New VR Behavior Policy: Do not invade someone's personal space!

[Zenbane]

Facebook's VR use policy was updated recently, and now includes information about invading personal space, and other types of improper gestures.

https://support.oculus.com/1694069410806625/

Facebook’s newly updated ‘Conduct in VR Policy‘ highlights that you should not “harass or bully other users” by “invading personal space without consent,” nor should you “conduct yourself in an offensive or abusive way,” including making “sexual gestures.”

Repeated of flagrant abuses of the rules can result in suspensions or outright bans, which fully revoke your ability to use your headset. These rules apply in everything you do in the headset, whether you’re playing a social VR experience, a competitive multiplayer VR game, or even streaming a single player experience for others to watch on Facebook Live.
https://www.roadtovr.com/facebook-expanded-vr-policies-oculus-quest-2-privacy-policy-terms-of-servic...

No doubt that this will only add fuel to the fires currently burning around the controversy between:

• Banned from a Social Media Service
• Banned from using a piece of Hardware you purchased

I agree that this is very problematic. I would personally be upset if Facebook banned my Account and tried to lock me out of my headset. But I also have a fairly strong sense of the types of behavior and should and should not be doing when interacting with others. And considering that I am far from a model student for "good behavior," I still can't help but wonder what types of things truly trigger a Facebook ban, outside of blatantly obvious rule violations. Until this ban/lockout happens to me, though, I feel like I don't have much of a dog in this fight.

What does interest me from all of this... is that "convergence" of VR and Real Life. At this stage, Oculus VR is being treated like a "real world." And violating rules, much like violating Laws, is having real consequences that can limit ones freedoms. When I set aside the moral dilemma around Consumer Rights, I can't help but thing... wow! How far we have come with technology.

With a ban from Oculus VR, not only are you prevented from using a product, but you are no longer allowed to "exist" in a Social Space that goes beyond a mere flat screen. That's kinda crazy, and gives a small glimpse of the future for humanity, virtual worlds, and Artificial Intelligence.

[JohnnyDioxin]

Let's face it, stopping people from using their purchased hardware could be seen as something of a fascist policy (oh dear, am I going to be banned now?) where a much more appropriate and very achieveable measure would be to simply prevent people from using the social aspects of the system. That would be far more acceptable to the majority imho.

So if you get snagged, you can't post on Facebook and you can't use multiplayer or social features of the Oculus platform. They already do that for those who haven't signed up or merged their FB accounts, so why is it not possible to do this as the ban instead?

I really doubt that stopping use of the hardware without some kind of recompense is legal. I look forward to the first legal cases where the wrong person gets a ban and takes FB before The Beak.

[jab]

JohnnyDioxin said:

Let's face it, stopping people from using their purchased hardware could be seen as something of a fascist policy

Or just down right illegal, which is why I keep hinting at that class act lawsuit I think is just around the corner.

[kevinw729]

Its less what is legal or illegal, and more what the buying customer base is prepared to accept.

The reason that there is a possible reversal over the Facebook login for the short term, is due to the audience (community) reaction to the original news - the attempts to spin this as "what every manufacturer does" did not work, especially as this decision was done after many had purchased current hardware, without this mandate. The attempt to say this is not an issue, that we should live with, or that this should only be discussed behind closed doors - are issues that illustrate a move internally to try and manage the optics of this issue. And so reflects that if enough users rebel / demand then this could be reversed.

I wish you well in trying to reverse this, as I doubt I will be able to continue that fight under the current conditions. 

[Zenbane]

kevinw729 said:
 the attempts to spin this as "what every manufacturer does" did not work, especially as this decision was done after many had purchased current hardware, without this mandate. 

Spinning a spin doesn't help either. For those who bought Oculus hardware prior to this mandate, they are able to continue using their Oculus VR products without linking to Facebook. Trying to spin that differently doesn't really provide value to the current situation.

kevinw729 said:
The attempt to say this is not an issue, that we should live with, or that this should only be discussed behind closed doors 

None of that has actually been said though. This is definitely an issue, but the consumer has the ability to make a decision on how to resolve this issue for themselves. Since legacy Oculus owners are grandfathered in to the process without having to create a Facebook Account, new users can simply avoid purchasing Facebook VR products; as this rule only applies to new users.

Any new users today who recently purchased their Quest 2 can send them back for a full refund. As Quest 2 has only been out for a few days and well within the refund period.

Sending units back for a refund is a great way to let Facebook know that this is unacceptable. Forcing a refund is one of the most powerful ways to exercise consumer power and let a company know that change is needed. Posting on forums does nothing to make progress in these types of situations.

if enough users rebel / demand then this could be reversed.

Yes, this is very much true. And the "rebel/demand" part comes from forcing refunds; not posting hyperbole on forums.

[Nunyabinez]

This is a more nuanced issue than many people want to make it. 

One issue is that when you are not physically near someone, there is a reduction in inhibition, meaning people say and do things in cyberspace that they would never do if someone was there or even if the other person just knew their actual identity.

I know some people say that they should be able to say and do what they want. But it doesn't make me a prude just because I don't want to hear profanity or have someone simulate sex acts in front of me.

Perhaps we need spaces that have ratings, like "This Area Rated 'R' parental supervision suggested." Then you could also implement parental controls to keep your kids out of areas where people could be doing things that you don't like.

On the other hand, I wasn't a fan of Apple's decision that nothing naughty could be on Apple App stores. People should be allowed to do what they want if it is legal, even if it would be offensive to other people. However, people who don't want to be exposed to certain things should not be forced to see them if they don't want to.

[OmegaM4N]

kevinw729 said:

Its less what is legal or illegal, and more what the buying customer base is prepared to accept.

The reason that there is a possible reversal over the Facebook login for the short term, is due to the audience (community) reaction to the original news - the attempts to spin this as "what every manufacturer does" did not work, especially as this decision was done after many had purchased current hardware, without this mandate. The attempt to say this is not an issue, that we should live with, or that this should only be discussed behind closed doors - are issues that illustrate a move internally to try and manage the optics of this issue. And so reflects that if enough users rebel / demand then this could be reversed.

I wish you well in trying to reverse this, as I doubt I will be able to continue that fight under the current conditions. 

What gets me is the fact they made what they must have known was going to be a unpopular decision by making FB accounts mandatory with the Q2, and then they could not even make that process trouble free, i mean talk about trying to extinguish a raging fire that you started by dousing it with even more fuel. Lol

[Zenbane]

Nunyabinez said:
On the other hand, I wasn't a fan of Apple's decision that nothing naughty could be on Apple App stores. People should be allowed to do what they want if it is legal, even if it would be offensive to other people. However, people who don't want to be exposed to certain things should not be forced to see them if they don't want to.

Agreed with all of this. The main problem is with the legal side of things. In particular, Corporations have the same rights as Humans; at least here in the US. This became a fact enforced by legislation several years ago. It's difficult to discuss this without getting too political, so I'll keep my commentary short on the matter.

The main issue we face is that... due to US legislation on Corporate Rights, a company like Facebook is free to treat their products/services in the same manner as you treat your own home. For example, I could pay you $100 to come to your house and have you cook me dinner. When I show up, if I start acting a fool, you have every right to keep my $100 and kick me out of your house. I will have little legal grounds to take action against you. At most, I may be able to have a court force you to refund my $100; but even that is suspect since you will have spent money in order to prepare my meal.

More to the point, there is little I could do to convince our legal system to enact some restrictions upon you and your household to prevent you from charging other people $100 for your home cooked meal services. At most, I could probably get the court to force you to register your household as a business. But since US Legislation now mandates that, "Corporations are People," the outcome won't give me any advantage over you whatsoever.

The real problem here is with corporate rights and US legislation. It seems that Facebook is one of the first organizations to start taking full advantage of new legally recognized situation.

Whether it is good or bad is irrelevant. It's a legal matter. And in order to change it, the US would have to change its legislation. But considering the reason behind making this new legislation in the first place... I really doubt that this will ever happen.

The moment that the new Legislation reinforced that "Corporations are People," it instantly allows any company to donate an unrestricted amount of money to any government official. The concept of Corporations having the same Rights as Humans began some 200 years ago in US history. And has only been further enforced as time goes on.

[Zenbane]

OmegaM4N said:
What gets me is the fact they made what they must have known was going to be a unpopular decision by making FB accounts mandatory with the Q2, and then they could not even make that process trouble free, i mean talk about trying to extinguish a raging fire that you started by dousing it with even more fuel. Lol

I agree that Facebook should have been far more prepared for this situation. I suspect that they didn't plan for their "automated system" to cause so many potentially unwarranted bans. This is most likely a "glitch in the system," and Facebook will need to remedy it by staffing more humans.

Overall though, the fire is quite small. The number of users reporting this between this forum and reddit still measures in the dozens; while the number of users enjoying Quest 2 is in the thousands.

This is a problem that needs to be managed and contained asap. But the ratio is still quite favorable.

[kevinw729]

OmegaM4N said:
...

What gets me is the fact they made what they must have known was going to be a unpopular decision by making FB accounts mandatory with the Q2, and then they could not even make that process trouble free, i mean talk about trying to extinguish a raging fire that you started by dousing it with even more fuel. Lol

Yes I know, it does feel like a raging fire they could have avoided - no matter how it is down played. 

From experience with dealing with a self induced blackeye, it would seem logical not to double down. May be just pause the full adoption of the system, and also start looking at a better process of arbitration put in place.

I think this may be the tip of the iceberg as the last forum postings spoke of other people finding out they had similar problems, not bricked headsets, just inability to pair their accounts which sees another problem.

I wonder how much of this implementation was taken from the newly restructured Facebook Reality Lab control and was handled by Facebooks MR team? Anyway, expect this to blow away with some serious backpedaling over the weekend. 

[Zenbane]

kevinw729 said:
Yes I know, it does feel like a raging fire they could have avoided - no matter how it is down played. 

Are we talking about the pandemic? Because the same logic applies! lol

Seriously though, over-playing the current Oculus VR situation is just as futile as downplaying it.

Anyway, expect this to blow away with some serious backpedaling over the weekend. 

That's possible. I expect the opposite though. I expect Facebook to continue requiring a FB Account, but will simply remove the impact that a Ban has on HMD usage.

There's simply no way for Facebook to coordinate updating all the Quest 2's on the market in order to implement a "backpedal." It is most physically impossible.