Request to send an IM
QuietSinfonia Resident
The majority of us, Second Life users, have received unsolicited instant messages, or private messages, from strangers that we would prefer not to receive. It would be very useful if residents who are not on our friend list had to send a request or IM invitation before they could send you a private message, and that they could only send you a private message once you accepted their request.
Log In
Hadet Sonnenkern
I honestly think this is a step in the wrong direction. Most phishing happens in store group chats, not DMs. I think the major issue you guys are having is being way too heavy handed with people goofing off versus people being truly malicious. This will cut back on socializing.
Flame Swenholt
I'm just going to speak from my past position with content creation and customer support: While this idea has some merit, it will add one large hurdle to providing good customer support and the requested feature could potentially open up newer vectors of undesired attention or harassment.
First, what would the request look like? Does it just include the user's name? What about their display name? Profile picture? First X lines from their profile? Will the 'request' be the intended message to be sent over? Will the sender even know they have to send a request? The less sent over, the harder it would be for contact to be made for providing support to customers, because not all customers know the creators of their own items by heart. If I was to contact someone in regards to a failed transaction, this feature would ultimately lead to not being able to assist with something, and now the platform is the ultimate reason for why I get dinged for 'bad service.'
But let's look at it the other way: say I can provide information and context on why I am sending the request. Say my profile picture, display name, and other information is included in this hypothetical pop-up. In that case, the very harassment that people are complaining about just got a brand new vector in a form you now officially cannot ignore. Don't like seeing raunchy images? Oops! Someone changed their profile picture and just sent you a request. Guess who will get to see it? The messages? Just add it to your profile!
If I recall, TPVs solved this to some degree: Busy mode can be set to not apply to friends or even send a separate message just for them. Just extend this feature to Busy mode if the concerns are really that bad, otherwise you also have to add a solution so content creators can do their other job: providing good customer support.
jackiewallace Resident
Flame Swenholt I have written many times here and on Bluesky about how I would solve this problem in a way that most users would hardly notice any changes. So, let's take an example.
Someone wants to contact another user via private message who is not on their friends list. In this case, they would be able to send a single message without embedded links. The recipient receives the message as usual. If they do not reply to the message or the two users do not add each other to their friends list, the sender would not be able to send more messages. If the recipient responds, they would continue communicating just as they do now.
Of course, I don't know how Philip Linden would technically implement this in practice, as I am not familiar with the details. However, the solution I described would reduce the number of reports and bans. Users would have the freedom to ignore unsolicited messages from strangers or not. Customer support would still receive inquiries as usual.
Additionally, most customer support teams do not prefer private message inquiries, as messages sometimes do not get delivered. This is why they request contact via notecards instead.
Flame Swenholt
jackiewallace Resident
Keyword is 'most.' Usually, when receiving messages, yes, notecards are preferred if contacting customer support. However, when CSR people try to reach out to customers, this would just establish problems I had already mentioned. This is especially the case when people who are on top of problems spot something in advance.
Additionally, that one, single message would effectively be keeping the same complaint brought up many times over in this discussion and simply limiting all other forms of communication. "Let's block sequential messages" for a situation that doesn't occur often and applies to the one and only primary non-local communication we have.
Plus, let's go further: what constitutes as 'a first message?' First time for the session? The simulator session? Your entire existence? As long as the client remembers? IMs are not global and those 'first messages' become first messages again if you change machines or clients. Relogged? First message again if under per session. This will now require more back-end work or will be limited to a per client basis.
As everyone I've talked to about the issue: blocks and busy mode exist for a reason.
jackiewallace Resident
Flame Swenholt It can be work like the E2E type messengers, I didn't share new things here. If the residents wants secure and privacy, E2E technology with encryption needed for the messaging.
jackiewallace Resident
I’m reading the comments, and everyone is just writing mindless nonsense, opposing things instinctively without having any clue about how this could be solved technically. You don’t even read each other’s previous thoughts; you just resist something that has already been implemented in most places. If necessary, I can develop a solution that will forward unwanted messages to those who are so eager to receive them - all in a way that prevents them from blocking the messages they get.
Why I need to read these unwanted messages what I attached? If somebody wants these messages I will gladly pass it on to them. Those who, due to a lack of understanding, are incapable of grasping that these messages can only be moderated retroactively after delivery at this point - I can only pity them. We are not on the same intellectual level, my dears.
Attachments are created at Lelutka Mainstore. This is a moderate region, not a club, not a dating place, not an adult place. Everything has its time and place. For those who enjoy reading such messages, they should consider seeking the help of a psychotherapist to treat their condition. I can recommend an excellent specialist who will be able to help.
Luce Leakey
As a woman in SL, I get a lot or random, offensive, unsolicited DMs from strangers. I think having that setting off by default is a WONDERFUL idea and would make me feel safer when in crowds. If people enjoy being harassed, they can turn it back on.
SarahKB7 Koskinen
This is an absolutely awful idea. For example, if I bought an item from a Marketplace store (which has no inworld store) and if that item doesn't work, or is incomplete, how are we ever to ask questions to shop owners or shop staff who are not our friends and who we have never met? A ridiculous suggestion that would totally break communication in SL.
And btw, why does Feedback not have a DOWN VOTE?
VanessaChristy Resident
There is plenty of reasons mentioned on why not.
I get the idea but this isn't the way to reduce it.
Vote Down
Aubrey Bloodrose
This is the most braindead suggestion ever and will fundamentally ruin SL, learn to use the block feature. DOWN VOTE
Alita Starling
This is one of, if not the worst, idea that has ever been put forward. The absolute last thing SL needs is more ways for people to avoid talking to eachother. Even if people receive a spam IM every single day (they dont), that is a loss of 2 seconds of time to block it.
Crexon Resident
I think enough people commented on all the reasons why this bad so no need to add any more.
Just adding my VOTE DOWN (since canny has no vote down option)
Rathgrith027 Resident
Crexon Resident I concur with the notion here. Vote Down.
Scylla Rhiadra
I'm seeing a lot of good suggestions here that, on the one hand, recognize that receiving random IMs from people (or spam) is annoying, sometimes verging on a form of harassment, and, on the other, acknowledge that communication tools, even with strangers, are an important part of SL.
Dismissing complaints against random IMs out of hand and insisting upon the status quo is, frankly, tone deaf, and doesn't recognize that the actual lived experience of many of us (especially, I suspect, women) is full of this kind of thing. A great many people (especially women) have DMs turned off on social media platforms for precisely this reason: we don't want to have to deal with the constant barrage of pick-up lines or requests for money.
And I reject the idea that people should be left vulnerable to this kind of thing for "the good of the platform." The platform exists for us, the users, not the other way around: I am not bait for noobs looking for companionship, nor am I part of the affordances and attractions of this platform.
At the same time, yes, there are issues with simply moving from one default setting to another.
So let's better enable individual choice by making these options much easier to find and activate. Honestly, I had to search hard to determine that it was even possible now to turn off IMs from non-friends. Make it more intuitive, if not necessarily the default setting. Make it easier for us to choose how WE wish to experience this platform.
Aubrey Bloodrose
Scylla Rhiadra Block feature exists, I suggest people learn to use it.
Scylla Rhiadra
Aubrey Bloodrose You can only block someone
after
you've received the communication you didn't want. It's shutting the barn door after the horse has fled. It's also an extreme response: one shouldn't need to literally make someone disappear because one doesn't want to deal with unsolicited messages.I really don't understand why so many people here are against giving people more choice, and empowering THEM to choose how and with whom they communicate. Pretty much every social media platform I know enables one to close DMs because they are intrusive, spammy, and not infrequently offensive. Why should SL, which also features such communications, be any different?
Let. People. Choose.
For THEMSELVES.
Aubrey Bloodrose
Scylla Rhiadra You can chose for your self, it's called the block feature, if taking a second to click block and closing out of the IM window is too much for you then maybe being online isn't the place for you.
Scylla Rhiadra
Aubrey Bloodrose Hi Aubrey, I've already pointed out that block is retroactive: it doesn't stop the initial IM. In many cases that's fine, but in others, such as obscenities, threats, dangerous links, etc., it's not.
This is a bit like responding to someone who sees a flasher on a subway by suggesting that they should just close their eyes so they can't see him anymore.
Also, do you think we might be able to have this conversation without the condescension and insults? It might make it more constructive.
Load More
→