Raph’s Website » The boundaries of user created content

The boundaries of user created content

June 1st, 2007 (Visited 3968 times) Tags:

A lot of user-created content is porn.

Seems like a truism, doesn’t it? Then again, a lot of professionally-created Internet content is porn too. It’d be interesting to see whether the percentage of user-contributed smut in user-built spaces is different from the percentage of professionally-contributed smut in open spaces like the Internet.

Anyway, what prompts this musing? Well, the combination of stuff like the recent LiveJournal PR disaster and subsequent backpedaling (gotta love a company announcement entitled “Well we really screwed this one up…”), and the big controversy over in the fanfic community over this company called FanLib that is trying to build a business model out of fan fiction.

And of course, the inevitable virtual world tie-in: the announcement on Linden Lab’s site that they are encouraging the reporting of unpalatable content, which has led to a predictable outrage among many residents.

The diversity of things to see and do within Second Life is almost unimaginable, but our community has made it clear to us that certain types of content and activity are simply not acceptable in any form. Real-life images, avatar portrayals, and other depiction of sexual or lewd acts involving or appearing to involve children or minors; real-life images, avatar portrayals, and other depictions of sexual violence including rape, real-life images, avatar portrayals, and other depictions of extreme or graphic violence, and other broadly offensive content are never allowed or tolerated within Second Life.

Much of the debate has of course centered on the question of what “broadly offensive content” means, and whether SL is abdicating its desire to be the 3d Internet by embracing censorship, and so on.

A lot of people like stuff that is highly sexual, kinky, illegal, and liable to get you jailed in some countries. This applies just as much to Second Life as it does to LiveJournal. Really, any forum that permits users to create content will run into this issue. At core, you have to choose between two extremes: policing, or not.

The “not policing” case has many things to recommend it. It means that you aren’t trying to make constant judgements as to what is acceptable. You’re not the thought police. You can say you are supporting free speech. It reduces liability in some cases, because you are not in an editorial position and don’t know what is being said.

On the other hand, you may be tacitly supporting criminal activity, or activity that you personally find revolting. And we’re not just talking about speech issues here — what if the user-contributed activities in question are, say, planning a terrorist attack?

The thing about the “police stuff” case is that it’s an endless slope to slide down. Who sets the standards? What about standards imposed from outside the service (laws in places where you do business, for example)? What about standards you find morally repulsive?

Frankly, service operators are caught in a Catch-22. I mean, let’s just look at some basic scenarios, many based on actual events that have come up in the game industry, virtual world industry, or Web industry.

Someone complains…

… about chat in your game that they find offensive.
… about user-created fan fiction related to your game that is not hosted by you.
… about fan fiction using characters you created in your copyrighted fiction.
… about pornographic fan fiction using characters you created in your copyrighted fiction.
… about photographs of child pornography in your game.
… about simulated images of child pornography created using 3d graphics.
… about Nazi imagery in your game.
… about neo-Nazi propaganda in your game.
… about neo-Nazi propaganda in your game, seen on a client connecting from Germany.
… about al-Qaeda imagery and propaganda in your game.
… about Tibetan dissidents in your game.
… about Chinese dissidents, and demands their names.
… about individuals on a terrorist watchlist, and Homeland Security demands their names.
… about individuals on a terrorist watchlist, and Homeland Security demands complete logs of all their activity.

If you are like most people, you have varying reactions to all of these. Even as someone who tries to “do the right thing” at all times, you’re going to face situations where ethics, law, politics, and practicalities all collide. Some are “victimless crimes.” Some are not. Some are only crimes in some places where your service might be accessed, and are even considered heroic actions in other places. Some expose you to liability, and some don’t — and which is which depends on what sorts of actions you take on the ones that you agree with, even.

There are few absolutist philosophical positions here that feel comfortable, honestly. This is why many companies that operate across international borders actually have different product offerings based on territory — even trying to police to each country’s standard results in bumping up against irreconciliable differences in national approach.

Right now, the Net is still full of frontiers. But virtual worlds are currently not — and it is the very fact that all these differing opinions are dumped willy-nilly into one space in Second Life that makes many of these problems acute. On the Internet, what we have seen is segmentation. It will be interesting to see to what degree we see the same develop in any future metaverse.

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Responses are currently closed, but you can trackback from your own site.

Our world, our rules. - Second Life Insider wrote on June 3rd, 2007 at 10:38 am:

[...] Raph Koster [...]

Keeping Second Life Safe, Together - Page 27 - Second Citizen Forums wrote on June 4th, 2007 at 1:01 am:

[...] Koster posts on the topic: http://www.raphkoster.com/2007/06/01…eated-content/ [...]

External News wrote on June 4th, 2007 at 4:19 am:

[...] The boundaries of user created content [...]

VintFalken.com » Blog Archive » Second Life web resources for June 4th 2007 wrote on June 4th, 2007 at 4:32 pm:

[...] Raphâ��s Website Â» The boundaries of user created content – Then again, a lot of professionally-created Internet content is porn too. Itâ��d be interesting to see whether the percentage of user-contributed smut in user-built spaces is different from the percentage of professionally-contributed smut… [...]

Massive Update: Weekly MMO News news from 1UP.com wrote on June 8th, 2007 at 4:35 pm:

[...] of the lack of a codified design process behind Massively Multiplayer games. Raph’s Website — The Boundaries of User Created Content. Raph comments on serious issues facing monitors of virtual spaces, as a spin off from Linden Labs’ [...]

Project Wonderful - advertise on Psychochild's blog! wrote on June 11th, 2007 at 1:49 am:

[...] Psychochild’s blogPast week Today226: google.com120: images.google.com76: zenofdesign.com36: raphkoster.com26: virginworlds.com25: writerscabal.wordpress.com24: mogb.blogspot.com24: [...]

Our world, our rules. - watch the video, vlog, or podcast - Mefeedia wrote on August 9th, 2007 at 3:34 am:

[...] | Website | Download [...]

Our world, our rules. - watch the video, vlog, or podcast - Mefeedia wrote on August 18th, 2007 at 8:19 pm:

Adrian Crook said on June 1st, 2007 at 2:20 pm:

A few years ago some Harry Potter fanfic types on Livejournal wrote an exhaustively crafted piece of gay sex fanfic wherein two Harry Potter characters broke into my house to have sex. Apparently the LJ authors had seen a photo from one of my old houses online and thought it would make a great setting for that particular episode of fanfic. IIRC, the Potter characters broke into my house, knocked me unconscious, then proceeded to have sex with each other on my bedroom windowsill. I found out about the fanfic piece when one day I had a few thousand Livejournal visitors hit my personal site.

I read the piece and thought it was pretty crazy, but ultimately harmless.

Tiny Froglet said on June 1st, 2007 at 5:31 pm:

http://stewardess.livejournal.com/260336.html

almagill said on June 1st, 2007 at 5:42 pm:

While LJ might have handled things better (and with hindsight who can’t say that?) as you point out, they were left with very few alternatives than to take some pretty drastic action *to protect the company and the rest of the community*.

I might be a major cynic but I do wonder about the timing of this, the EVE debacle, recent DDoS attacks on various networks. All timed to hit on a holiday weekend or while people were still finding their feet after a break.

It really is getting bad when you have to look at any protest and wonder just what the protesters agenda actually is. Is it what they are apparently complaining about or are they getting onto some sort of power trip by ‘putting it to the man’?

count0 said on June 1st, 2007 at 9:33 pm:

Raph, your definition of “user-created content” is too narrow.

Think about the reviews on amazon.com or book club, they are “user-created content”.

Think about mailing list, all contents are “user-created”.

Raph said on June 1st, 2007 at 9:58 pm:

Actually, count0, I’ve said the exact same thing many times. Not sure how it applies to this post, however?

Morgan Ramsay said on June 1st, 2007 at 10:11 pm:

I don’t see the utility in distinguishing user-generated content from user-created content.

Sounds donnish and unnecessary.

To generate is to create; to create is to generate.

Amaranthar said on June 2nd, 2007 at 10:26 am:

It’s a good point Morgan, but I think it can be usefull to make the distinction. There is a difference in creating and using what’s already created to generate. And that difference will probably become very important in design as this thing moves into new territories.

Raph, if user created smut had a way to make money off it (not sure about that right now either), I think it would then equal what is created in the more open spaces. There’s those who, uh, like it, and then there’s those who are in it for the money.

Kerri Knight said on June 2nd, 2007 at 12:49 pm:

I see a several of issues at work here. Any online congregation, whether text discussion forums, chat rooms, MUDs, or MMOs are communities. The first question to ask is whether you intend your community to be a niche or have broad appeal. In either case, the community at large should have some commonly agreed on expectations. If you’re hosting a broad cross-section of cultures and interests, there are a lot more hurdles than just moderation.

We talk a lot about the ‘grey’ areas, looking closer though, that grey is really a blend of colors, hues, and tones. Some colors blend well together, a few complement perfectly, some dominate others, some clash, and some work together only in the context of a third color. People act the same way, but our moods and interests are fluid, they can persist or change. Some level of effort should be made to create (or allow the users to create) cultural hubs where the creator is given the means to inform others of what the community is about, its expectations and limitations, what it offers in return, etc.

The ability to work with other people of similar goals and desires to create a niche cultural center and defend it from detractors intent on being a nuisance would help the overall culture. You’ve still got your open-access public spaces where ideas, adventures, and commerce can all be facilitated and exchanged.

The real souring tends to happen when there is a dramatic and very sudden shift in expectations. Whether by declaration of a change in policy, a difference in the way things are enforced (or not enforced), the community will react to it. In some extreme cases, the definition of the community changes, some users find themselves or their cultural sub-group no longer part of the provider’s intended market. Naturally they’ll feel alienated and abandoned to some degree. While I’m no closer than most at figuring out where it is, I’d hope our goal is finding the line between ‘freedom of expression’ and ‘freedom from expressions that I’d like to not see right now’, not the line between what is allowed and not allowed. The appropriate governmental authority takes care of that.

I’m glad when I see this discussion in more of a social context than a legal one. I’d like to think people realize that organizing social institutions does more for their interests than trying to organize all of society around their interests. Now, as for concern over what is and isn’t acceptable in the public spaces, I suppose there’s yet another balancing act to figure out between ‘unrestrained expression’ and ‘expectation of decency’. ESRB rates games, MPAA rates movies, but there doesn’t seem to be a commonly shared content ratings body for online content (would you want the nightmare of riding that beast?).

Morgan Ramsay said on June 2nd, 2007 at 2:12 pm:

There is a difference in creating and using what’s already created to generate.

Example? That statement barely makes any sense to me. Must be fatigue.

Amaranthar said on June 3rd, 2007 at 8:56 am:

There is a difference in creating and using what’s already created to generate.

Example? That statement barely makes any sense to me. Must be fatigue.

Uh, flying penises vs. laying out items in a penis shape? Do you see a difference here? I can understand where some people might not. But to me, the first comes with a “part of the game” connotation where the second is something that’s not a part, but a misuse.

How about /screw vs. /bow,/bow,/bow?

Getting away from the porn aspects, how about a car in Camelot vs. crates and whatnot stacked in the shape of a car?

csven said on June 3rd, 2007 at 10:06 am:

Interesting to note that a Second Life Group has been founded with the name “i am for a FREE Second Life” but which, because the Search function isn’t properly working, is now spreading virally via WOM only.

And in spite of the confusion over the group name and the borked search tool, it’s growing quickly.

It’ll be interesting to see if/how this group is used to communicate the “community’s” wishes to Linden Lab, and whether LL even bother to acknowledge it should it try.

Morgan Ramsay said on June 3rd, 2007 at 3:35 pm:

Uh, flying penises vs. laying out items in a penis shape? Do you see a difference here? I can understand where some people might not. But to me, the first comes with a “part of the game” connotation where the second is something that’s not a part, but a misuse. How about /screw vs. /bow,/bow,/bow?

The player is still using the game as a tool for visualizing content. As long as the game is a necessary component of the content generation process, distinguishing user-generated content from user-created content is donnish and unnecessary. If we consider Raph’s remarks about the death of single-player games, then the assertion that there is difference between generating and creating content is simply erroneous. All user-generated content is thus “part of the game.”

trinity said on June 4th, 2007 at 1:18 am:

Uh, flying penises vs. laying out items in a penis shape? Do you see a difference here? I can understand where some people might not. But to me, the first comes with a “part of the game” connotation where the second is something that’s not a part, but a misuse.

How about /screw vs. /bow,/bow,/bow?

Getting away from the porn aspects, how about a car in Camelot vs. crates and whatnot stacked in the shape of a car?

In the case of Second Life, all content is created by the users. There is no real “game content”.

Rich Bryant said on June 4th, 2007 at 4:30 am:

Morgan: Options for generation are limited as opposed to options for creation. For example, in SWG you can place a house, generating content. In Second Life, you can create a house that looks like an enormous penis, creating porn.

/shrug

Ilsoap said on June 4th, 2007 at 5:47 am:

Welcome to the Internet.

It doesn’t matter whether we like it or not, ultimately, boundaries can not exist on the Internet. Sites that encourage people to create whatever they want to run into the problem that people will create whatever they want to, and since it’s in a virtual space, it gives a sense that people will have no consequences to their actions.

Is it any wonder that people love virtual worlds so much?

Talaen said on June 4th, 2007 at 6:10 am:

From a community administration point of view, at some point you’ll have to set the standards for your community and then stick to them. Leaving out the real-world legal concerns for a minute, there are choices that anyone running a community on the internet is going to have to make in terms of what’s acceptable and what’s not.

Once that decision is made, you will have to enforce it, and there will always be community members who feel your “laws” are too restrictive or too lax. The best that you can do is to try and provide something that seems like it fits the needs of the majority, and accept the fact that you’re going to lose some folks who don’t agree.

To put it in Second Life terms, Linden is being forced at this point to say what’s acceptable and what’s not in the community they host. There’s going to be people on either side of that argument, but without Linden making the statement and enforcing it, the community will eventually polarize and divide.

If Second Life existed independently of the real world, then Linden could probably get away with simply zoning the content and setting rules for certain island types. Anyone who didn’t want to be subjected to that stuff could simply avoid those islands. They can still do this to an extent. However, the problem that Linden faces now is that they’re being judged in the real-world court of public opinion. So the rules they make are going to end up reflecting much more of what the general public and government of the United States (and other countries) in the real world think is acceptable versus what the denizens of Second Life might think is acceptable.

If they hadn’t set up the Linden Exchange to allow people to convert Linden dollars back into real dollars, they probably would not have ever had this issue.

Vint said on June 4th, 2007 at 10:33 am:

Yes, but their Community Guidelines still states:

Content, communication, or behavior which involves intense language or expletives, nudity or sexual content, the depiction of sex or violence, or anything else broadly offensive must be contained within private land in areas rated Mature (M).

Now how does that rhyme with the message Daniel posted on the blog? One says ‘you can’t do it. at all.’ the other one – that would have worked fine, if LL would have actually putt some staff on wading through and handling the abuse reports filed on sexual age play, for instance – says ‘you may, but keep it private’.

I wonder if they are going to make the whole grid ‘PG’ now they are facing yet another law case (Familles de France).

Morgan Ramsay said on June 4th, 2007 at 2:38 pm:

I don’t see how using different approaches and tools to generate content suddenly changes the activity of generating content, necessitating a new neologism.

PJMRM said on June 4th, 2007 at 4:10 pm:

If the laws of the nations of the world win, then the internet ceases to be a place for the exchange of ideas and becomes a place for the restriction of thought and freedom.

Yes allow Neo-Nazis, Yes allow Al-Qeada, yes allow extermists, yes allow pornographers, yes allow those people you despise.

Because ft you don’t, then you will lose the pacifists who are unpatriotic in not supporting their country, the freedom fighters who are looking to be free from the heel of oppression, those who seek dialog & understanding, the artists, and those people you respect.

You can’t have freedom through oppressing others, it just don’t happen.

Amaranthar said on June 4th, 2007 at 4:53 pm:

Well, Morgan, in creating content anything can be created with no restrictions. In generating content, the person is limited by the previously created content. The output is different, and the source is too.

What this means is that the game creator can maintain some control, at the minimum, by their choices if they don’t allow actual creation by others.

And if you want proof that the terms are different, just remember that you know exactly what we mean by them. And as developers move forwards, they should be talking about this difference and what it can mean to their games. That’s why you need the terms for each case.

In some cases, it may be a cross between the two. I would consider UO’s custom housing to be this. The player is limited to previously created material, but can customize it to their own plans. It’s the best of both worlds, allowing creation in a fashion yet still maintaining the control that prevents dildo-roofed towers.

StGabe said on June 7th, 2007 at 9:17 am:

This post got me thinking about “porn” as a generator for internet content and I couldn’t help but think that there’s something which generates even more “user-generated/created” content: drama. For example, isn’t the “emo” movement just a personification of “drama” as content.

Porn is popular but actually not as easy to create as simple drama. I’m not sure if “drama” is the best label, maybe indignation or conflict would work as well and maybe it’s broader than that, but the word suffices. Think about the typical sort of content that you find on a LiveJournal or MySpace or a typical fan forum or MMO forum and most of the content there is what we’d generally label as “drama”. Look at SL and I think that you’ll find that most of its content is the same sort of thing.

And just like niche porn, there is niche drama. A common internet joke is that one need only mention a new sexual fetish and an online community for that fetish is created. The joke is just as appropriate for righteous indignation. Make up any perceived slight that people might get indignant over and there’s probably a LiveJournal group, blog or forum populated by people bitching about it. It’s constantly amazing to stumble on to these communities and admire how creative people can be in coming up with things to rant about.

It seems to me that no online worlds really embrace this yet and maybe some could. LiveJournal or MySpace certainly serve up this content as their primary staple but it’s not clear that they do this intentionally. Similarly, Second Life thrives on this sort of content even though it doesn’t seem like that was particularly their intention. In fact, most of these services are often working against “drama/indignation” or trying to manage it (i.e., recent scandals for EVE, LiveJournal, etc.). For all the talk of managing a community and setting good expectations in advance there are a lot of people for whom a “nerf” or new, controversial rules are content because it gives them something to bitch about with thousands of user-created posts and whines as content that they can respond to and interact with. It seems like there has to be a way to embrace this sort of content more closely. Perhaps to create artificial controversies about one’s service or just more directly focus on creating a world around certain pre-generated sources of indignation and interpersonal conflict or to come up with more creative ways to connect players and create “drama” (arguably “guilds” are an example of an in-game drama tool and stuff like cities in SWG or Achaea take this further but where could the idea go if you started with the premise that created drama and personality conflicts was your goal?).