How the Metaverse Illustrates the Limits of Libertarianism

With a certain tech billionaire currently railing against companies including Apple withdrawing their ads from Twitter, it’s a good time to remember a fairly related story from 2007-2008 — when Linden Lab began to pivot away from its libertarian approach to governing Second Life content:

In 2006, for example, Philip Rosedale refused to intercede against Ginko, the SL bank with a high rate of return, which many Residents accused of being a Ponzi scheme.  That same year, in response to Residents protests against age play (i.e. simulated avatar-based pedophilia), Robin Linden said it would be forbidden “[i]f this activity were in public areas“– implying that it was still permissible in private.  Casinos and other gambling institutions, of course, were rampant over the land.

The reversals started last year, continuing into this one: 

Age play and other vaguely defined “broadly offensive” behavior was universally forbidden in May 2007. 

Gambling was prohibited in July 2007. 

Unregulated banks were banned this January. 

This February’s prohibition against “ad farms” was preceded by the debut of a Linden Department of Public Works, also overseen by Jack Linden, “all about improving  the experience for residents living on or visiting the Linden mainland.” 

Of course, some of these decisions were at least partly motivated by concern over real world laws, but the pattern is still hard to miss.  The Lindens are restructuring the mainland into a communitarian society it once was in 2003.  Expect more prohibitions to go into effect soon, also aimed at curbing other libertarian externalities– bot farms, for example, and camping chairs.

More here. The problem with establishing a content moderation guideline that’s simply pinned to “free speech” is that it inevitably leads to forms of expression that hurt a company’s bottom line. Many customers feel their experience is being degraded so much by noxious content, it’s no longer worth what they’re paying for it. Outside advertisers too pull away, fearful they no longer have a brand safe environment.

That’s a business decision that’s important even aside from the moral considerations of allowing free expression that’s hateful and bigoted, targeting vulnerable minorities. (What reactionaries contemptuously call “woke”.) But in this case, the ethical principle and the commercial consideration is aligned:  “Free speech” that hurts users’ overall experience more than enriches it is simply bad for business.