Mal’s Second Space

The Times Review of BBC2 on Second Life Romance

There is no such thing as bad publicity - all publicity is good publicity they say! I subscribe to that notion to an extent and the depressing, if cautionary slant, of last night’s BBC report is a case in point. I wonder how many people logged inworld after the programme just to find out more? Maybe we’ll see some statistics that tell - if the then active Linden restarts did not put them off for good.

The documentary certainly raised issues - once again confusing the "augmentation" versus "immersion" debate. At first sight, the perils of online romance could be seen as excessive examples of immersion where escapism from real-life woes is the driving force, but I tend to think it might etter be considered "augmentation" of already existing unhappy lives. Second Life is essentially an extremely powerful evolution in communications mediums and is almost certainly a template for the way of the future. The question may be whether some human beings are emotionally and intellectually stable enough to cope with the implications of that change. Regretfully, I suspect many are not - it will be generations who grow up using virtual space as a natural resource that will define the "norm" for social interaction in such spaces. Today we are simply pioneers - early colonisers of a new plane of existence.

Sad though the programme was, it some ways it was like a documenary on drug addiction. Clearly the problems depicted were those inherant in the personalities of the subjects - not the cause or effect of the the chemistry itself. Second Life is no more responsible for these sorry dramas than any particular drug of choice is responsible for the effects on those who cannot manage their own habits. Addiction is a state of mind - constant immersion is the extreme example, but augmentationists also face the problem too. How much do we "use" what we have at our disposal as opposed to "depend" on it? It is a slippery slope and easy for some to move from one to the other.

Unlike the web, which is an information delivery system, abuse of the grid has the potential to create problems that reach out far beyond the inworld scenarios. People urgently need not so much as to be told about the potential of the metaverse as they need to be educated about the consequences of it. The implications of an international, always available, meeting space are tremendous. Social models, behaviour and relationships will change in a way that will make the like of 60s cultural change seem insignifiant. We will have to adapt - not to the by-product of new social trends, but the reality of a new platform for human expression and interaction.

I woud rather the cautionary tales emerge now than at a point too late to consider them properly. I hope I am aware of the implications of how I now interface with the world today, but dare not assume others are. Metaverse evangelism will, for now, have to remain tainted with a degree of social conscience regarding those ill-equipped to cope with the seriousness of the inter-personal changes it represents.

Prokofy Waxes Lyrical

We have been talking banks. And law. And "Avatar Rights". Prokofy Neva continues on the latter theme today at th above link and it was reading that which put me on a chain of thought.

Once the stuff of science/speculative-fiction, the world (RL) today is increasingly govered by corporate interests, to the extent that major players even buy their way into driving the illusion of democratic process. The effect this has on planetary conditions (both environmental and social) in the RL Sim is another story, but it is a parallel to note in considering the future of the metaverse.

 I have never been to Japan, but have always been intruiged by the notion that corporate "ownership" of people’s lives is exemplified there - a divergant social structure from the traditional models seen elsewhere. Indeed, some decades back I worked temporarily for a major UK utility corporate in their R&D division. Whilst there, the major R&D outposts were all slowly being closed down and moved to a central location that comprised a new "corporate village". Employees had mixed feelings - but it was polarised. Some looked forward to induction to a "corporate enclave" whilst others refused to re-locate and were totally opposed to the concept.  There was little or no ground in-between.

Prokofy, in one paragraph, rightly points out again that Second Life is owned, and thus governed, by a private company. We may be exploring visions of a civic structure for metaversal life, but we continue to do so in a virtual template which can be changed or removed at any point by the "owners". Whilst the surveillance society may be doing its best to thread itself into the worldwide web, it faces the challenges of doing so in a relatively open system. Not so in Second Life. The metaverse is still a closed system merely delivered to us via the internet.

Linden Labs may have made "moves" toward open sourcing the grid technology and "co-operating" with other outside interests, they may even claim to be working toward a nice idealogical vision, but the "lab" is more aptly a "business. It’s not even clear whether they subscribe to the "long tail" theory of modern capitalism, let alone shake off their addiction to US imperialism either by way of policy or attitude. They remain far away form being any kind of metaverse "fit for purpose" and are in danger of losing their lead to other corporates that, at least, take a truely international approach to their affairs.

Like the web before it, the metaverse breaks down communication barriers. Indeed, it almost certainly represents the future evolution of global communication itself. Immersionism, augmentalism and experimentalism aside, it is the combination of avatars and simulations together as a communications medium that is the bedrock of all metaverse development. Winners in any race to pioneer this new space will be those who best facilitate that potential and also do so in the awareness that they are creating a foundation for the future of internationalism.

The web changed the way we access information forever. The "grid" of a future metaverse will do the same for the way we interact and collaborate. It will need the basis of a civic/civil infrastructure that takes into account the residents of the (RL) global village and allows them democratic freedom to decide on governance. The metaverse must not be ruled purely by corporate interest, let alone one prostituted to national interests.

I have no time to wax lyrical myself here on the aforementioned "long tail" approach, but suffice to say modern economics allow for the idea that technology can be "bequeathed" to the people for free on the basis that the instigators can continue to benefit by focusing on the capitalisation of a macroscopic portion of what they have created. It is a lesson the Lindens need to learn and they could start by abdicating governance of the virtual world to democratic process by it’s international residents.

That is a template that would put Second Life further ahead in the race to build an international grid, possibly eclipsing what their increasing range of competitors are working on. The Lindens are already well placed to develop tools, rent virtual propertie and provide inworld services - for the grid itself they should become benefactors. Ultimately, their "market" would then extend beyond the world of their original design.

Of course, democratic governance is a minefield of it’s own - traditionally evolved from experience and consequence. The metaverse needs to transcend real-life models to accomodate a very new space. But better now than later. It’s also somehing that needs to be addressed more at the Internet Governance Forums who frequently seem to think everything is still anchored or built on top of HTML. Big mistake!