Several people in the past few weeks have asked me about whether or not virtual worlds not classified by ACMA and/or Massively Multiplayer Online RolePlaying Games (MMOs, MMPORGs, MMOPRGs) like World of Warcraft would be banned under the new filtering regime currently being tested by the government relating to games classification and online games.
I’ll admit the thought of it fired me up a bit. Then I started talking to some trusted members of my network and headed for the sources of it all.
It all started with this article in the Sydney Morning Herald claiming to quote a source in Senator Stephen Conroy’s office: http://www.smh.com.au/digital-life/games/web-filters-to-censor-video-games-20090625-cxrx.html
Then, various news outlets in Australia and internationally picked up on it: http://news.google.com/news?pz=1&ned=au&hl=en&q=%22second+life%22+banned+Australia
And some high-profile bloggers fed fuel to the fire. I won’t put links in here as some of the content is definitely NSFW (not safe for the workplace) due to the passion around censorship in general.
Here is an excellent blog post by Laurel Papworth where she’s taken the time to research the history, issues and facts around all of this: http://laurelpapworth.com/australia-bans-filters-and-government-20-taskforce/ Thanks to Jo Kay for pointing this out.
Finally, this from Linden Labs - sent to a Second Life educators mailing list to which I subscribe:
“Greetings, SLED community.
Linden Lab has received no indications from the Australian government that it plans to block Second Life and will keep our community apprised of any developments on that front. In the meantime, we want to assure Australian Residents that Second Life remains accessible and functioning in your region.
Australia has and will continue to be an important market for Linden Lab, and we?re committed to providing the best possible Second Life experience for the users in that market. Some of the most exciting uses of Second Life have come out of Australia, a diverse community of Residents that includes major universities, K12 schools (in Teen Second Life), large enterprises and many thousands of consumers, who spend hundreds of thousands of hours inworld each month.
Regards,
Claudia
Claudia L’Amoreaux
Education Programs manager
Linden Lab | Second Life Grid”
To put all of this to rest of course, we need to hear from the source. Senator Conroy’s web site is located at http://www.minister.dbcde.gov.au/home
The Australia Communications and Media Authority is located at: http://acma.gov.au/
4 Comments
Actually I’ve emailed classification.gov.au - to see if they will insist on Second Life submitting the “game” to their classification system, paying a licence. Otherwise they will be blocked at the domain level until they have. Then once they are classified, if they are MA15+ there will be an “opt out” filter at the ISP. You have to call the ISP and say you want the filter removed. If below MA15 (unlikely) there will be no filter.
I doubt they will try to classify virtual worlds - they’ve already said in the past they don’t touch “open ended” games - only boxed “finished” games. We’ll see :)
@Laurel, when you say “they will be blocked at the domain level until they have.” Have you received confirmation of this - e.g. has it been stated anywhere and/or otherwise based on a standing precedent?
That said I haven’t read your post yet - so you may address these questions there (that’s where I’m headed next).
As far as the SMH article goes, my reading of their interpretation is that it’s purely speculative of one potential worst case scenario. Based on the lack of an 18+ category in Australia I can certainly see this as a potential outcome, however I’ve also not seen any indication of this from anywhere else besides the SMH. So I don’t see how we can take this as the gospel truth at this stage.
Cross your fingers everyone :)
Cheers,
Mike
I note that you carefully avoided calling the SMH liars or claiming they got the story wrong.
Based on what I know from other public sources about the behaviour of Conroy c.f. Michael “Conroy is the worst minister in the history of the internet” Malone CEO of iiNet, et.al. The claims are entirely valid and are not invalidated by anything in your current article.
Chiefly, Second Life / Linden Lab (being based overseas) would not be on Conroy’s mailing list to receive automatic updates about internet developments in Australia- especially those that have not been formally announced. Given the secretive nature of his department we know for a fact that key stakeholders are not being informed of developments and that “changing it all” is not confined to Peter Garratt’s office- Given the pre-election promises of an opt in filter run over a $4.7bn government funded FTTN network were replaced by a post election proposal of a mandatory filter run on a $43bn FTTP network. [As an aside I note even the Chinese are backing off aspects of their mandatory filter- see Page 1 (above the fold banner headline) of the 2nd July 2009 edition of the Wall Street Journal]
I can also assume that you did not intentionally attempt to mislead your readers by making the implication that since Linden Lab had not received a notification from Conroy then Conroy must have no plans to implement the filter…. because the way the article was left hanging without conclusion seemed to support that illogical inductive leap.
Meanwhile ask water, electricity, rail ports, roads, and other utility companies if they received any notification from Conroy that he was going to force them to provide their infrastructure information on demand - because they did not get any at all even when the bill requiring them to do so was presented to Parliament.
So in conclusion: The Linden Lab quote is not conclusive of any plan- just the fact that there has been a lack of communication of a plan (if the plan did in fact exist); you did not rebut the original SMH article claiming one does exist; (i.e. the source in Conroy’s office has not had his credibility reduced by any concrete definitive counter claim from the minister himself- so its a leak- which are made incredible by the quality of their denial); and Conroy has prior form in secretly planning policies radically different from those advertised and ambushing stakeholders with his changes. Therefore I am inclined to believe the SMH article as being true on its face- but can be persuaded (by logical argument) to do otherwise.
Hi Davionous - thanks so much for taking the time to comment.
The purpose of this post is quite clearly stated: to suggest that going to the source to find answers makes more sense than visceral reactions to one article in a mainstream newspaper that seems to be the only source commented in the dozens of blog posts and other newspaper articles on the topic (sloppy journalism people!).
I agree it is highly unlikely that the government keeps Linden Labs abreast of their every intent. However, I thought it both interesting and relevant that Linden Labs felt it necessary to respond in this way. Clearly they have a vested interest in the matter.
The end of the article does not reach a definite conclusion because the final source needs to make a definitive statement about this issue. I cannot reach a conclusion about what the Minister’s or ACMA’s intent is (and the results of that intent) and neither can anyone else until this happens.
Why accept the SMH article as gospel when you as a citizen can contact Mr. Conroy’s office and ask them yourself?
Plus, I would strongly urge you to take a look at Laurel Papworth’s blog post (thanks so much for commenting Laurel) on the topic. What is going on is multi-layered.
And Mike, that was my take too. I suppose it comes from having a background in media - but when only one outlet comes out with a story like that and I can’t find any follow up from any other outlet — I do my own homework. That said — come on professional journos out there — let’s get this out in the open.
SBS - perhaps it’s time for an Insight into this?
Post a Comment