Comments on: Net filtering and virtual worlds: reactions http://www.metaversejournal.com/2009/06/27/net-filtering-and-virtual-worlds-reactions/ Coverage of news, issues and events occurring in virtual worlds or those who create those worlds Wed, 17 Mar 2010 10:03:25 +1100 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1 hourly 1 By: LaurelPapworth http://www.metaversejournal.com/2009/06/27/net-filtering-and-virtual-worlds-reactions/comment-page-1/#comment-206790 LaurelPapworth Tue, 30 Jun 2009 05:48:17 +0000 http://www.metaversejournal.com/?p=2190#comment-206790 yeah I guess that second life will only be blocked for a year or two until it get's sorted - cos there's no way that Linden Labs could claim their service is for adults only and self classify without it going thru a bureaucratic process first. :P <br>God forbid that adults would have to read the blurb and decide for themselves if the game/world/service is suitable. We really need a government body that doesn't play games to do that for us. hahaha yeah I guess that second life will only be blocked for a year or two until it get's sorted – cos there's no way that Linden Labs could claim their service is for adults only and self classify without it going thru a bureaucratic process first. :P
God forbid that adults would have to read the blurb and decide for themselves if the game/world/service is suitable. We really need a government body that doesn't play games to do that for us. hahaha

]]> By: Lowell Cremorne http://www.metaversejournal.com/2009/06/27/net-filtering-and-virtual-worlds-reactions/comment-page-1/#comment-206789 Lowell Cremorne Tue, 30 Jun 2009 05:29:46 +0000 http://www.metaversejournal.com/?p=2190#comment-206789 It's all good news isn't it ;)<br><br>Having R18+ and X 18+ games ratings in Australia would be a small step in the right direction, assuming the legislation eventually recognises that games / virtual worlds meeting those criteria are ok to escape filtering. My fear is that may be a couple of hurdles too many for our current elected representatives. It's all good news isn't it ;)

Having R18+ and X 18+ games ratings in Australia would be a small step in the right direction, assuming the legislation eventually recognises that games / virtual worlds meeting those criteria are ok to escape filtering. My fear is that may be a couple of hurdles too many for our current elected representatives.

]]> By: LaurelPapworth http://www.metaversejournal.com/2009/06/27/net-filtering-and-virtual-worlds-reactions/comment-page-1/#comment-206788 LaurelPapworth Tue, 30 Jun 2009 03:25:06 +0000 http://www.metaversejournal.com/?p=2190#comment-206788 Oh I doubt they would ban second life would they? I mean, then they might go on to ban YouTube in our schools - YouTube that has every lecture given this year by Stanford, MIT, Harvard and other universities on a special channel. And this sort of Government might send a laptop home with every school child with a note to be signed by parents that children won't access ANY social spaces online. Because you, know, refusing knowledge on sex education worked so well in the 70s that repeating that strategy regarding social virtual worlds will work too! Such a myopic government wouldn't limit blocks to the school children but would also ban these sites in their offices, as public servants are trusted even less than the kids in class. This sort of government would be totally happy with blocking social spaces for all Australians. <br><br>Oh wait, our Government has done all these things! #sarcasm :P <br><br>Still, it's not actually happening yet. The discussion is between classification (every game must be classified) and filtering (blocking at ISP or domain level). These games/social spaces will be blocked until classified. Then MA15+ will be filtered at ISP level (you have to ask ISP to give you access). C and G games will be accessible to all. <br><br>Issues: getting Second Life to apply and pay for 3 classification licences (Teen, normal and Zaendra). This will unblock the servers at a domain level. Then asking ISPs to turn off the filter for your home, work and other services. Fun fun fun. <br><br>Good news: in the past, the department has said it will only classify closed boxed games as open unending games are "inherently unclassifiable". Oh I doubt they would ban second life would they? I mean, then they might go on to ban YouTube in our schools – YouTube that has every lecture given this year by Stanford, MIT, Harvard and other universities on a special channel. And this sort of Government might send a laptop home with every school child with a note to be signed by parents that children won't access ANY social spaces online. Because you, know, refusing knowledge on sex education worked so well in the 70s that repeating that strategy regarding social virtual worlds will work too! Such a myopic government wouldn't limit blocks to the school children but would also ban these sites in their offices, as public servants are trusted even less than the kids in class. This sort of government would be totally happy with blocking social spaces for all Australians.

Oh wait, our Government has done all these things! #sarcasm :P

Still, it's not actually happening yet. The discussion is between classification (every game must be classified) and filtering (blocking at ISP or domain level). These games/social spaces will be blocked until classified. Then MA15+ will be filtered at ISP level (you have to ask ISP to give you access). C and G games will be accessible to all.

Issues: getting Second Life to apply and pay for 3 classification licences (Teen, normal and Zaendra). This will unblock the servers at a domain level. Then asking ISPs to turn off the filter for your home, work and other services. Fun fun fun.

Good news: in the past, the department has said it will only classify closed boxed games as open unending games are “inherently unclassifiable”.

]]> By: LaurelPapworth http://www.metaversejournal.com/2009/06/27/net-filtering-and-virtual-worlds-reactions/comment-page-1/#comment-206314 LaurelPapworth Mon, 29 Jun 2009 14:48:17 +0000 http://www.metaversejournal.com/?p=2190#comment-206314 yeah I guess that second life will only be blocked for a year or two until it get's sorted - cos there's no way that Linden Labs could claim their service is for adults only and self classify without it going thru a bureaucratic process first. :P <br>God forbid that adults would have to read the blurb and decide for themselves if the game/world/service is suitable. We really need a government body that doesn't play games to do that for us. hahaha yeah I guess that second life will only be blocked for a year or two until it get's sorted – cos there's no way that Linden Labs could claim their service is for adults only and self classify without it going thru a bureaucratic process first. :P
God forbid that adults would have to read the blurb and decide for themselves if the game/world/service is suitable. We really need a government body that doesn't play games to do that for us. hahaha

]]> By: Lowell Cremorne http://www.metaversejournal.com/2009/06/27/net-filtering-and-virtual-worlds-reactions/comment-page-1/#comment-206313 Lowell Cremorne Mon, 29 Jun 2009 14:29:46 +0000 http://www.metaversejournal.com/?p=2190#comment-206313 It's all good news isn't it ;)<br><br>Having R18+ and X 18+ games ratings in Australia would be a small step in the right direction, assuming the legislation eventually recognises that games / virtual worlds meeting those criteria are ok to escape filtering. My fear is that may be a couple of hurdles too many for our current elected representatives. It's all good news isn't it ;)

Having R18+ and X 18+ games ratings in Australia would be a small step in the right direction, assuming the legislation eventually recognises that games / virtual worlds meeting those criteria are ok to escape filtering. My fear is that may be a couple of hurdles too many for our current elected representatives.

]]> By: LaurelPapworth http://www.metaversejournal.com/2009/06/27/net-filtering-and-virtual-worlds-reactions/comment-page-1/#comment-206312 LaurelPapworth Mon, 29 Jun 2009 12:25:06 +0000 http://www.metaversejournal.com/?p=2190#comment-206312 Oh I doubt they would ban second life would they? I mean, then they might go on to ban YouTube in our schools - YouTube that has every lecture given this year by Stanford, MIT, Harvard and other universities on a special channel. And this sort of Government might send a laptop home with every school child with a note to be signed by parents that children won't access ANY social spaces online. Because you, know, refusing knowledge on sex education worked so well in the 70s that repeating that strategy regarding social virtual worlds will work too! Such a myopic government wouldn't limit blocks to the school children but would also ban these sites in their offices, as public servants are trusted even less than the kids in class. This sort of government would be totally happy with blocking social spaces for all Australians. <br><br>Oh wait, our Government has done all these things! #sarcasm :P <br><br>Still, it's not actually happening yet. The discussion is between classification (every game must be classified) and filtering (blocking at ISP or domain level). These games/social spaces will be blocked until classified. Then MA15+ will be filtered at ISP level (you have to ask ISP to give you access). C and G games will be accessible to all. <br><br>Issues: getting Second Life to apply and pay for 3 classification licences (Teen, normal and Zaendra). This will unblock the servers at a domain level. Then asking ISPs to turn off the filter for your home, work and other services. Fun fun fun. <br><br>Good news: in the past, the department has said it will only classify closed boxed games as open unending games are "inherently unclassifiable". Oh I doubt they would ban second life would they? I mean, then they might go on to ban YouTube in our schools – YouTube that has every lecture given this year by Stanford, MIT, Harvard and other universities on a special channel. And this sort of Government might send a laptop home with every school child with a note to be signed by parents that children won't access ANY social spaces online. Because you, know, refusing knowledge on sex education worked so well in the 70s that repeating that strategy regarding social virtual worlds will work too! Such a myopic government wouldn't limit blocks to the school children but would also ban these sites in their offices, as public servants are trusted even less than the kids in class. This sort of government would be totally happy with blocking social spaces for all Australians.

Oh wait, our Government has done all these things! #sarcasm :P

Still, it's not actually happening yet. The discussion is between classification (every game must be classified) and filtering (blocking at ISP or domain level). These games/social spaces will be blocked until classified. Then MA15+ will be filtered at ISP level (you have to ask ISP to give you access). C and G games will be accessible to all.

Issues: getting Second Life to apply and pay for 3 classification licences (Teen, normal and Zaendra). This will unblock the servers at a domain level. Then asking ISPs to turn off the filter for your home, work and other services. Fun fun fun.

Good news: in the past, the department has said it will only classify closed boxed games as open unending games are “inherently unclassifiable”.

]]> By: Juko Tempel http://www.metaversejournal.com/2009/06/27/net-filtering-and-virtual-worlds-reactions/comment-page-1/#comment-206306 Juko Tempel Sun, 28 Jun 2009 21:23:00 +0000 http://www.metaversejournal.com/?p=2190#comment-206306 Juanita Deharo, who runs the Australian Artists group in SL, has posted two blog posts on the implications of the proposed filtering for art in SL, one as a letter to Senator Conroy with some compelling evidence and questions :-)<br><br><a href="http://juanitadeharo.blogspot.com/" rel="nofollow">http://juanitadeharo.blogspot.com/</a> Juanita Deharo, who runs the Australian Artists group in SL, has posted two blog posts on the implications of the proposed filtering for art in SL, one as a letter to Senator Conroy with some compelling evidence and questions :-)

http://juanitadeharo.blogspot.com/

]]>