Filed under: , ,

Having worked with a number of PR and Marketing departments over the years, I got used to hearing the phrase “Pulling a 360″ as opposed to the more usual 180. The phrase meant one of several things, depending on context and the tone of the speaker.

Sometimes it was used to mean “A reversal of policy, accompanied by frenzied spending, followed by a reversal back to the way things were.” - Money and time lost, and nothing to show for it; Most commonly though, it meant “A sudden reversal of position, while claiming that nothing has changed.” - My old coworkers in marketing would call Linden Lab’s recent governance policy shift “Pulling a 360″ in this latter sense - and they’d probably snigger, albeit slightly sympathetically.

Benjamin Duranske, intellectual property attorney and virtual law blogger has posted on the shift of Linden Lab’s governance policy, and while Duranske’s post doesn’t contain anything we haven’t said already, he has a certain gravitas in these matters. Time for a roundup.

We started by noting the ambiguity and opacity inherent in Linden Lab’s policy posting. Either Linden Lab felt that it was clear, or they didn’t want to be any clearer than they were.

Duranske: “This is a poorly considered, dangerously over-broad, and annoyingly opaque policy statement.”

We went on to note the contradictions between this statement and what Linden Lab said about it.

Duranske: “[T]hough they say it isn’t so, everyone participating in Second Life recognizes that the ‘Daniel Linden’ post represents a policy shift”

Linden Lab commenced removing resident content quietly and without explanation, and we discussed issues of editorial control.

Duranske: “Linden Lab, on the other hand, is actively editing user-created content and encouraging users to report “broadly offensive” content for removal.”

Back in May, we discussed the Fair Housing Council vs Roommate.com decision and what it meant for tort liability for Linden Lab.

Duranske: “That potentially puts Linden Lab on the hook for any content they miss that violates the Communications Decency Act.”

We spoke about Robin Linden’s comment on a new and better world.

Duranske: “Your “new world where things are supposed to be better” should not include censorship of the expression of ideas based on what you say your citizens want to see and hear about, even if you do think it’s for our own good. Because even if you are right about this policy this time - and you emphatically are not - the next guy might decide to ban political commentary or art that criticizes religion, and your policy sets the precedent. This is political theory 101 stuff, and if you’re going to act like this is a nation, you better start there.”

While it’s not new, Duranske lays it out very well and you should go read what he has to say.

Read | Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments