Hide Profile content of Blocked Accounts
tracked
jackiewallace Resident
It would be highly beneficial if, in Second Life, blocking a user also prevented their account from accessing our profile content. A profile can contain a wide range of personal information, such as group affiliations, interests, or even sensitive descriptions. If someone with malicious intent can still view this information after being blocked, they could use it to continue harassment, intimidation, or stalking outside of direct in-world interactions. Preventing blocked users from seeing profile content would therefore significantly increase user safety and privacy, ensuring that blocking is a truly effective protective measure.
Log In
Maestro Linden
marked this post as
tracked
technofurry Resident
To make this effective we would need a whitelist approach. For example, friends getting access to an additional section of the profile. Otherwise any alt can access the profile information, even after blocking.
Caroly Rossini
I think that measure and any other measure to block trolls, stalkers and malicious alt accounts will never be enough as long as Linden washes his hands as usual without doing anything real about it, offering only the reports as a cloth of tears because they are of no use. Meanwhile, the limit of blocks, including those on the ground, become insufficient with so much bot.
jackiewallace Resident
Caroly Rossini More than nothing, and it’s finally time to give users back the right to protect themselves in virtual space. I’m not talking about offensive tools, of course, but about defensive functions.
AlettaMondragon Resident
Caroly Rossini
"to block trolls, stalkers and malicious alt accounts"
"Meanwhile, the limit of blocks, including those on the ground, become insufficient with so much bot."
So first you didn't mention bots but at the end you wrote the bots make the 300 slots of parcel ban list insufficient, if I understood everything correctly. Why do you ban bots?
Also why would you block them, except maybe group inviter bots which is completely different, they don't go to you, you go to the places they send group invites for.
My block list has 26 names on it, some are objects, and maybe it could be even shorter.
My parcel ban lists are typically between 0 and 6 names at any time, usually 0.
Not saying that you can't have different problems and reasons to block and ban whoever or whatever, but 1000 names on the block list and 300 on a parcel ban list should be way more than enough.
Jack Abraham
I like the idea, but I think it's foolish to count on blocking to protect against RL harassment. If that's a concern, don't put the dangerous personal information in your profile; your harasser can make note of the info before you block them, log in with an alt, or ask someone else to check your profile.
Blocking should protect you in world at best.
jackiewallace Resident
Jack Abraham It’s not good to block others, but I’m thinking globally. If there’s blocking, then let it be real blocking with comprehensive protection (here I primarily mean the virtual space).
Example: if a former partner is blocked because I don’t want to communicate with them, then don’t give them the chance to see who my new partner is, so they can go create drama. Another case might be when someone uses a tone with a creator that they absolutely shouldn’t. Give the creator the right to decide whether they want to sell their own intellectual property on the Marketplace in the future to a harasser or not.
This function should also apply to alts. If Linden Lab allows the creation of alts, then there should also be tools in the user’s hands to restrict them, and blocking or any kind of restriction should extend to alts as well.
In this so-called great democracy, some users think they can do whatever they want to others, and that the other must silently endure it, then maybe file a report with Linden Lab, as if they were a court to decide for you. Blocking should be real blocking, extending to everything - or at least there should be an option to choose what it applies to.
AlettaMondragon Resident
jackiewallace Resident
"Give the creator the right to decide whether they want to sell their own intellectual property on the Marketplace in the future to a harasser or not."
It is a thing. If you block someone inworld they can't buy from your MP.
If you meant something "more global" than that, the problem is that it can turn into a mess like the No Bots device and the Voodoo networked security or what it is called. Just because one person or even two has a personal issue with a certain person doesn't mean they should add that person to some global block list or something. For example if there is a person known for buying cheap products or free demos just to leave negative reviews on them (it is a thing) each creator can block that person, share their experiences with each other in groups or anywhere, so others can be aware of that person too. It is a fair and actually efficient way to do it, it just needs some communication.
"Example: if a former partner is blocked because I don’t want to communicate with them, then don’t give them the chance to see who my new partner is, so they can go create drama."
What I can't understand in this otherwise reasonable example is why would a "profile block" prevent an angry, toxic ex from stalking and getting info. They still talk to other people too, they might know about your new partner from someone before they would look at your profile, they can also just go the places you used to go together or where you preferred to go on your own - honestly, who changes their habits completely just to avoid their ex? - and they could just see you there with your new partner. And then if your partner hasn't blocked that person yet, there's the confirmation that you're partnered.
This is a bit complex technically and I don't really think it would stop any people with bad intentions, things like these can make things a tiny bit difficult for them but they will find their way around. Not saying it's not worth the extra layer of protection, but probably in a different form.
AlettaMondragon Resident
jackiewallace Resident
"This function should also apply to alts. If Linden Lab allows the creation of alts, then there should also be tools in the user’s hands to restrict them, and blocking or any kind of restriction should extend to alts as well."
I don't know how you imagined this, but such a thing could allow people to figure out who is whose alt indirectly. Personally I don't like anonymous alts so I wouldn't mind, but people who use alts to protect their own privacy wouldn't be happy about this.
jackiewallace Resident
I appreciate every comment and value your thoughts, whether you support this development or find it unnecessary. I will read every single response, because that’s how we learn. We all see a given situation or problem from different perspectives.
Sooner or later, the current profiles will need to be revised. Since profiles are public and a significant percentage of them contain adult content, it would be reasonable to hide such content from age groups that are not eligible to view it (and here I’m not only referring to profile pictures, but also links and textual content). This is why I thought it might be worth considering this aspect as well, if we are already talking about the scalability of the current profiles. Increasing legal pressure is being placed on platform operators regarding the accessibility of adult content.
My primary idea was that if someone is being harassed, then blocking should truly mean blocking, and the user should even have the option to decide whether the block extends to their profile, their Marketplace, or even their alts—since it is in fact possible to know which alts belong to whom. If blocking had real power and consequences, then perhaps users would resolve some of these problems themselves instead of relying on reporting, which would in turn reduce the burden on Linden Lab’s customer support. Of course, the question remains whether this burden is significant or not. But in one thing I am absolutely certain, and I agree with all of you: the goal should never be to assign unnecessary tasks to the platform’s developers that are not worth the effort, time, or energy.
AlettaMondragon Resident
jackiewallace Resident As for the adult content on profiles, the principle is supposed to be this:
"People tab
The search system does not filter keywords when you search for avatar names or profiles. Information in Resident profiles should be General. Please refer to our Community Standards for details." (from https://community.secondlife.com/knowledgebase/english/maturity-ratings-r52/#Section__4_2_5 )
It refers to the Community Standards which doesn't say anything specific about this, only refers to the Content Guidelines -https://lindenlab.com/legal/content-guidelines - where the very brief explanation is:
"General Content is content that is suitable for all ages. It may contain mild violence, mild language, and informational or educational content."
And it also refers to the Maturity Ratings Guidelines where we started.
This should be more specific, but it's there. In this vague form, it can be interpreted as resident profiles must not have explicit (sexual, violent or substance use/abuse) groups visible, no such text either, and going further this could mean Picks, the First Life tab and the Web profile (Feed) should be General content too.
This has obviously never been enforced. It is still an enforcement issue, though, since the rules are there.
It would be certainly more effective to have maturity ratings on profiles and be able to select the appropriate rating for your own, but then a lot of people would still have it on General while full of adult stuff. Maybe that would be easier to sort out than without filters, though.
jackiewallace Resident
AlettaMondragon Resident For example, AI could be used to automate this...
AlettaMondragon Resident
jackiewallace Resident I thought about it too. I'm quite surprised search words are not monitored by an algorithm. It would be incredibly easy to monitor Places search and other content that way and the AI could flag possible violations for the Governance Team (or Trust and Safety Team as they like to call it lately, while still referring to Governance as well but not explaining the difference). As weird as it is, a talking pony and things like that to test Character AI have a higher priority than using AI or an automated algorithm to parse search results and point out problems or violations.
Zalificent Corvinus
jackiewallace Resident
You seem to be under the impression that "blocking" is or should be some sort of punishment that prevents the blocked person seeing or hearing YOU.
It's NOT, it is quite simply that YOU cannot see or hear THEM.
YOU don't get to control what other people in SL see or hear, full stop. This is a core principle that LL enforces.
Blocking is for people you find annoying, you don't like their politic or their religion, or the fact that they wear Pink, the Colour of Evil.
To "punish" ToS violators, such as griefers or stalking harassers, you use an Abuse Report, that's what they are for.
YOU are calling for the ability to "punish" people you randomly take a dislike to.
In addition, letting Lousy Learning Moron Artificial Idiocy loose in SL is the LAST thing any sane and rational person would want, suggesting AII purge peoples SL proves that your suggestions are irrational and not worth listening to.
Let's NOT and say we did...
jackiewallace Resident
Zalificent Corvinus I disagree with your view. Privacy is not about ‘punishment,’ it’s about protection. If I choose to block someone, then my profile - which may contain personal information, pictures, or details I don’t want shared - should no longer be accessible to them. That is not about controlling what they see in the world, it’s about setting clear personal boundaries. Abuse Reports are fine for rule violations, but blocking is a personal safety tool.
Think of it this way: if I don’t want to sell my products to a certain person on the Marketplace, that is entirely my right as the creator, because I hold the copyright and I decide who may access or purchase my work. The same principle applies to my profile. Allowing blocked users to keep access undermines the very purpose of privacy. This isn’t about irrational dislike, it’s about the fundamental right to control who can view and interact with my personal space.
Isobel DeSantis
jackiewallace Resident I believe that a blocked account is also blocked from buying from the user's MP store already. From memory, I don't even think someone else can send a gift from that store to the blocked account.
AlettaMondragon Resident
Isobel DeSantis Not sure about gifting but the blocked person cannot buy from the blocker's MP store indeed.
AlettaMondragon Resident
Zalificent Corvinus I agree with most of what you said, except the AI / automation part. In fact LL has already let AI into SL when they introduced the Character AI test avatars. And there are all forms of automation that have existed in SL for many years. Not necessarily AI, but more automation could help monitor violations of rules, Marketplace listings, to manage land, inventory and groups much easier and more efficiently, etc.
AlettaMondragon Resident
jackiewallace Resident
"Privacy is not about ‘punishment,’ it’s about protection. If I choose to block someone, then my profile - which may contain personal information, pictures, or details I don’t want shared - should no longer be accessible to them."
As they say, "there is no reasonable expectation of privacy in public". A public profile is still public. So we're back to this problem. You're comfortable with sharing potentially sensitive, private information on your public profile with any random stranger that might look at it but not with a certain person you had a personal issue with. I can't really see the reason in this. We've said this before, everyone should share only as much on their profile as they are comfortable with and certain that they can do so safely.
Tessa Blakewell
It's as simple as watching it from an alter, it's not worth it
WeFlossDaily Resident
There's no reason to do this as it would accomplish nothing. Your profile is public. You put things anybody can view there. You don't get to pick and choose who can and cannot read it. That's not how public profiles work. Maybe it'd be a good idea to review what you are sharing. Increased privacy needs is not an effective solution for oversharing. Just don't overshare to start with.
AlettaMondragon Resident
You don't need to write about your friends and familiy on your profile, don't need to put your home and other personal places in your picks, and you can hide groups you don't want to be visible on your profile. All the privacy options are already there. If you have your profile feed visibility set to Everyone, people you blocked won't see your feed. However everyone else, including the blocked person's alts, can still see it. That is what would happen with any other part of the profile too, so this is pointless. The only way to protect yourself is to avoid sharing personal details on a public profile, or only share as much as you are comfortable with and can do so safely.
Rowan Amore
LL usually will not implement a feature that one user can use to change how another user can experience SL. You blocking a person thus affecting their ability to read a profile would be one such feature. The same reason when you block someone, they can still see and hear you even though you can't see or hear them. What you do cannot affect what I can do as far as usability goes.
Zalificent Corvinus
- Blocked people see that your profile is hidden and know you blocked them, so instead of ranting into the "Limbo of Blocked Messages" they find NEW ways to harass you.
- If you have "personal info" in your profile you don't want other people to see, DON'T PUT IT THERRE.
- This offers NO improvements to "security", none, as they can just use an alt.
- Adding dev workload for no good reason, while ACTUAL problems go un-fixed.
Let's NOT, and say we did.
Load More
→