A graphic from the Lindens' blog, which quotes Maya Linden, in happier days.
Given that this thread may be locked or deleted, about these news stories (reminding one of past stories), I'll just park this here for now:
This lawsuits bundles together at least three separate issues that may combine in the plaintiff's head as being the most effective way to litigate against LL, but which are separate. And it may be that any one or more of the three claims are false, but then others may be true. We do not have the facts but at this point there is enough press coverage that it is more than fine to discuss it -- you don't know what a crippling effect this could have on our world and it's important the Lindens/the media have the facts from our side, too. It's also important to remember that this woman did give a lot in this job, and has been hurt, at least from her perspective, and it isn't necessary to disparage her as a person or ruin her life just because some of her claims may not be proven at least in legal terms.
1. Discrimination against on grounds of race or religion. I should think the Lab would be the last place to look for discrimination, as they have had a fairly diverse staff over the years, although like all Silicon Valley geeks, they don't like religious belief (especially the Christian sort). My complaint about their staffing is that they recruit from the user base which I think is a terrible idea, but it's a specific set of skills and "culture" so they justify it. And there is less of this than there was but it's not totally gone. But they seem to be genuinely open to diversity so this claim may not "stand up in court".
2. As for privacy, all companies online face this issue -- look at what just happened to Capital One, and the hacker, who turned herself in, seems to be mentally ill and has zillions of files from 30 other companies. All hugely weird. And then there's Russia and China...
It's good that this role was conceived of "compliance" as it really should be another person/set of eyes on the existing security Lindens who are set in their ways. But staff at that level can only recommend, and shouldn't fume if they don't get what they want. Until Section 230 is changed, there isn't a whole lot the Lindens can do. They should welcome this change as it will actually relieve them of this sort of harassment suit.
I don't see anything wrong with Tilia in this regard. You have to give your Social Security number to get a bank account or a credit card -- why is it such a big deal to give it to a company from which you intend to make money, to whom you also gave a credit card? And it's not required to just purchase tokens with money, but convert those tokens into money. I see a lot of Europeans complaining about having to show a passport as they would for a job or a credit card. But if you are a creator selling things in SL, this *is* a job or a bank card! It's not a unicorn fairy land. I think that's what is jarring people. I myself am puzzled as to why, having once provided this when they went through their age verification panic years ago, why I need to do it again, and I am also finding when it gives me the message that I have to "do more," it "goes nowhere" and I can't get it to work, but I figure it's buggy and I will get it sorted.
As for the claim of no compartmentalization, this is speculative, and doesn't square with the experience I have had over the years dealing with Lindens and Moles. Every time I mention something I think is related to payment issues or my RL location or something in dealing with a support ticket, they say they can't see that information, they don't have access to it, and I believe they really don't. But as has been pointed out, there are logs that will likely come out in discovery, and I think this is a distraction.
3. Now for the claim of *****, this is something that has not been eradicated from SL. And this may be the only charge that sticks, even if this former Linden doesn't get any traction with her wrongful termination claim. Although here, too, she has to have the facts, or get them, and they may not be available. We have all seen these hideous Hentai ***** graphics on the events page which have been shoved into your face each time you open up search. I and others have AR'd this zillions of time; these are clearly children, and making a Japanese-style cartoon out of them doesn't fix that. But I was noticing the other day it's finally gone. It would disappear and come back again and again -- and now I see the timing may be related to this suit. I hope so.
I don't think ***** is that common, even so, because most people do realize it is a crime in many countries and isn't just a cartoon and isn't just "nothing" you can use this awful euphemism with. Very rarely I do get child avatars who attempt to rent and have profiles filled with those "Daddy and Me" sort of groups and put adult furniture in their skybox -- so out they go in a jiffy with an AR to the Lab. I ban child avatars explicitly from a number of venues where they show up like camp sites, as do others who run sims. There is some static about this as "discrimination," but I find club owners and such hold the line on this because they don't want the problems associated with it. I have universally known the child avatars to be trouble for 15 years in SL, time and again, over and over, so I am absolutely immune to claims that they tend to be innocent. And any time I've given them the benefit of the doubt, if they didn't *****, they griefed or just made life for others miserable in other ways. It's a distressed persona that I personally want to avoid. YMMV but I don't care. The point is -- yes, LL is vulnerable here because of their ideological commitment to diversity, to which they think this extends.
Yes, I realize there are even quite famous child avatars in SL and on the forums who are innocent. But the pushing of the envelope on this goes on constantly and I think this is the most serious thing in this case for LL. The problem is that without Section 230 being revised (which I heartily advocate for many reasons), they won't feel any heat to change this, and they only can sample-police it with key words now and then and ban a "Lolita" club or respond to ARs. To me, their stubbornness about removing those really graphic images on the events was emblematic of the problem, however.
I hope the parties get through this. Nothing the plaintiff has changed is so systematic in SL, or based on actual malice or negligence on the part of the Lindens, and therefore it shouldn't get traction. If the facts can be found on some of the issues, even discrimination, LL has the means to change it.
