonsense:

[21:43] txxxxxxxxx Rxxxxxxx: [paid job] looking for asian/latina/ebony girls doing lingerie modeling pictures for Elle et Lui Modeling Magazine 2020 spring lingerie special edition. (pls contact me if you are interested, thanks.)

Now, a note. This is our spammer. I am leaving his name out, but the "magazine" he supposedly works for in, because if they don't know he's going around to dozens of groups and spamming them with unwanted "paid job" requests, then they should, and at the very least, slap his hand for doing so.

[21:43] Dxxxxxx Sxxxxxxx: ewwwwwww
[21:44] Exxxx Vxxx: he is still on tour with that xD
[21:44] Dxxxxxx Sxxxxxxx: yep highly doubtful and very suspect
[21:44] cxxxxxxxxxxxxx Rxxxxxxx: Scam again... Before happened at Fameshed group... :(

Yeah, he's been quite the busy little bee. Join ten groups, spam ten groups, leave ten groups. Rinse, repeat, burn.

[21:44] gxxxxxxxxx Rxxxxxxx: are there any active modeling agency even on sl anymore?

There are, actually. It's not as wide ranging a field as it was, but there are still active agencies. There's one agency that Zibska exclusively works with, or that agency exclusively works for Zibska, one of those. And there are a few others.

[21:44] Exxxx Vxxx: he does that post over and over in many groups...
[21:46] pxxxxxxxxxxxx Rxxxxxxx: what happened at Fameshed?
[21:47] cxxxxxxxxxxxxx Rxxxxxxx: The same scam... a group scam tour... oO
[21:48] pxxxxxxxxxxxx Rxxxxxxx: no but like what is the scam
[21:49] pxxxxxxxxxxxx Rxxxxxxx: did he not pay the models or smth?

To be fair, I don't think anyone's been stupid enough to contact him, so I'm not sure. But from his scattershot bursts of advertising, I'd say, likely not a paid gig, likely not a real job, possibly looking for a porn shoot. I have nothing against virtual pornography, but seriously, dude, advertise in the proper groups at least.

Google, y u so broken?

Cue a massive amount of frustration I didn't need. SO for the past couple hours plus, I've been trying to track down why the images on this blog aren't appearing. The problem seems to be that Google Photos decided to change everyones' photos to private, not public. But there's a secondary issue, in that all images linked from Google Photos seem to switch Urls in mid-stream. As Mm. Fawkes pointed out, on this picture link (just as an example), it's bypassing that link entirely and trying to open this link instead. And I'm just reeling at the concept of going back through all the October and September entries and fixing every single image. All the while that I still don't know exactly what's happening--I'm still looking, but most of the Google Help pages that turn up when I search on how to make photos in Google albums public tell me how to stop sharing, they're not exactly being helpful.

Argh. There is a solution to this, I'm sure, but bear with me--most of the images seem to be missing for anyone not me right now.

(Update from Editrix: Apparently there is a convoluted, but working--for now--way to link images: opening an incognito window, using the shared album link I generated for this one picture album, scrolling to the picture I want to link, and grabbing the Url for that image, which....is going to do my head in. And I'm being told even then, this may not work for long. Bother.)

((Second update from Editrix: it's also recommended that I just direct-link images into the compose field, instead of working plainly in HTML, like I'm used to. This...is going...to be...a colossal headache.))

(((THIRD update from Editrix: this link. Oh my gods, this link. It still gives no answers to how I do what I used to do with no problems, but now I know Google caused the change and they hate everyone linking pictures to other things and they want people to use other services which are far less convenient and #)$@&*%!+^#&~ YOU GOOGLE and I cannot deal. That is all.)))

around you, they were so confused, a faulty man could have so much fun

This is what I get for being snarky.

[16:04] kinwelding: una pregunta
[16:04] Emilly Orr: No, not so far.

Then the penny dropped. "Pregunta" doesn't mean "pregnant".

[16:10] Emilly Orr: Ah ¿Cuál es tu pregunta? ('Ah. What is your question?')
[16:11] kxxxxxxxxx Rxxxxxxx: disculpa esto es algo nuevo para mi ('Excuse me, this is something new for me.')
[16:11] kxxxxxxxxx Rxxxxxxx: qe idioma fue ese? ('What language is that?')
[16:12] Emilly Orr: Ingles ('English.')
[16:13] kxxxxxxxxx Rxxxxxxx: perdona mi ignorancia ('Excuse my ignorance.')
[16:14] kxxxxxxxxx Rxxxxxxx: no avia visto algo igual ('I haven't seen anything like it yet.')
[16:14] kxxxxxxxxx Rxxxxxxx: jeje ('LOL')

Seems fair. There's a lot of native English speakers who spend their whole lives never hearing another language.

[16:15] kxxxxxxxxx Rxxxxxxx: como ago para qe laspersonas y lugares se vean nitidos esto es lo qe te qeria preguntar ('as ago for people and places to look sharp this is what you would like to ask'--Google Translate's first real failure this round.)

I think what she means is, would I have stores to recommend?

[16:18] Emilly Orr: Depende del presupuesto, pero las listas de ventas son un buen lugar para comenzar. Martes 24L, Sábados 30L, Domingos 35L. ('Depends on budget, but the sales lists are a good place to start. 24L Tuesdays, 30L Saturdays, 35L Sundays.')

Unfortunately, by that point she'd apparently logged off, or crashed. If she was at the same event I was, Fable, it's likely she crashed, because it took me three times to port home.

She was all of one day old, poor baby. Absolutely zero information on her profile. I hope she finds someone to talk to about what to do in SL.

I'd rather leave this embrace between you and I

Out of the blue from a store group that really never has a lot of cross-chatter:

[14:19] nxxxxxxx Rxxxxxxx: ◥◣◥◣◥◣◥◣◥◣◥◣◥◣◥◣◥◣◥◣◥◣◥◣
ОСТОРОЖНО!!!! КИДАЛЫ!!!
[Fxxxx Bxxxxxxx]
ЭТИ ЛЮДИ, МАЛО ТОГО, ЧТО НАРУШАЮТ ПРАВИЛА СЛ, ПЕРЕПРОДАВАЯ ЛИНДЕНЫ НЕЗАКОННЫМ ПУТЕМ, ЕЩЕ И КИДАЮТ НА ОБМЕНЕ ДОВЕРЧИВЫХ ЛЮДЕЙ!!
ГОВОРИТЬ ОБ ИХ КУЛЬТУРЕ И ТАКТЕ ВООБЩЕ НЕ УМЕСТНО!
БУДТЕ БДИТЕЛЬНЫ!
◥◣◥◣◥◣◥◣◥◣◥◣◥◣◥◣◥◣◥◣◥◣◥◣
[14:20] dxxxxxxx Rxxxxxxx: Translation of above message.. CAUTION!!!! KIDALY !!!
[Fxxxx Bxxxxxxx]
THESE PEOPLE HAVE A LITTLE WHAT THEIR RULES VIOLATE THE RULES, RE-SELLING THE LINDEN BY ILLEGAL WAY, STILL GOT ON THE EXCHANGE OF TRUSTING PEOPLE !!
TALKING ABOUT THEIR CULTURE AND TAKE AT ALL DOES NOT NEED!
BE ALERT!
[14:21] Mysteriah Wichtlein (xxdarktemptressxx): mmmmmmmkay
[14:21] Bella Valoris (lizbethbloodthorn): didnt make much sense translated

Really didn't. They said they used Google Translate later in this small chat, so I pulled another service up and took a stab at it:

Careful!!!! SCAMMERS!!!
[Fxxxx Bxxxxxxx]
THESE PEOPLE, MOREOVER, THAT BREAK THE RULES OF SL, LINDEN RESELLING ILLEGALLY, AND EVEN THROW ON THE EXCHANGE OF GULLIBLE PEOPLE!!
TO TALK ABOUT THEIR CULTURE AND TACT GENERALLY IS NOT APPROPRIATE!
BEWARE!

Russian is idiomatic, no translator will work perfectly. Also, usually, I leave spammers' names clear, but...we just have this one person's word for it, and if it's all so hyperbolic, IN-ALL-CAPS communication, I am never sure if it's a genuine warning, or someone being vindictive. But my basic takeaway from this is "there's this spammer and they're being unethical". They're a spammer, so duh, but also, the all-caps means that most of us are going to either roll our eyes or ignore it. It never works.

[14:21] Emilly Orr: Can we not have spam messages that have nothing to do with this group? Kthx
[14:21] Mxxxxxxxxx Nxxx: umm
[14:21] Mxxxxxxxxx Nxxx: did you ask for permission to post this here?
[14:21] Emilly Orr: Probably not
[14:22] Txxxx Lxxxxxxxx: ..youre asking spammers not to spam? :P
[14:22] Txxxx Lxxxxxxxx: thatll go over well :D
[14:22] Mxxxxxxxxx Nxxx: lol
[14:22] Emilly Orr: Were it normal spam, yeah, it would be like throwing Jell-O at a wall--completely useless.
[14:22] Emilly Orr: But, sometimes, the 'just passing on advice' people can be convinced not to do that.
[14:22] lxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Rxxxxxxx: well it makes the day a touch less dull when you try to figure out what the heck sometimes
[14:22] dxxxxxxx Rxxxxxxx: I believe that the person that initially posted is warning us of a scam. Possibly a hacked account ladies.
[14:23] Emilly Orr: Exactly.
[14:23] Mxxxxxxxxx Nxxx: well why translate spam? I'd think Sintiklia would let us know if it's important?
[14:24] dxxxxxxx Rxxxxxxx: Why not? Not everyone speaks Russian.
[14:24] Mxxxxxxxxx Nxxx: well I used Google translate
[14:24] Mxxxxxxxxx Nxxx: =D
[14:24] dxxxxxxx Rxxxxxxx: Perfect.
[14:25] Emilly Orr: For what it's worth, [Fxxxx] is 8 years old, and there's not a lot of other info on her profile. She is not a member of this group.
[14:25] lxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Rxxxxxxx: hmm so hopping to groups to spam then hop off? dosent sound very productive
[14:25] dxxxxxxx Rxxxxxxx: Hence..a possible hacked account since she isn't online.
[14:25] Emilly Orr: No, no, [Fxxxx] didn't post that. [Exxxxxxx] was warning folks about [Fxxxx] for some reason.
[14:26] dxxxxxxx Rxxxxxxx: [nxxxxxxx Rxxxxxxx] made the post. I translated it.

To be fair, I missed that, I attributed everything to Ms. E.

[14:27] lxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Rxxxxxxx: mabye they didnt like a deal they got on a gacha resell XD
[14:27] Emilly Orr: So, they are a member of this group, the "[nxxxxxxx]" person
[14:28] dxxxxxxx Rxxxxxxx: Anything is possible. However, I was attempting to be helpful. Everyone have an awesome day/evening/afternoon.
[14:28] lxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Rxxxxxxx: thankyou for translating at least we knew what the randomness was
[14:29] dxxxxxxx Rxxxxxxx: You are most welcomed.

So, tips for being helpful. Even if the original is in all caps, if you're going to repost a warning, take it OUT of all caps.

Another good tip to keep in mind: don't just blindly repost. Verify first. Ask friends. Ask the person who posted the original warning and ask why. If all else fails, take the words of the warning and paste them into Google search, see what shows up. Always remember the warning you're seeing for the first time may have been seen by the rest of the grid for a solid year, and it was a false alarm to begin with.

And we get so tired of false alarms.

I got a brand new house on the roadside, made from rattlesnake hide

This is a bad idea. Making it easier for spammers to include malicious code in emails is never wise.

This was a worse one--in the middle of an opiod epidemic, paying advocates to push opiod deregulation would easily lead us where we are now.

There is now a Tomb Raider Barbie. I'm...honestly not sure how I feel about this. But on the plus side, yay for non-blonde, non-Aryan Barbies! Woo!

This is the best apology I've seen this year. Kudos to them.

Finally, if anyone plays Grand Theft Auto V, just log in before the 29th of February and receive a tidy amount of in-game cash. It won't make anyone rich beyond dreams, but hey, it could ease the way a bit.

I can hear myself singing that song, over and over until it belongs to me

Malware programs have finally leapt to mobile devices. This is a really, really bad sign.

Want a truly random piece of art? Go play. The system creates the art; you name it beforehand so it has something to work with. It's an interesting concept.

Google will soon kill off Chrome apps. Their reasoning is that since the net is a more powerful entity now, than when they introduced the apps system, that there are other, better ways to do the same things.

If you're worried your system's going to be affected, realize you have until 2018 to find alternatives, so it's not going to happen next week. Google's just letting Chrome users know well in advance what they plan to do.

There's an upcoming Lost Boys television series. Start dreading all the things now.

This may be the best family tree for the Norse gods ever.

Need fake, royalty-free music to use any way you desire? Go to the Fake Music Generator site and 'create' to your heart's content. No content claims, no worries, just royalty-free themes to use in your animations, vlogs, let's-play videos, and whatever else you might need.

And let Kyle McLachlan describe the plot to Dune completely in emoji. It's brilliant.

you sent me no letter, don't think I could forgive you

Google has proven its quantum computer works?

Also, this is the bestest holiday tree and I want one for SL.

Which reminds me--I have recently discovered that apparently, I own all the holiday trees. I own more holiday trees than I could put out with a 1,000 prim allowance. No one needs this many holiday trees. Makers of holiday trees don't need this many trees. What was I thinking?!?

[Posted 7:13 PM PST, 11 December 2015] We are aware that some residents may be experiencing some issues with leaving, inviting, and rejecting from groups inworld. This situation is being investigated. Please continue to check this blog for updates.

Well, it's about damned time,, since we've all been having this issue for months now...what finally happened, some upper-level Linden tried to leave a group and couldn't without a relog? But they've been ignoring all the complaints on blogs, all the bug reports filed with them, all the mentions at in-world office hours? Sure. Well, you work on that, guys. Hope you can fix it before 2017.

The Washington Post Style Guide has finally approved the use of 'they' as a correct singular usage. This is good in many, many ways, not that many of us weren't already using 'they' as a singular along with a plural, but it's still a solid step forward.



Why not? (Retails for L$150 in case you want it, at Fetch.)

raisin' up buildings, breakin' down bones

How cool would it be to make solar energy more accessible and easier to get? Synthetic nanoscientist Jillian Buriak is working on that very issue, making solar energy cells that are lightweight, portable, flexible, and easy to transport. Oh please please please put those on the market soon!

On the disturbing end of technology, Harvard has created the first (non-conscious) cyborg--or, at least, "cyborg flesh". Ergh. Mainly because, while that's cool, in a world where scientists have already created spidergoats and glow-in-the-dark mice, and programmers are trying to train computers to mimic the behavior of serial killers and megalomaniacs, I can easily see this getting out of hand. Technozombies, anyone?

In a similar vein, Google's about to make finding new things harder on the net. How? Well, they're making Google Maps "unique to you", which, I think, is Google vastly missing the point of what we want maps to do. I quote:

To succeed with advertisers, it needs to convince them that its view of us customers is accurate and that it can generate predictions about where we are likely to go (or, for that matter, what we are likely to click). The best way to do that is to actually turn us into highly predictable creatures by artificially limiting our choices. Another way is to nudge us to go to places frequented by other people like us—like our Google Plus friends. In short, Google prefers a world where we consistently go to three restaurants to a world where our choices are impossible to predict.

Me personally, I find this just as disturbing as in-world search for SL, where I get better results by typing in a general search term, and then scrolling to the very bottom of the list and moving up from there. I shouldn't have to do that, but to find new places, that's frequently my only option. Because the same three to five stores will pop up at the top of the list.

Now, Google tells me I'll be stymied in two directions--not only will searching for new places become harder, but, since I'm not on Google+, they won't be able to grab my unique searching algorithm to label me neatly for predictive analysis. Which will also mean they're planning to up their efforts to get me--to get everyone not on Google+ back into it again. Which is another very unfortunate thing.

Morozov makes a similar point in an article published a month previously, on the overuse of predictive algorithms in other businesses, like Netflix (who used their understanding of what people want to watch, when, paired with their user demographics, to introduce House of Cards and Hemlock Grove as original programming series) and Amazon (who has now used its demographic knowledge of what their users buy and how often to develop and market several independent publishing houses for new work). And what that says about us is disturbing as well--rather than use people to understand and adapt to new ways of interacting with the end users, they're simply using predictive software, and giving us more of what we already seem to like. Does that really give us what we want, though?

Or put another way, how do we know what those algorithms are feeding back is accurate information? Let's take the two men behind the Yogscast, for example. Both of them are well over the legal age of majority, and had, in fact, proved that when setting up the channel (because proof of age is required for international accounts much more stringently than domestic ones). Yet they received a termination email stating that, because they were under thirteen, they could not use YouTube.

Apparently the mix-up began when someone mentioned they were underage on Twitter. While that original tweet appears to be long gone, the reaction to it was quick and baffling: one of the Yogscast staffers sent out a nigh-immediate refutation (understandable, because neither of the main two behind Yogscast is underage), while in the same moments, YouTube deleted the BlueXephos account (still the main Yogscast account to date). It took a few days to completely resolve, and during that time, no one apologized, no one said it was a mistake, they'd look into it. It was all automated.

Sixteenth-century automatons, anyone? Well, no, it's more on arms and armor from that time frame, but seriously, some of those would make sixteenth-century automatons very, very easily.

Moving to space, astronomers have discovered cosmic bruises, where other universes have collided with--and injured--our own. Initial research notes four such "bruises" so far, which is fascinating. So far, the data does seem vastly inconclusive, but I'm definitely hoping more will be forthcoming.

Need more freezer space? Don't mind paying for used? Can pass a background check? Then you might be willing to bid on an extra morgue refrigerator that a coroner's office listed on eBay. Yay?

And have some SF and fantasy animated pixel art, from Waneela. While the animation is cool, I'm not so much thinking "ooh, what an innovative use of technology"; it's rather more closely aligned to "I could so cross-stitch one of those panels".

And Mozilla's Firefox is undergoing a major redesign to make it more 'user-accessible'. What does this mean? Simple: it will look and function more like Google Chrome.

I'm not sure that's a good thing.

Finally, disquieting news in the wake of Matt Smith's announcement he was leaving Doctor Who: Chris Eccleston finally comes clean--albeit extraordinarily vaguely--about why he left the show. Somehow, it manages to provide a disturbing grace note to the entire affair.

songbird, take me home

So, in addition to IndieGoGo (independent/music projects), Kickstarter (music/technology/art projects), Rockethub (science and technical projects along with many international relief efforts), GoFundMe (personal donations of any kind), Razoo (nearly entirely charitable causes), and others, there's also Fundrazr, which I know scathingly little about. How'ver, a friend tipped me to this project, which is fairly simple--a family looking to save their dog.

Now, spending part of Second Life as a neko, I think it's fairly well established that I'm a cat person--sometimes literally--but I have owned dogs as pets (RL) in the past. And, beyond breed or species, I know that pets are very important to many of us, and can feel like--or simply be--part of our families, essential to our survival as living, breathing, emotional beings.

I have faced the staggering cost of medical surgery, and (in our case, because our RL finances are notably absent a large percentage of the time) had to make the excruciating decision to euthanize those animals, rather than make them struggle on in pain and illness. It has never been an easy decision. One of my family members owns ferrets, and--due to their much shorter life span--she's faced this decision nearly once every two years. It takes its toll, definitely.

But in this case, Maggie's not at the end of her life, she's at the beginning. She hasn't grown out of puppyhood yet, and if they fail to raise the funds, she won't reach adulthood at all. They have a very low target they're trying to reach, and forty-eight days remaining on the funding drive. Please help if you can.

In other news, sources are saying Picasa Web Albums are on the way out as a service, transiting soon to Google+ Photos. What does this mean to those of us who do not have, nay, cannot have a Google+ account? I don't know, but just in case, I'm keeping my eyes open for new image hosting services.

The main problem with that is it will end up breaking a TON of content, on a blog that goes back several, several years now. I'm not sure I'm up to the daunting task of recoding every image I've ever posted.

Moving to comics, over on Bleeding Cool, there's an interesting article by Natalie Reed on the (slightly) increasing presence of transsexual characters in comics. While I like her analysis of what it means to a traditionally homophobic (and transphobic) field, I do take exception to one of her examples.

(from the media album; Lord Fanny from Grant Morrison's "The Invisibles")

This is Lord Fanny, from the comic "The Invisibles". While Ms. Reed seems to think...how did she put it...that Fanny is "wildly inaccurate and generally exploitative", I strongly disagree. I've known trans women like Fanny. These are not quiet, demure, reserved, politically-active transsexual ladies of stature--women like Fanny had to fight for every step of gender correction along the way. Some I've known became prostitutes, or sold (or helped to distribute) drugs; some stole, some flung themselves into bad relationship after bad relationship, mostly for struggling issues of insecurity and self-esteem, but also, because if your only criteria is who can afford to pay for your hormones, when no insurance in town will touch you, you do what you have to.

(from the media album; Lord Fanny from Grant Morrison's "The Invisibles"; pencil sketch drawn by Phil Jimenez)

More than that, though, Lord Fanny's a guerrilla fighter on the edges of perception, and I mean that quite literally. The universe of the Invisibles is one in which reality can change, alter, distort at a moment's notice. There is no good and bad, specifically--there's only nature and destruction. The Invisibles fight on all fronts--gender, mind, spirit, flesh--and they fight at all times, and in all realities. Because most of the time, what they fight has no gender, little mind, and is nothing our minds can comprehend without serious pharmaceutical help.

Like it or hate it--and Morrison, like his comics, is similar to Warren Ellis in this regard: there are very few people lukewarm in their feelings for him--"The Invisibles" is a comic series that was absolutely different from anything seen before its arrival, and still holds up fairly well to this day. And I'll stack Lord Fanny side by side with Neil Gaiman's Wanda and David Hine and Doug Brathwaite’s "Doll", as a powerful, empowering depiction of transgender life.

calls me on the phone, tells me all the ways that he's gonna mess me up

Picking up on yesterday's post, more on the TPV policy revisions.

From Hitomi Tiponi on SL Universe:

My belief is that they see all this work going into TPVs and they'd rather try and persuade users to work with them on developing LL's viewer (i.e. lots of stuff being developed for them for free along the lines that they want) - after all they no longer have a viewer development team as such, just Oz to co-ordinate open source input.

This is all part of the ongoing policy to transform Second Life from being a community to being a product with customers.

I think this is entirely on target. Which is unfortunate, because this is something I would dearly love to be proven wrong on--that the current rulership of Second Life, Linden Lab, do not want an immersive, creative playspace, but instead, want Farmville with microtransactions, bought landspaces, and larger, more complicated user icons.

Latif again:

That cannot work right there. Oz Linden's only real competence is alienating the best opensource developers and making them never want to contribute to Linden Lab again. They would have to find someone with more clue than arrogance for the task Oz is doing.

And as much as I like the way Oz Linden thinks, and tend to put him in the slim and narrow section of "good Lindens"...I can't disagree with this either.

Sean Gorham:

All the development work goes into third-party viewers because very few people think LL have a clue about developing their own viewer. This policy change is the equivalent of LL taking their ball and going home. Yes, this will end well.

This, too. Sean's right; this sounds petty and ill-thought-out, but then, what decision have the Lindens made for the past twelve months that has been well thought out? Seriously, now. Introducing mesh? The big land sale, which saw mainland further abandoned, and estate owners crushed by the weight of tenants rushing for cheaper land? And those are just the first two off the top of my head. The Lindens are not thinking things through, and that's the problem.

Latif later linked to an audio recording of the viewer meeting; keep in mind that that is an .mp3 link, so either save it as you'd save a normal linked .mp3, or click on it and let Quicktime (or whatever else works for you) load it for you local. But that might have more information on what's actually intended, and not intended, with these changes.

Latif again, later on:

I read this as "no new cool stuff allowed if it didn't come from LL".

And I don't think he's wrong, but damn, what a restrictive, depressing world this is going to become.

Ilana Debevec:

Then again, would this mean that NON-MESH viewers will soon be verboten? (Affects how others see you, either properly dressed or wearing boxes/blobs)

It's a good question. With the quotes 70% adoption rate of mesh-enabled over non-mesh-enabled viewers, that's a good figure, but if the Lindens want 100%, this might be a good way to do it.

Well. Not "good". This might be one way to do it.

Anyway, back to the comments. From Andromeda Rage on the allowance of non-mesh enabled TPVs:

Nope, Oz said that's a matter of viewers simply not keeping up. I think the general gist I'm getting is that if you want to log in with an outdated viewer, that's fine, that's your choice, but be prepared to see a lot of broken stuff in the future.

Inventing brand-new inworld features without LL's approval is what this policy change is about.

Sounds plausible. Also sounds entirely possible, that people will start to lose functionality on certain things, over simply not being able to see them, as "old-style" viewers get more and more outdated. A slow, grisly end, to be sure, and not a fun one.

Samantha Poindexter:

I can see why the Lab wouldn't want to keep being forced to come up with better implementations of popular features, but from a user's perspective there's much to be said for TPVs being able to demonstrate where the demand is...

Which, to be purely logical and corporatist for a moment, is something the Lindens should be tracking, rather than restrict implementation of all new features until the Lindens are finished playing grabby grabby with the shiny things. Parcel Windlight, f'rinstance--the Lindens never even conceived of customizing Windlight settings to the point people did--that was nearly entirely from the community. By the same extension, the Lindens never conceived of custom Windlight settings per parcel, not just per sim.

Under this new revision, in fact, this very sort of 'user preference' selection is killed at the root. I'll offer an example. Say a viewer came out that allowed all shoes to make noise when they struck a surface. (Shhh; I know there are shoes that do that, I'm talking about hypothethical coding wherein all shoes would make sound.) High heels would clack, metallic gravboots would thunk, animal paws would get soft padding sounds...et cetera and so on. And this was a feature that would affect others beyond the user--anyone else within 20 feet, say, could hear the shoes--be they paws, hooves, fetish heels, spacesuit boots, whatever--and react (or not) as they chose.

This kind of development--and likely, developed just for those specific sub-groups on the grid--would not be allowed under the new policy. So what's left? Looking more and more like the official viewer, until there's really no need to have one over the other--which I suppose is the true end goal here.

And, as pointed out on SLU, SecondLie on Twitter pretty much nails the heart of all of this, quickly and succinctly. (He also has excellent comments here, here, here, here, here (one of my favorites), here (also very well put), here, here, and here. He's been on a roll.)

And did I ever link to this blog? Not so much for the content, which I've covered in this entry and yesterday's, but for the three updates listed at the bottom.

Joshua Nightshade chimes in:

Custom attachment points that only work on one viewer and make things float bizarrely for everyone else are the sort of problem they have decided to end. Custom functionality for yourself that doesn't utilise exploits? I don't think that's what the policy change is about.

I am wholly in agreement on the extra attachment points controversy. Had that exploit of the code actually worked, and worked consistently, I doubt it would be a problem worth addressing. But I'm not the only one past tired of seeing women come in with their tails sticking out of their ears, two hairs clashing badly with each other, their collar protruding from their right eye...In Emerald, and later in Phoenix, the extra attachment points could not be seen unless you also ran Emerald, and later Phoenix.

What's the good in a system that shows you perfectly to yourself, but not to others? In this regard, yes, I think it is important to restrict what a viewer can do--not just what a third-party viewer can do. Is this the right way to implement that restriction? Well, that's the point, isn't it?

Casey Pelous comments:

LL's history of rules enforcement pretty much illustrates "capricious."

And along with that capricious enforcement, I'd also add scattershot--because some offenses get a ban, while others with the same offense don't even get noticed. We never know how seriously the Lindens will take any potential action, frankly.

Penny Patton:

I'm trying to give Rodvik time to implement changes, and honestly from what I've seen he is trying it just takes a while. I've been saying for years that LL has built up so many bad decisions that even if they pull a complete 180 it will take years for them to put a dent in the mountain.

I think she's right here, too. Even the best management team is fighting the apathetic drag of former bad decisions, and a resentful population more than willing to protest any new change because most of the other changes have been bad. This is a draining, stressful situation to be in.

Joshua again:

When LL made the viewer open-source, the original point of it was that they would solicit patches and help from other people to improve the official one. For a variety of reasons, many of which being managerial incompetence and Rob Linden in particular, this did not pan out. People submitted patches, LL did nothing with them. People asked for ways to get their fixes into the viewer, LL ignored it. People got fed up and started releasing their own viewers and we are in the state we have now.

Pretty much. And if the Lindens hadn't dragged their collective feet to this degree, and instead, worked with community coders to implement the best patches--well, would we even have viewer 2.0, which was an outsourced project written with zero input from even Linden-level coders, at all? I really don't think so. This is Linden-level willful blindness; it has nothing to do with anyone who's developed a TPV.

Arkady Arkright offers an interesting perspective:

This 'shared experience' wording worries me. What it doesn't say is 'other user's experience'. I would read 'shared experience' to mean 'I have to see and hear the same as every other user in my vicinity'. Features like Phoenix's permanent derender would be disallowed, as no other viewer allows you to log-on with stuff already derended - thus making my experience different to that of a user on the official LL viewer - i.e. 'non-shared'.

Interesting. Let me test understanding on this supposition, because this seems to go larger than the new policy points themselves: would this interfere with muting people? If what they truly mean is everyone must see the same things, in exactly the same way, and affect no other resident's experiences...would muting also be disallowed? (Visual or otherwise.)

Now, I'm not saying this just to engage in rampant hyperbole--I mean, that's always fun, but think this through: A harsh, literal reading of the new revisions would mean that anything, no matter how small, that affects any other resident's user experience would potentially be disallowed. Now, even to me, obviously the Lindens don't want to do this. But if parcel Windlight settings are disallowed, if "forced" media plays are (and have been) disallowed, wouldn't muting also be disallowed? After all, if I mute someone, I am interfering with their user experience in SL.

I'm not saying x must equal y here; it's clear to me, from everything I've heard so far, that the Lindens are not interested in slash-and-burn, all-or-nothing thinking here. But I don't think the future is all "oh, we'll adjust just fine" either.

Shyotl said:

The bigger issue is that having these new features necessitates using a viewer that's a complete mess. Seems most users have decided it's not worth the tradeoff. Who's fault is that?

Ooh! Ooh! I know! *raises hand*

Actually, forget raising my hand, everyone knows the answer to this. The problem is that it doesn't matter what the majority of users think. Any program a company pays through the nose to get, they then because stubbornly attached to using, even in the face of overwhelming common sense. Is viewer 2 the best program for the job? Of course not. Is viewer 2 ever going away? Of course not; it cost too much.

Han Held commented:

More likely, the motivation is financial. It's hard to use windlight as a lure for ppl to buy estates if they are able to get the same functionality by editing the parcel description a certain way.

Which is true, but is the Lab more motivated to selling independent estates, or reclaiming mainland? They seem completely split on this issue.

Adeon Writer offers up a visual interpretation. It may or may not be accurate, but it's amusing and well worth at least a casual perusal.

eighthdwarf again:

The problem is that Ll has seen that TPV dev hobbyists are more creative and competent than their own PAID devs, and they can't have that. If they admitted it, it would mean admitting to have burned a huge amount of money for worthless or low-quality things instead of listening to the userbase.

This is not just a fault with Linden Lab; this is a fault with every large corporation on the planet. And, to a certain extent, humanity at large. We spend of our resources in one area, we become committed to supporting that area--not because it's "right", not because it's better than other areas, not because it even makes logical sense--but, simply and solely, because we spent our resources and therefore must continue to trudge this path. To turn away, at any point, would mean admitting we were wrong in the first place.

For most of us? Admitting--and accepting--we were wrong is very, very hard to do. No less so for the Lindens; in fact, it's often more so for corporations, because they can't just throw a press conference and say, "Oops, our bad, we'll fix this." For the most part, they have to change all underlying architecture that is pushing them down the wrong path; this could also take into account changing staff, changing vendors, changing their basic corporate culture.

And people get entrenched, people get comfortable. It hurts to sit on the radiator, but after a while the nerves are dead and it's fine. Besides, it's cold outside. Why would they move?

And then...Mikey:

And by alienating said bunch of devfurries they've killed the point of developing a TPV.

Wait, what?

I actually had to go back and find the original Nightshade post, because I admit, I'd just started skimming his to get back to less bitchy content later down the thread. I had to go back several pages before I found the comment in question, and even with context, I don't get it. This is the comment, with the lines before and after for reference:

It is a problem, but it's not a problem because other viewers are "better." They aren't, at least not to me, but this is an irrelevant line of reasoning in any event because it's a subjective opinion.

What is not subjective is the risk to SL if a third party viewer continues to hold a significant portion of the userbase. Thankfully, this is a problem that LL has elected to correct.

Given the fact that SL itself is more important than a bunch of devfurries coding a viewer and whining on the internet, I think it's a good move of LL to make.

So...he's just talking about the Exodus viewer team? Or what? I'm very confused, here.

At this point, someone brought up Tateru Nino's post on the subject, and she finished with a very succinct and damning line:

It’s a small change to the policy, but it makes Linden Lab’s development priorities and development timelines your own – however you still don’t know what they are.

Yes. The only real difficulty with this is we've rarely known what their real goals are, at least since Philip Linden left. (The first time.) This revision to established policy just reinforces that with a sharp and razored edge.

And this to me was worth lifting a screencap from SLU; it's in the comments of Ms. Nino's blog, but here, for reference:

(from the miscellaneous album)

So...sure, that's funny on the face of it, but think about what's really going on here:

• Qarl: People are asking me about this new policy. What should I tell them? (Interpretation: Oz, I need an answer from you I can safely pass on.)

• Oz: Tell them to talk to us, not you. (Interpretation: You don't rate an answer from me. Tell anyone asking you to ask us. We won't tell you any answer we have.)

That, right there? That is scathing contempt of Qarl, a former Linden. Was this what Oz actually intended? No idea. But how it comes across is damning; beyond that, it's chilling. If they'll treat a former employee like something not even worth washing off their porch after a storm...what chance do any of the rest of us have?

What's the point of trying to communicate with the Lindens at all...ever?

From Argent Stonecutter:

Other ideas that seem like they would break 2k: per-parcel muting, so you can put "block #parcelid" in your description and nobody on your parcel can see the adfarm next door; extended linden trees, using prim parameters to modify linden tree details, so you can take the gum tree and apply a different leaf texture to it.

If these things do break 2k, then that's a problem.

From Trinity Dejavu:

From the wording of 2k and what was said by Oz at the TPV meeting, they absolutely do.

And from Argent in response:

That's not just wrong, it's daft.

I agree. Unfortunately, by Tuesday or Wednesday, it won't matter.

In the time I've been trying to bring myself up to speed (let alone anyone else) on this issue, the SLU commentary has swelled from three bare pages to--at this point--ten, with more comments flying in as I type this. While there's disagreement among the denizens on SLU, for the most part the overwhelming consensus seems to be:

• no one has any clue on the real reason this is happening
• TPVs have more power than the official viewer at present; LL wants to take that power back
• and this policy will, in addition to breaking TPV content, break actual Linden content

Yeah. Well. So that's not going to be fun...

Oh, and Urlai.com thinks I'm a senior citizen who's just thrilled beyond repair and wanting to spread the joy around. The hell.

Well, I suppose it's better than Google analytics, who think I'm an 18-24 year old young man who likes rock music, gaming, and outdoor activities. (At least, until I moved to the shiny loaner laptop--now, I hit the Ad Preferences Manager and see "No interest or demographic categories are associated with your ads preferences so far." I suppose, give it time, it'll think I'm a 40-year-old Peruvian businessman into beekeeping, or something.

gotta get away, there's no point in thinking about yesterday

Logged in this morning to (of course) find my instant messages capped. But I was handed a notecard about the subscribe-o situation by Vitani Jun:

First off, I apologize for such a lengthy notecard, but it's very important that everyone is aware of this. IF YOU ARE A STORE OWNER, please read this!!

If you aren't already aware, Linden Labs seems to have implemented an unannounced server change which disrupts anything that uses scripts with [llGiveInventory], thus claiming it as spam and stopping scripts from giving people items.

This can affect any inworld item such as scripted vendor and more importantly, a subscriber system.

Because of this, many store owners are facing HUGE problems. This also causes problems for people that wish to receive updates from stores but lack group space (or maybe there isn't one available for the store).

****I strongly urge everyone to please sign AND watch this JIRA in hopes that LL will fix this.

https://jira.secondlife.com/browse/SVC-7631

IF YOU ARE A STORE OWNER and you own a subscriber system, please [watch or monitor] whatever subscriber you are using. Send out a test notice with an attachment to see if [you're affected] yet. Also please be [wary] of any of your scripted items and vendors that give people stuff.

There is no need to panic just yet, but we do need a plan and to watch this issue.

More info here: http://blog.subscribeomatic.com/2012/01/subscribe-o-matic-llgiveinventory/.

Even if you are in my group and not my subscribe-o-matic, you still might be in another store's subscriber.

I do not know if I might be affected seeing as I don't have as many people in my SoM as some stores, but I am concerned something might happen. I've already sent a test message, and so far I'm not affected.

If something unannounced does happen, it's possible I will be unable to alert people on my SoM only.

****** If you are only in my subscriber, I urge you to either watch my blog or flickr for updates and new releases, or join my group (no cost).

[ni.Ju]
Blog: ni.Ju store updates
Flickr: Vitani Jun's photostream
Group: ni.Ju's in-world group

First off, the Lindens are not going to "fix" this issue; frankly, they caused this issue and they really don't care how it's impacting the grid. Kelly Linden seems to be pretty much concerned in a vapidly surface fashion--so far, all read communication is translating as "I feel your pain, really, but this was necessary. Just send out group notices more slowly, and you'll have no problems. You shouldn't have been doing this in the first place." Which is not something most subscription services do, frankly, though--according to the Subscribe-o-Matic blog--the original subscription kiosk service works well within the throttling of the script function.

(Though also frankly, I don't buy that, because some of the people with the biggest problems are using the original service, so...how are they perfectly throttled back with zero issues? Sounds fishy.)

And second, of course, though this hardly needs to be mentioned--I did make a couple corrections for clarity from the original notecard. It's worth noting that English is not Ms. Jun's first language, so I'm not correcting her from a position of "Jesus, why can't you spell properly?" but "I'm fairly sure you meant wary, not weary here, it's okay".

To wrap things up, though this was originally written in 2008, sadly, it still applies--a round-up of the most annoying profile entries from the Moonletters X blog. Paired with that, when searching for something entirely unrelated, I came across this video from 2010; sadly, the behavior shown in there (especially with the 2x4 launcher/rezzer) still happens, day in and day out, on the grid.

Cue heavy sigh. People are people, but remember what Yonatan Zunger said:

As we got more miles on the system, this was replaced with the concern that people are total bastards, period.

In SL terms, people who launch silly things at you aren't griefers, but they are annoying, and unfortunately, they are everywhere.

we could sell it out together, seems tomorrow's overdue

Oh yes. Thank you, yes.

Again with this nonsense. Or, put another way, once more into the breach...

And we start with Yonatan's response to Sai, of which I'm only pulling point five:

5. Name-shaped pseudonyms should Just Work. Pseudonyms which don't look like a name in any culture are going to be the hard case. These do seem to be genuinely rare -- most people who use handles use them in addition to names, and most people who use pseudonyms use ones which look like names. That doesn't mean that they aren't important, just that from a prioritization perspective we wanted to help the most people first. What we need to develop is some way for people to emerge non-name-shaped pseudonyms on the service, but that's a harder problem.

Um. Several problems here.

First, yes, he's right--"name-shaped" pseudonyms should Just Work. Does that mean CaptainSparklez is going to get a pass? Is that sufficiently "name-shaped"? What about Fidel Castro? Or J Pizzle? (Though I suppose the latter qualifies under that "celebrity" ruling...)

Or this:

Meanwhile, what is the official policy on names at Google+? It's surprisingly hard to find. Here's one answer: 'Google Profiles requires you to use the name that you commonly go by in daily life.' This is the 'common names' policy referenced by Bradley Horowitz in his attempt to 'clarify' the policy, which actually didn't clarify much of anything at all. Documentation elsewhere says 'your full name is the only required information that will be displayed on your profile.' Numerous public statements on the policy from Google officials have done absolutely nothing to clear up the confusion.

The above passage comes via the Tiger Beatdown blog, and the full thing is well worth the read.

(Incidentally--there's a bit in there with an embedded Facebook search section, saying if what Google really wants is people to tie their full, legal identities permanently to their internet presence, maybe they should take a look at what people who have full legal names on Facebook are posting:

Google claims that the name policy, whatever it actually is, is about safety. It says that forcing people to use 'real names' (I use quotes here because the site means 'legal names,' not real names; not everyone uses their legal name as their active, daily name) will enhance safety and reduce incidence of abuse. This argument is often brought up in attempts to crush pseudonymity, and it's very, very wrong. People are in fact quite happy to be extremely abusive in public under their legal names, as Openbook demonstrates (type in any slur you feel like and prepare to be appalled).

(I picked a generic random word--top of the brain, sadly--and tried it out. Dear gods, it's not just appalling, it's dangerous--there's at least one lass on there who's now got her cellphone numbers archived for all time.)

Kee back to Yonatan:

If I'm not sure if my account is "name shaped" and thus might require additional verification…how do I request verification prior to investing time and energy in the account?

An absolutely valid query.

Yonatan's response back:

We don't have a way to do that yet, and it bugs me a bit. I mean, there is the fallback that even if you get suspended you can change your name to a different name, and you don't lose any of your data, but that won't solve every single case.

A bit?!? It bugs him a bit?!? He's really starting to irk me beyond all reason.

Kee's response in return:

Then someone should speak to the team that actually handles the suspensions because that problem has existed since the policy took effect.

Pretty much, and that seems to be one of the points that Yonatan--and everyone else at Google--keep perpetually missing.

Sai to Yonatan:

Please give examples of the low end for what is adequately "well known". What kinds of online references count?

Also, please note that while the policy before has claimed that e.g. Facebook, one's own website, etc., were acceptable proofs of identity, in practice, this was a complete lie. Consider e.g. the treatment of Skud (among many others).

Will this de facto rejection be changed? Will it be changed retroactively, to fix the problem for people who've already been suspended?

I'd tend to say no; as much as Yonatan seems to be trying for "reasonable, decent human being" I mistrust him from the start because of how he--and Google as a whole--have completely, cack-handedly brutalized what should have been a simple procedure that would have stolen the thunder from Facebook, and maybe--even if only in the light of outrageous hyperbole--changed the world.

Instead? We're given this flawed muddle of a service which isn't social, isn't friendly, isn't easy, and in which people can be suspended for good reasons, bad reasons, or no reasons. Some of us are treating it like it's radioactive. I don't think that's a wrong behavior right now.

I have friends who use the service. I'm thinking of one in particular who uses his real name on the service, and yet most of his friends do not refer to him by that name, ever--in fact, one of his exes only started to call him by his real name after she broke up with him, because she was still angry. Up until that point? He'd been his online pseudonym, to nearly everyone he knew. I have to seriously break down and concentrate to remember he has a so-called "real name"--his handle is more "real" to me, and to most people he knows.

People at his work call him this name. People online call him this name. People on camp-outs call him this name. His ex-wife calls him this, as well as his daughter. When he introduces himself, he himself doesn't use his real name, he uses his handle.

But he raves about the service. Why? Because he got an internal heads-up and knew at that point to sign up for his "normal", two-name, given name, and not his far more well known, single-name, online handle. He has no privacy issues to speak of; no one's hunting after his head, he's fairly secure in his employment, mostly secure in his relationships, owns his own house--plus, sad to say, he's male, which traditionally is the gender less taxed with issues of online privacy, it must be said.

For some of the rest of us? These aren't options, these are threats.

Yonatan in response:

In fact, +Sai ., I'll just tell you some of our top open issues right now:

* Still no support for titles (Doctor, Reverend, etc) in names. This is really important in some communities. Fix known, we just have to do it.

* Show the nickname in a wider variety of places. The priority of this depends a lot on how people start actually using nicks.

* Mononyms. :) Right now these all trigger the "handle" check, and that isn't going to scale well in, oh, say, Indonesia. Real fix needed.

But before we do any of this, we want to get this launch right, adjust the thresholds and so on so that legitimate users aren't being kicked, and so that the overall PITA factor for those people who are affected by this goes down. Expect some trial and error, and a lot more of me going around and asking people questions in the near future.

Let me see if I properly understand this, based on the previous few posts.

1. Even given titles like Doctor, Professor, or Reverend are not supported; it'll cause the system to kick. So even if you are Professor Ethan Sprout, and you're verified as being Professor Ethan Sprout, the system will kick you.

Bad system.

2. Google is assuming that people are going to want to use the "nickname" option. They're saying they don't know how it will best be employed because they don't know how people are going to choose to use it.

My guess? For the most part, they won't. They'll continue to want the names they want. Again, bad system.

3. Single names, as suspected, are not allowed. And yes, this is very much an international issue. So again, Western privilege is showing--because why would people want single names, everyone has double names, right?

Wrong. Very wrong. Some people have one, some people have two, some people have six. And it's not Google's place to judge which versions of given names are "right". They're not Google's names.

So again? Bad system. And while I'm likely going to continue going through the side commentary, I'm pretty much resolved from here:

• the new policy changed nothing;
• the new provisions do not increase safety and privacy concerns;
• and Google continues to lose major and multiple points across the board in reliability, trust, and security.

Way to go, Yonatan. Are you ever going to get Google+ right?

I'm letting go of everything that I know, I'm losing it

Back again for more Google+ punishment.

Kee to Yonatan:

1. How do I get my name approved in advance? You don't want to invest in a social network only to discover that your credentials aren't good enough. I have another name that has a (in my mind at least) substantial following elsewhere. It has a Google+ account, but obviously I haven't been posting publicly. I don't want to invest time and effort building relationships and making posts only to have it flagged and not pass your criteria.

2. I'm confused by your statement that Google+ can be your first network. How can it be my first network if I'm just starting out using a not-on-my-license name? It seems to me that if I am, for instance, a closeted LGBT and I want to start networking with similar people, I'm going to have to start on Twitter or some other place and only come to Google+ after several years if I've built a following. Am I missing something?

These are very good questions. And really, considering that Google only introduced Google+ relatively recently, many folks had Facebook pages, journal pages, Twitter and Tumblr and Plurk and Flickr before Google+ ever lumbered onto the scene. So how can it be anyone's "first network"? That's specious on the face of it.

And for the first point, that one I'm also finding a valid point--because why would I (or anyone who wants to use a non-"traditional" name, or a pseudonym) want to invest anything in Google+ if we're only going to have our access killed later on? Who wants to waste the time?

Gary to Yonatan:

You mention that one of the things Google discovered in running the site has been that real names are better or needed in some way. Can you elaborate on this? Is there any actual data to back up that statement?

I'd love to know that too. Oh, and hey, since it occurred to me--would "Yonatan Zunger" pass the newly revised "names must be name-shaped" ruling? Or did he automatically get a pass because he's a Google staffer (in fact, the staffer who predominantly runs Google+, but that's actually beside the point)?

Sai to Yonatan:

That reminds me: when are you going to be sending out emails to everyone previously suspended in #nymwars, telling them that it's okay to come back now?

I really, really doubt this will ever happen; there's just been too much loss of faith and increasing of paranoia and doubt. (Oh, and I should point out, in the original comment, Sai linked this; I changed it to a link that serves as a clearinghouse for longer relevant essays.)

Scott to Sai about the above comment:

Why would they come back after they way they were treated? Especially since Google is not defining the exact specific criteria that they would have to meet in order not have the door slammed in their face again.

Pretty much. Why would any of us who fled, afraid of Google-y retaliation, come back, for any reason? Especially those of us who were actually bounced under the "old" policies (which aren't that changed from the new ones, frankly)?

Especially since Google is still sounding like stuffy judgmental troglodytes in this?

And then Argent Stonecutter showed up:

This is the most common current version of the name I've been using online since 1983. I'd really rather go by just the first name in Google Plus: this last name was picked up as a result of another social platform that required me to have two names, and didn't allow me to pick my own last name, so it's kind of accidental but it's the one people are likely to recognize me as now, for the community I use it in... and I don't want to confuse things by changing my Google Mail account name.

I was using this name on Buzz, but when Google Plus launched I didn't want to risk losing access even temporarily to my Google Mail account, so I deleted this Google Profile and all my posts. I hope I'm not making a mistake now, reversing my decision.

Personally, I'd say yes, it was a mistake, but I'm a pessimist. Still, that's an excellent point--that is a pseudonym developed as a major source of personal identification for nearly thirty years now...if that's not enough to cement it as a "real" name, what the hell will be?

Adina to Yonatan:

The aspect of the new policy that is still concerning is the need to have a "following" in order to justify the use of a pseudonym. This disallows nonfamous people who are using pseudonyms for personal reasons, for example an LGBT teen in a prejudiced small town or an abuse victim. These folk may not have an established online identity with the pseudonym and a legitimate need to use the pseudonym.

I hate to get involved in the privilege wars, because from where I usually sit (being accused of one form of privilege or another), I tend to profoundly disagree with the concept. How'ver, this is a very good point, and a very good point about privilege, namely:

• Google staffers who have never been in long-term abusive relationships plainly do not understand the need for online pseudonyms
• Google staffers who have never been stalked also do not understand the need for pseudonyms
• Google staffers who've never been pagan or gay in the Bible Belt, or gay or transgendered in a fundamentalist Christian (or Muslim) household, or basically, anything markedly different in their communities from what's assumed to be the local societal "norm"--just don't understand

And all of these, and more, are examples of privilege; namely, that Google staffers have it, and thus don't understand the basic reasonings behind why those without such privilege would want pseudonyms. When there's a very real risk between revealing your name online, and death, you tend to be protective of that name. People who don't run the same risks just do not understand, and possibly, cannot understand. Which may be the real tragedy at the heart of this--Google's impossible clinging to a policy which is highly likely to cause pain, suffering, and/or actual hate crimes--simply because they think loftily that it's "better" to use your "real name" for everything.

This thinking then extends to their subsequent policies, because obviously if you're using a real name, you're never going to be mean on the internet. Thus, Google's demonstrating not only delusionally flawed logic, as well as (rightful) accusations of privilege, but they are also demonstrating as a group body a terrifying amount of naïveté--because if they think that no one on the internet ever does anything out of line under their "real names", then they obviously haven't thought this through properly. We can leave the standard rank and file out of this completely--let's just talk Senators and Representatives. Even worse? Let's take it offline, where routinely Congressional members, supposedly proud, noble creatures who represent our best interests always--lie to their constituents not only via personal letters, but in person when they meet those constituents.

Or how about this:

And in all of my years of public life I have never obstructed justice.

Richard Nixon said that, rather famously. If the President of the United States cannot manage to hold himself to the law that lying is a bad thing...why in the hell is Google expecting the same to hold true for everyone else?

The flip side of that, of course, is that they're not. They're expecting the "normal" denizens of the internet to be anything but--they're putting all these blocks in place to prevent the 4channers and the kiddie-coders from coming in and "tainting" the pure waters of Google+ discourse. Except, of course, that it hasn't worked. Because remember what Yonatan Zungler said in this conversation:

So, interesting thing: when we first launched G+, we thought that people would be total bastards if they weren't tied to their own, very durable, identity. (Which was one of the drivers behind the original names policy) As we got more miles on the system, this was replaced with the concern that people are total bastards, period.

He's not wrong. There are just as many people out there who, when tied to their "own, very durable, identity" will make themselves just as unwelcome to the party as people calling themselves "SeXyByTcH", "KI11mALL", and "sexyMILF4U". There are also just as many people out there who, when tied to a pseudonym, do everything they can to at least let that name represent themselves--in or out of public.

Behavior is not automatically aligned with name. Google needs to grow up and actually realize that.

your heart is now washed up in bleach

Interested in the music of trees? We can help with that. Though I'm not sure they didn't use a slice of tree-growth from Mirkwood...

Sometimes fundraising gets seriously quirky. That being said, this year's random giveaway may net you that signed copy of the book. Take a chance! It'll support a great cause!

Also, Indonesia takes ghosts very seriously.

And dandelions are now precursors of ecological doom. Makes sense, really.

More from the Google+ thread of doom.

From Gary to Yonatan, January 23rd:

So, Yonatan, it looks to me from reading the new policy text like there is still an expectation that I have to fill in my "real" name as the primary name and any pseudonym by which I am known in the "other names" field. If this is not the case, the text needs significant clarification. If it is the case, then this is really still inadequate.

I really don't think Google's ever going to budge on this point, which is really, really sad. Because in my eyes, and in the eyes of many other people, this has severely diminished our embrace of, and use of, Google. We just don't trust them anymore like they used to. They're still ubiquitous, but that makes us paranoid, not happy.

Scott to Yonatan, the same day:

Yonatan Zunger said, "In fact, we do not give a damn whether the name posted is 'your'name or not: we will not challenge you on this basis, nor is there any mechanism for other users to cause you to be challenged for this."

Then why did my friend Thomas Paine get suspended? His name certainly does not look like a handle. And it is a very common name, look in a phone book. He submitted links to other websites that he uses that name on, but was told that only a Driver's License will get him unsuspended. Not cool.

Also, anyone can report anyone else and use the reason of "Fake Profile". So yeah, there is a mechanism for that.

Exactly. Which, again, puts me right back to that precarious position in the first place: while many people use Emilly to address me, online and off, and while I've had this blog active since 2007 (and had other websites establishing use of the "Emilly" part of the name, prior to that), it's still not the name on my birth certificate.

And the thing is--I really cannot stress this enough--it's never going to be. Not only do I not want to "solve" the problem by changing my name legally, that would only compound the difficulty. I am fine with having an online personality, and an offline identity, being separate.

Moreover, I do not believe that this means my online presence is then "disposable"--while I'm sure I'm not in the majority, if I say something online, I do my best to back it up. If it's my opinion, quite likely it's my opinion offline as well. I endeavor always to stand behind my words, right or wrong--while I have blindly attacked in the past (and may yet in future), I try to always recognize that it's a blind attack, at least, and apologize if I feel I'm in the wrong. This, to me, does not say "disposable troll identity". This should also say to Google that I'm trying to live online and offline as a person of integrity, even if it's scattershot integrity.

Chris to Scott:

"Google has set up a situation where the user must gamble their pseudonym on whether or not they will be deemed as legitimate" You phrase it as a gamble. What are they losing if their pseudonym is rejected? simply the opportunity to call themselves 'potato salad' when no one know them by that name anyways?? a gamble implies a significant loss.

Not exactly. While I'm sure there are people, many people, trying to do just this, where I see the main problem for me (and people like me), is that we are trying to state the case that our pseudonyms are legitimate. Because we have chosen them (and stood behind them) for several years now, that should be proof of our good intent.

Unfortunately, Google is pigheaded on this point.

Scott in comment to Chris:

The risk is in the exposure. Once Google is has the connection between the real name and the pseudonym, the trust by the user has been established. If Google rejects the pseudonym, the user cannot undo that connection. Google already has is in their database.

Think of it like this. If I came to you and told you I was Batman, even if you do not believe me I cannot untell you. It's too late.

I'd put it this way. If Bruce Wayne came and told Google he was Batman, that link is forged. If I came to Google and revealed my real name as XY, and my online name as Emilly Orr, that link is forged. It doesn't matter on the belief; the point is, the database now has that information, and the database can (and likely will) update personal pages with that information. Which is precisely what we don't want.

It doesn't get more clear and simple than that, but dealings with Google are rarely simple.

Again on the 23rd, Sai finally responds to Yonatan (his first response was linked in yesterday's post. I'm choosing to repost the entire thing because I think it's important):

1. I understand and actually agree with wanting names over handles. Handles are often (but not always) reasonable to handle (ha) as 'nicknames'. I think they should be included in + mentions also, but there we're talking less a matter of principle and more one of implementation.

However, the two aren't strictly separable. For instance: +aestetix aestetix. It's his handle, yes, but it's also the name he goes by all the time IRL. It's how I met him. I happen to know his wallet name, which is different, but even so I and most of his friends call him "aestetix" most of the time.

Is it his "handle" or his "name"? I would argue it's both, and he has more than one legal name under the centuries-old common law understanding of the term.

Indeed I would argue that the only worthwhile point of such a policy is to have people identified here as they would be if you met them at a party IRL. But that's not something you can prove or verify other than by asking the person themselves.

2. Why can't non-celebrities have pseudonyms too? I'm no celebrity and would probably have been rejected under this doctrine. I see no substantive justification of this policy.

3. Drivers' licenses do not capture false positives against common law names. Consider (just for instance) the many trans people whose drivers' licenses reflect a different name than the one they go by IRL.

Also, I consider it objectionable a priori that I should have to show my ID — something you don't even verify in any sensible manner — merely because I have a weird name. What do you think the reaction would be if Google+ applied this policy consistently, requiring ID from everyone who wants to sign up? (Forget about the workload of doing so, consider simply the evilness quotient.)

Evil policy + discriminatory application ≠ less evil.

4. That's not really a substantive response. How do you intend to minimize the problem for people with unusual names?

5. Dismissing the number of people who need to use pseudonyms, and saying "well it works for the privileged majority", isn't really a good response here. Again: how do you propose fixing this bug?

Let's break this down in order.

Point one has been my point all along. If I, on a daily basis, have both my partners getting my attention by saying "Em"...first, what makes Google think I'd want to be known by another name, and second, what makes Google think my so-called "wallet name" is more important to my life than my chosen name?

Let's talk chosen names for a minute. I have three. Two are legally established--let's say, for convenience's sake, they're my maiden and my married names. Because of common-law practices, in many states, I can legally use either. Even in those states which don't allow common-law provisions, all I have to do to establish my married name legally is change it in a court of law. (Which I've been meaning to do for years now, anyway--because the state in which I married did not automatically change my name. That does not, however, make it any less my name.)

So which name does Google really want? My ID name? The (three, now) names the post office delivers mail to? Which is it? And if I change my name, do I have to re-verify all of this information just to use a name which isn't my legal one? And why does Google care in the first place? It seems inordinately invasive.

Point two I also agree with, vehemently. Why can't non-celebrities have established pseudonyms? Because if celebrities get a pass over not having to go through all this needlessly cumbersome verification, that establishes a class system I'm fairly sure Google does not want.

Point three is interesting from an international angle: for one, many transsexual people do change their names (and their gender) on their ID, so which one is valid at that point--their "birth" name, or their updated ID name? Further, in England (at least, and possibly in other countries as well), crossdressers are issued two legal IDs--one with their birth name (and gender), and one with their "presentation" name. That doesn't even take into account transgendered folk, just people who want to present as the other gender.

So which name does Google want? Do they want them all? Wouldn't that be a nightmare for the verification folks?

And this is well worth repeating, and bolding:

Evil policy + discriminatory application ≠ less evil.

Which is so very, very true in this arena. When did Google stop behaving by the precept "don't be evil"? Because this is innately discriminatory, judgemental, I believe I already said pigheaded, and hey, I'll make that leap into "evil" behavior. Any time a major corporation is deciding by fiat who gets to play with the other kids, and who doesn't, based solely on the name sounding normal, what kind of lesson is that sending to the net at large? To society at large? That we can only be "good" people if we have "normal" names? And Google gets to define what's "normal" and what's not?

Yeah. That's just wrong. And it's not getting less wrong.

Point four and point five are really good questions, but Google doesn't have any good answers, yet, because they just implemented this (massively flawed) policy revision, over the previous (also massively flawed) policy on Google+. I fully support Sai's desire to have these questions answered, but frankly, Google just doesn't know yet.

But let's look those questions over again before we tie this entry up: for those of us with unusual names, or established pseudonyms, or who chose specific alternate names over their "wallet names": what Google seems to be telling us is either:

• change our names so they sound more "normal" (thereby removing almost all interesting names, all ethnic names, and a substantial chunk of international names);
• be able to prove, conclusively, to a corporation we no longer trust to be given such information, that our names are our names;
• or be able to prove that we have sufficient "celebrity" or "internet following" that our names are our names (without telling us how that following is going to factor out)

Which standards are we going by, too? Forget the "celebrity" issue or the issue of proof--look carefully at the top line. Names that aren't "traditionally" name-shaped are getting thrown out. Who's deciding what's a "name shape" in the first place? How many letters are allowed? Are only two names allowed, not three? Is having four names right out? Do we have to register with our full legal names and be referred to as our full legal names in perpetuity, or can we simplify--"Joe Smith", for instance, over "Joseph Ablemarle Vinicunus Smith". Or would that full legal name be thrown out anyway because it's not "name-shaped" enough?

And more--are the criteria for deciding what is and is not "name-shaped" purely limited to Latin character sets (it seems to be) and, in fact, Western naming practices? So how would that work out with "Joseph Running Bear", for instance? It's his name, right? Would that be "name-shaped" enough to get through without a fight, or would the "Running Bear" last name scotch the entire thing? What about Asian naming practices, where the given personal name is usually the last name?

Let's be more specific. "Ming Yen" in Japan and China would refer to "Yen Ming" in Western parlance. Okay, that's still name-shaped. What about "Hang Bok-nam", which usually gets Westernized as "Bok-nam HANG" for Korea? Would the fact that the last name is completely upper-case toss out the name entirely? Who knows?

And, let's not forget, I'm posting these commentaries off Google+ because I'm afraid that posting them on Google+ (and thus reactivating my account) will get me banned from Gmail! Why should that even be a consideration for what's essentially a social network--make a comment, lose your access? What forum on the planet does that?!?

silver bullets in the jukebox, spin another round

This week's awesome bio award goes to Wrath and Ruin, a level 50 science brute seen in the Rikti War Zone:

Description:
Wrath: They KILLED us!
Ruin: No, not us. Her. They killed her...
Wrath: I'll feast on their eyes! The pain! They'll feel my pain!
Ruin: It is not all of them. They are not all bad. We can help them maybe!... Is it not what she wanted?
Wrath: They killed her! But yes, that IS what she wanted. And THAT's why she's 'dead'.
Ruin: But...
Wrath: She's dead, because WE were too weak to help her back then.
Ruin: We are stronger now... We could do...
Wrath: Something, yes. We can fix their perceptions!
Ruin: Umm, that is nice of us... I guess...
Wrath: 'Very'. We'll help them see. And then, ease their pain. They're in so much pain.
Ruin: Or will be...
Wrath and Ruin: Hah, hahaha, AhhhAHHAHAAHAha...
Ruin: Seriously though. I think there may be something...
Wrath: wrong with us, yes. But I don't care. I like it.
Ruin: Yeah... me too...

Perrrfect.

In other news, artist Matt Rhodes has knocked out a concept for Galactus that I really want to see become the official concept. I'm definitely more highly in favor of his version than the traditional short, stubby, yet somehow still gargantuan pink guy that Lee and Kirby invented. (AND it even explains why that invention exists, without diminishing the power of the new one.)

Friend of mine (who has an established online pseudonym that is not her real name, in her case of over a decade's standing) has been following the main Google+ commentary thread on the "new and improved" pseudonymity policy. After the initial announcement, I hadn't bothered to read any of the comments, for two reasons:

1. I left Google+ because they don't allow me to be Emilly Orr, a name I've established for almost seven years now--which is also the name that nearly everyone in my life, online and off, uses either exclusively to talk with me, or uses interchangeably with my "real name" (and yes, this includes spouses and some family members); and

2. I didn't want to reach that point whereby I either couldn't provide Google with enough substantive "proof" for why I wanted to use that name, and they killed all access to my Google accounts across the board, or somehow tracked down my "real name" and replaced it without my consent, thus giving anyone with (or without) a Google+ account access to my RL information.

So I'm now reading the comments, and...wau. So damn many comments. Here's a cursory few that caught my eye:

First, part of Bradley Horowitz's original announcement:

Since launch we've listened closely to community feedback on our names policy, as well as reviewed our own data regarding signup completion. The vast majority of users sail through our signup process--in fact, only about 0.1% submit name appeals.

When we analyze the set of all name appeals on Google+, we find that they generally fall into three major categories:
- The majority (60%) of these users want to simply add nicknames.
- About 20% of appeals are actually businesses (who are inadvertently trying to set up their business as a Profile, rather than using Google+ Pages which were intended for this purpose.)
- And the remaining 20% would either prefer to use a pseudonym or another unconventional name.

Today we're pleased to be launching features that will address and remedy the majority of these issues. To be clear--our work here isn't done, but I'm really pleased to be shipping a milestone on our journey.

Nicknames and Names in Another Script

Over the next week, we'll be adding support for alternate names--be they nicknames, maiden names, or names in another script--alongside your common name. This name will show up on your Google+ profile and in the hovercards which appear over your name. In the next few weeks, we'll be displaying it more broadly as part of your name in other areas of Google+ as well. So if you're Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson, Jane Doe (Smith), or Saurabh Sharma (सौरभ शर्मा), you can now communicate your identity the way you want to.

To add an alternate name, go to your Google+ profile, click Edit Profile, select your name and click on "More options." (See attached photos)

It's important to remember that when you change your name in Google+, you’re changing it across all services that require a Google Profile.

Other Established Identities

On Google+, we try to flag names which don't represent individuals, such as businesses or abstract ideas which should be +Pages. Sometimes we get this wrong, so starting today we're updating our policies and processes to broaden support for established pseudonyms, from +trench coat to +Madonna.

If we flag the name you intend to use, you can provide us with information to help confirm your established identity. This might include:

- References to an established identity offline in print media, news articles, etc
- Scanned official documentation, such as a driver's license
- Proof of an established identity online with a meaningful following

One wonders how exactly they're interpreting "meaningful following", but that's the least of my complaints with this announcement.

Sai summed up many of my objections in a comment very succinctly stated, near the top:

1. "Another script"? That would be Latin charset, for people whose primary language is in another charset. Why should English get privileged as the universal default for their "primary" form of name?

2. "with a meaningful following" is extremely objectionable to me.
a) it's complete weasel wording
b) it cements having pseudonyms as a privilege of celebrity

Both are unacceptable. Normal people need to have pseudonyms too, as I think has been extremely well established. (cf. http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Who_is_harmed_by_a_%22Real_Names%22_policy%3F)

3. If it's on your driver's license, it's not a pseudonym. And if it's not on your driver's license, that doesn't mean it's not your legal name either, in common law countries.

4. It discriminates against people (like me) with unusual names. Why do we have to show identification or fame, but the real pseudonyms ("John Smith" et al) don't?

5. Google+ still can't be your first identity online if you have a nonWASP name...but Facebook can. "Google+: your second social network." Seriously?

I'm sorry, but the only difference I see here is that you're now listing the nickname field on the hovercard and profile. I see no substantive policy change. Fame was already an obvious and hypocritical exception to the policy; now you're just open about it.

And this took half a year?

Exactly. I highly recommend reading through the Geekfeminism link; I only wish the folks at Google pushing this insane policy so aggressively would do the same, and, better still, actually comprehend the logic in it.

Yonatan in response to Sai:

You're asking all of the right questions, so let me give you systematic answers. I'll start with the easy one, and write a separate comment for the big one:"Another script:" No, the Latin charset isn't privileged. Your name has to be in any single script (as per UTR-39); your nickname has to be in a single script; but they do not have to be the same script.

Sai's response back:

I understood they don't have to be in the same script. But the example given ("Saurabh Sharma (सौरभ शर्मा)") pretty explicitly says that the native script is the "other one". That's rather rude IMO.

While I've never had a name in a non-Latin character set, I do understand the point--it presumes that English, and by default Latin characters, are the obvious global default, and that anyone who doesn't use English (and Latin characters) are by this definition...well, you could take that several ways, depending on how you're reading it. At the least Google is trying to tell the rest of the world that their languages are by default "alternate" ones; at worst, the communication says they're less, they're not as important, they don't mean as much. These aren't good things to say.

Gary to Yonatan:

firstly, this is a step in mostly the right direction and I'm glad to see it. I would be interested in a response to Sai's other comment, though. Surely celebrity should not be a prerequisite for choice. In that regard, this policy change seems to continue to willfully miss the point: it is not our responsibility to explain our choice of name to you, but rather your responsibility to explain to us why that choice is something we should not have. So far Google has abjectly failed to do this.

Good comment. Is celebrity the only reason a pseudonym would be allowed? What qualifies as a "meaningful following"? And he's absolutely right, why is Google putting themselves into judging what names are "allowed" (hence, "good") and what names are banned, blocked, or denied (hence, "bad")? They're our names, not theirs. Why do we have to justify our own names?

Yonatan back to Sai:

Saurabh is actually one of the PM's on the team, and he uses Latin script as his default script. :)

Sai's comment in return:

Then that's not a good representative case to use for internationalization, eh?

No. It's really not. In that case, Horowitz is taking a name he's seen around the office and pretending that it shows some amazing international sensitivity, when in fact Saurabh likely only uses non-Latin script when communicating specifically with people who use that script by default. And possibly not even then. So that's really a specious example start to finish; thanks, Google, for continuing to denigrate our intelligence.

And what I'm going to end with (at least for now) is Yonatan's comment back to Sai:

OK, +Sai .: Here's the big answer.

First of all, you might ask why we have a names policy at all. (i.e., why we don't simply go with the JWZ proposal) One thing which we have discovered, while putting some miles on the system, is that it is indeed important to have a name-based service rather than a handle-based service. This isn't a matter of functionality so much as of community: You get a different kind of community when people are known as Mary Smith than when they are known as captaincrunch42, and for a social product in particular we decided that the first kind of community is the one we want to build. In order to do that, we want to establish a general norm that the names you put in to the system should be names, not handles.

So one thing that our name checking flow tries to catch is handles, which should normally be nicknames, shown in addition to a name. The other important thing it's trying to catch is people who are creating individual accounts, rather than +Pages, for non-human entities such as businesses or organizations. The behavior of +Pages is deliberately restricted in the system, and we don't want people to be creating fake human accounts to circumvent that. The name check turns out to be a very powerful tool to catch these.

Our name check is therefore looking, not for things that don't look like "your" name, but for things which don't look like names, period. In fact, we do not give a damn whether the name posted is "your" name or not: we will not challenge you on this basis, nor is there any mechanism for other users to cause you to be challenged for this.

There are two main cases where the name check screws up. One is false positives: people (such as you) who have unusual names which get flagged because they looked like handles. Being able to appeal via things such as drivers' licenses is useful for this case, since it's a simple "oh, we got this wrong." The other case is people such as +trench coat, who are so well-known under this handle that it would be bizarre not to let them onto the system under this name. For this case, we allow appeals based on being well-known under the name: thus the ability to prove the "established pseudonym." We've deliberately set the threshold for that latter case fairly high for now, but we intend to continue to tune it; the objective is that the frequency of such names should basically be the same as their frequency in meatspace.

So to answer your questions one-by-one:

(2) "Meaningful following" only applies to cases of established pseudonyms which do not look like names. The definition of "meaningful" is deliberately vague so that we can tune it, so that it behaves in a natural fashion.

(3) That's correct; drivers' licenses are for false positives, not pseudonyms.

(4) Unusual names will indeed hit friction, because of false positives. We're trying to minimize that, but it's going to take some trial and error.

(5) Google+ can absolutely be your first identity online. No matter what your language, no matter where you come from. The "established pseudonym" logic should apply to a very small subset of people. If some groups are seeing a higher false positive rate than others, that's a bug, not a feature, and we have the data available to spot this situation and remedy it.

Does this answer your questions better?

Not really. Let's take this point by point:

1. So Google's only interested in surface community--they don't want people with goofy-sounding names to apply, because that would not make a strong social network of honest people, but a bunch of kids who would do bad things simply because they don't have "real names" like adults do. The hell.

2. Even if we somehow manage to convince them that our psuedonyms are real enough for their data checks to pass over, we'll still have to use "real names", it sounds like, because nick-names are only pairing with "real names", because that's the way adults in the real world operate.

3. In fact, we do not give a damn whether the name posted is "your" name or not: we will not challenge you on this basis...Except that's not what Google said earlier. Google said earlier that if we were operating under a pseudonym, then Google would kill all Google functionality across the platform. If we lost Google+, we lost Gmail, we lost Picasa for pictures, and people were wondering if this would also block use of Chrome.

In fact, I'm still not entirely sure that's not going to happen in March; that even though I'm not on Google+, they'll "discover" I've been running under a pseudonym all these years and tell me that (even though, to their new and revised definition, "Emilly Orr" looks like a real name) it's not good enough, and kill my Gmail access.

4. If I have a strange-sounding pseudonym (which I don't), and I have sufficient celebrity and name recognition (which I don't), then I get the name by default because it would be "bizarre" not to operate like that. Which is, I suppose, fine for people like "trench coat", Cher and Madonna, but where's the dividing line for those of us not deemed strange enough? Is this the Google version of "go big or go home"?

5. Google doesn't want to tell us how they define "meaningful" because they don't want people to "game the system". Gosh, that sounds familiar...Anyone else flashing to the Lindens' policy on Adult terms in the Marketplace? You know, obviously bad words like "pe", "5" and "*"? (Though rumors are "5" got fixed.)

6. Finally, this bit: [T]he objective is that the frequency of such names should basically be the same as their frequency in meatspace. Right. So in my case, the fact that most of the people I know call me "Em", including the ones that know me by the name on my ID, means I can establish "Emilly Orr" as my official name. Right? Save that Google did everything they could, several months back, to terrify me out of my tiny mind that if I held onto that designation on Google+, I would lose all ability to use my email address--which at this point is tied to several major institutions and would be a pain and a half to replace. I'm not talking Second Life and City of Heroes registry; I'm talking banks, hospitals, and politicians.

You can't have it both ways, Google. Either it's okay for us to have pseudonyms, or it's not. And restricting us to pseudonyms that sound like real names just makes you look like consummate dicks, frankly. To be blunt.