Responses for 4/15

12 thoughts on “Responses for 4/15”

1. One could argue that SL is by definition simply an escape from the real world. That would be missing the point. SL is being used as a tool for bringing together groups of people with shared interests who value the low costs associated with virtual gatherings. Lectures are streamed into the SL world while convention attendees sit comfortably at home and watch their avatar sit comfortably in SL.
   Second life is a tool for expression and experimentation. As I have mentioned in earlier posts, it is being used as an economic model of a truly free market. It’s a hot topic for economists for the same reason that it’s so popular. SL taps into people’s drive to attain status within a community. In a consumerist society, one can attempt to raise their status by buying a particular product. SL was designed to have a vibrant user driven economy from the ground up. The ability of users to create content is what differentiates it from most other MMOW’s.

   Second life is also rife with cultural experiment. Last summer, I read that some individuals who are married in the real world actually have SL spouses. This seems incredible considering the fact that the sometimes decisions made about the real world (that obviously effect the real family of “virtual polygamists”) are made with the help of virtual spouses. (Can someone find this article? It was in the NYT magazine I think.)

   In reference to “The Wealth of Networks” I consider SL to be part of a sweeping democratization of how people voluntarily collaborate. As people are able to collaborate in a decentralized voluntary manner ideas tend to make it past beta more frequently. This can certainly lead to a sea of mediocre content, as Benkler points out, but at least it has the possibility to circumvent the current hegemonic cycle of information diffusion. In game, people are able to exchange ideas at an incredible pace. These ideas evolve as they are transmitted. This is similar to the way that remixes and message boards linked to articles re-contextualize content.

   e

2. I’m going to echo some of the things Ernest has already pointed out. Many of our modes of entertainment offer us escape, whether we are looking at a virtual world, a film, or a book. Nonetheless, they often display dual faces, allowing us, the consumers, to engage with these various cultural texts even as we use them to exist in another world.

   I know of Second Life mainly in the context of the meeting my parents’ business runs for a scientific society every year. At last year’s meeting in San Antonio, one of the members (who has been using SL as a way to give his students a guided tour through the female reproductive system) approached the desk to suggest SL as a way to open up participation in this year’s meeting. This year, we’ll be on the big island of Hawaii, and everything is more expensive and the number of participants capped. Many scientists—particularly the graduate students and post-docs—can’t afford it. We’re using SL to allow members all over the world to view the poster sessions.

   It seems that SL offers a kind of equality of availability within its user group, something which has interesting implications for our perception of what Benkler calls the “institutional ecology of information production and exchange.” SL is expanding mimicry of real life, its products open to more imagination and different properties (e.g., the flight of the piano to which Ondrejka refers) than those of the real world, and yet likely often remarkably similar. Our valuation system is tied to real world products, things which, in SL, fit into both the physical and content layers . . . and perhaps even into the logical layer for some people. There is a democratization of product and perhaps even production, though the latter still requires a skill set and specific education. Those skills and that learning, however, can be earned by anyone with the inclination and access to SL.

3. I agree with Jessie in that just because something functions as escapism entertainment, it doesn’t necessarily mean that it can’t serve multiple other purposes. Second Life does function as escapism, like pretty much everything else entertainment based in our lives. Humans are generally very curious creatures, and something like Second Life allows us to essentially reset our lives and start a new one. So of course we’re going to flock to it.

   SL also allows for interactivity that might not be possible otherwise. Jessie’s example of the gathering at Hawaii is a fantastic demonstration of the power of SL to allow others to participate in events etc.

4. In reading Benkler’s conclusion, I found this quote to be particularly significant: “From the perspective of individual economy offers a series of identifiable improvements in how we perceive the world around us, the extent to which we can affect our perceptions of the world, the range of actions open to us and their possible outcomes, and the range of cooperative enterprises we can seek to enter to pursue our choices. It allows us to do more for and by ourselves” (464). I think this quote describes the features and appeal of virtual worlds. Second Life allows ‘Residents’ to interact with one another and explore different ways of learning and speaking, with people who have similar ties. So SL is not simply an escape from the real world, instead, Benkler would argue that it is an avenue for more diverse and politically mobilized communication. We, as the player, can decide whom to trust and who to question. This game and other virtual world games allow us to exchange information, knowledge, and culture. It also allows us to remove the barriers that stand in the way of us improving human connections.

5. Second Life
   From Ondrejka’s article on Second Life we learn about the participatory and collaborative efforts that make the game appeal to users. I believe that these qualities have the greatest potential to be used for larger (political) purposes. Because people are becoming familiar with making things that have potential to be used by thousands of users, these same people can turn to other aspects of their “real” life to create similar things. I think there is a link between viral videos and popular “objects” in SL. The Obama Girl video on youtube was user generated (not part of his campaign) but for a lot of young (uninformed) voters that was the first time the Obama penetrated their world. I believe the type of person who has the initiative to create their own video can gain experience by tailoring to the popular consumer by creating products in SL.
   The teaching potential of SL is also profound. I was intrigued by the idea that there could be virtual classrooms in the event that physical ones couldn’t practically be built. I believe it was in a recent episode of The Daily Show that highlighted a congressional hearing that was simultaneously being broadcasted (held) is SL, so that the SL users could digest the hearing on their own terms. The blurring between reality and virtual worlds only highlights the large potential for how the way people interact is drastically changing.

6. I see Second Life as a window into the potential future. As Ondrejka describes it, Second Life is a world in which people work together collaboratively and the four new models for economics that Benkler outlines in his conclusion are present. As Benkler suggests in concluding his book, the “real world” has the potential to take on these new models more prevalently, depending on how people approach the new technology. This involves copyright law, but it also involves maintaining the sense of community that is present in Second Life in the real world.

   In the same vain, I can see the internet and virtual worlds like Second Life converging. The example of stroke victims the class at Harvard Law and the example Jessie gives using Second Life is telling. The main issue I see with the future of the internet/virtual worlds converging is who would run this new interface.

   In terms of the educational argument make in Ondrejka’s piece, I agree that using new forms of collaboration is incredibly important and that the organic learning experience present in Second Life is great. My initial response is to be skeptical of these kinds of learning experiences, but the more I think about it, the more I believe that this type of learning could really benefit our society.

   Finally in regards to the question of whether virtual worlds are mere escapism, I think it depends on how the user uses the virtual world. Real connections are formed and legitimate things are learned (often through the procedural rhetoric) but also I would suspect many users do divorce themselves from the real world.

7. I concur with my distinguished colleagues above. From my limited experience with Second Life (I downloaded it last year and spent 30 mins checking it out), virtual worlds can serve a variety of purposes and in many ways provide a level of mobility and freedom that the laws of the real world prohibit.

   I finally watched The Matrix last month, and it reminded me very much of Second Life: It mimics the real world, but the rules can be bent. As Jessie mentioned above, Second Life–like Facebook, video chats and even old fashioned IMs–provides many people with a rich communications interface which can be used to communicate across vast distances.

   Another point of context I have had with Second Life is through television. Shows like The Office (I posted a clip on the blog), CSI: NY and Numb3rs have all dealt with Second Life directly. In the cases of CSI and Numb3rs–both crime solving shows–Second Life was used by extraordinarily smart people as a way of exerting a level of control over the world they could not in real life. In Numb3rs, the characters had to face off against an person who could hack into the SL database and affectively “mod” it and access personal data about other people playing. At this level, power isn’t who has most strength or quickest reflexes, its who has the deepest knowledge and control over the system. Much like The Matrix, people with this kind of power could completely change the rules of the game.

   This, of course, is fiction, but I suspect the threat is fairly real. Should this sort of criminal activity begin to take place, the freedom and democracy that Benkler discusses begins to falter.

8. I think virtual worlds like Second Life offer the same kind of democratizing effects that other digital media do, but are unique in that the world constructed is not necessarily merely competitive and oftentimes explicitly offers opportunities for learning and participation. Jessie’s Hawaii conference is a perfect example…the same basic knowledge and learning that would be engendered by participation at the real-life conference is not lost, while the economic benefits offered by going to the conference in SL allow much broader attendance. In the same way that the rise of print allowed the expansion of literacy beyond the church and the court, virtual worlds seem to invite the expansion of almost any type of skill set beyond those who have enough money for “higher education.” This only underscores Benkler’s point about the need for a drastic expansion of cheap, high-speed internet access; the thought of schoolkids around the world learning in a virtual environment with all the creative possibilities of that environment is pretty exciting.

   I think that virtual worlds have some time to go before they are fully accepted as serious places for interaction and education; the novelty of the form is still subject to condescension and mockery among many circles. Once wider audiences begin to realize the participatory potential of virtual worlds, however, I think that they will become a (if not the) dominant mode of online education and content generation.

9. According to Onderejka’s article SL can be used as a means of education. Also, as Jessie pointed out, it allows people to “be part” of certain meetings, even when they don’t have the time and/or money to be there physically. and there are probably many other good things about SL (e.g: the fact that the consequences of our actions in this virtual world are less extreme than those in real life, thus we can “try” things virtually to see if they ll work in reality.)
   However, i must admit that i felt somehow scared while reading the Wikipedia article. i wasn’t familiar with SL at all, so i was incredibly surprised to read about how developed the SL society is(with regulations, embassies, currency, religions…!)
   i understand that someone would want to use SL for practical purposes (education, bussiness), but, at the same time…isn’t it…i don’t know..dangerous?
   i agree with Ernest about all the good things, but i also think that, for most users, SL is just that, “an escape from the real world,”
   why would anyone want to escape the world and have virtual sex? why would anyone exchange real money for Lindens, voices for written messages?
   i just don’t understand…

10. While SL can definitely be skewed towards the “escape” spectrum, from what I have experienced from the interface in lab, and from what my friends have told me, it seems much more like a social-networking world than one of fantasy.
    And in this way, I find it much more democratic, than say World of War Craft. In WOW, one has to dedicate many hours and, I feel, have a certain skill level with the game’s interface to advance and become a meaningful member of the community, while SL seems much more prone to the casual gamer.
    And while the focus of SL as a social networking tool leads to the issues of “dangerous” — especially in terms of sexual engagements that inevitably arise — that is just another level of the freedom of SL: you can use it as social network for friends, relationships, or casual sex, unlike WOW where you make friends over a sense of commardie in completing a mission.

11. Since most of you have cleared the main points of the discussion, I figured I would share my reaction and thoughts on my first experience with Second Life.
    After having never experienced Second Life, or ‘a second life’, I was surprised at how closely related it is to our main lives. The large emphasis on appearance is interesting and amusing enough, down to the slightest detail on whether you have sunken eyes, pointy toes, or even pink hair. Also, the towns and cities and centers that people have created are creative, but highly resemble any local city and hold many similarities to contemporary buildings, at least from what I’ve seen.
    And yes, like others have mentioned, there is a certain level of social-networking involved. I feel that while one plays SL, one can improve one’s social skills because in this virtual world, the people may be real, but they are only presented virtually. It is this fact that makes it much easier to interact with other ‘people’ for those who may lack social confidence.
    According to Onderejka, “the result [of SL] has been an explosion of creativity and learning,” and I completely agree because not only did I learn a great deal about virtual worlds, but I noticed the large amount of creativity, from the buildings, to the flying, to the clothing for sale. Also, users can find much more freedom and can ‘escape’ in Second Life, unlike our first lives. This ability to escape connects to that explosion of creativity and learning that Onderejka is talking about.

12. Sorry it took so long, but I was finally was able to finish the book and the article and read your responses. I guess I’ll just use my gimpiness as an excuses blame…oh wait, that wouldn’t fly. Not being able to walk doesn’t prevent you from typing. After all, isn’t a key advantage of the internet (from a blog like this one to a virtual world like SL) it’s ability to transcend physical space? Jessie’s example of the Hawaii conference is a perfect example, so is Benkler’s example of using e-mail to keep in touch with friends that have moved away. (357) Derek brings up the good point that by eliminating the cost of a physical meeting space, SL gives those people who are less financially fortunate and without “higher education” the chance to participate. But as I sit here trying desperately to reach the bag of funions at the other end of the couch with the end of my crutch, I start to realize that SL could be a lifesaver for someone who is physically handicapped. Or what about people who suffer from a debilitating disease and can’t leave their home? For me the greatest potential of virtual worlds as democratic institutions is their ability to level the playing field – that is to say, they make it possible for people to participate (and not just in a political sense) who for whatever reason couldn’t have before. Ignoring the voice function for a second, think about how much easier communication in SL would be for a person who suffers from severe hearing loss?

    I have always preferred interacting with people on a face to face basis…there is just something about being able to sense someone with all of my senses that I find comforting. Just yesterday was the first time I used the video chat on my laptop…and that was only to talk to my twin sister whose been living in Florence for the past year. One thing I hate about SL is that you can never really know for sure what a person’s intentions are. W/out being able to look someone in the eye and read their face, it becomes hard for me to trust them.
    Turkle’s question (Benkler 359) is one worth asking: “is it really sensible to suggest that the way we revitalize community is to sit alone in our rooms?” In many ways it’s not, but at the same time any interaction is better than no interaction. That is to say virtual worlds can make a huge difference for certain individuals who are disadvantaged in the real world.

    Oh yeah, check this out http://www.news.com/8301-13772_3-9832840-52.html. I don’t know if someone already talked about this on the blog, but did you know that Cory Ondrejka was the CTO of Linden Labs and, more importantly, he was fired?