twitter
rss
email
calendar
mobile
more infoSecond Life ... Rights
Reader warning: this blog post is more a stream of conscience post that I would prefer. Proceed with caution.
I've had blog-block for the better part of three months now. I managed to squeak out a post or two, but there's been something eating away in the back of my mind that I was unable to articulate. Each time I sat down to post, that thought was lingering, half spoken, half digested, half seen, but never fully mature. It's still not fully matured, but at least it's here now. It's about the design of Second Life, or rather the lack of design and what it means for avatar "rights".
What struck me today as I was listening to Robin Linden speak at the MacArthur Series on Philanthropy and Virtual Worlds: Considering Civil Liberties was this: that which we know collectively as "Second Life" was not designed from a master plan, but evolved from a set of seedling technology and social hypotheses that have subsequently matured like kudzu and are strangling all of the simple minded summaries such as "Second Life is a 3D game" and raising larger issues about behavior, and therefore rights.
Despite what Ginsu Yoon espouses, Second Life is neither a game nor a product in the typical shrink wrap sense, and it has far and away exceeded a "software as a service" offering. It is a system of systems that includes hardware, software, financial, social and political systems and most of all, people. Where you have people you have to determine whether you impose a social contract and define rights, or you can you decide not to decide - as in the case of Second Life.
Ever the social optimist, Philip Rosedale in 2004 interview with the Second Life Herald explains this philosophy:
So SL poses a new question... what if the online environment offered you MORE freedoms than the real world, in just about every way. I assert, by comparison to these historical cases, that we might therefore actually behave better in such a place. We might learn faster, interact more deeply, and therefore become better people, at least on some levels.Arguably the most interesting thing about Second Life is the combination of creative freedom and people, some with strongly held convictions that residents have rights akin to those in the U.S. Constitution. The challenge is, however, that property rights and IP ownership mean consequently that governance is neither centralized within Linden Lab, nor can it be held by any other single entity. Linden Lab cannot assume the "god" role of typical MMOG designers simply because far too many things are outside their control and as such, logically they will react as required to avoid any legal liability but will otherwise not impose. This has been demonstrated in the rulings regarding age play, gambling and of late, banking institutions. Of course these restrictions make Philip sad; they violate the very core of his beliefs about societal evolution.
Of course we think they (property rights) are fundamental rights. We think of SL as like a developing nation, and it has been shown repeatedly in history that the nations which give strong land and IP rights to their citizens grow fastest and are most competitive. BTW, there is a book called 'The Mystery of Capital' that really hammers this point home. Other folks haven't done this for two reasons... One is that they don't have the deeper mission that we do... to create a new and better world. And the second is that they fear (as large companies) the legal risk that comes with the position. They don't want to deal with all the challenges. I think the first point is fundamental though... they are simply building entertainment products... and from a simple perspective entertainment is easier to do with lots of control. We are just looking at things from a much larger scale.
In today's MacArthur discussion, the First Amendment was cited in context of actions that take place in world and on Linden Lab managed forums, which are essentially private property. Didn't the Supreme Court rule that the U.S. Constitution does not give individuals the right to enter and remain on private property to exercise their right to free speech except in the case of public spaces such as shopping malls? Unless Second Life is considered a shopping center (arguably a stretch) it's private property, and the "free speech" argument holds no water especially in the case where banning or otherwise excluding individual rights is essential to maintaining Second Life as a business.
So this is the root of my blog-block:
Is it Philip Rosedale's world changer, or simply a business?
Can it be both?
People often ask me "Who will build the "Second Life" killer application?" The answer is there will be no single Second Life killer. Second Life may ultimately die under the weight of its own expanse and our inability to successfully address the multitude of social and legal issues it has raised. In return we will have highly structured, tightly controlled Stepford virtual worlds, all lined up in pink chiffon and serving cupcakes.
The vision of Second Life as world changer requires we start seriously addressing the social, political and cultural issues in something more than one hour fireside chats with hand picked celebrities in well-controlled settings. We need serious and actionable discussion and people who aren't afraid to get their hands dirty and their knees skinned. It's going to be a long haul.
Posts
10 comments:
I think that selected parts of the Second Life community already are addressing these issues. However, they do so in a vacuum of sorts - without Linden Lab actually *listening*, it's more group therapy than community engagement. The second banking Metanomics event was a great example; the SL community was wonderfully engaged, a lot of different opinions were presented and talked about - but what did it mean for Second Life, in the end? What was the feedback from Linden Lab? The usual silence.
Was there a way for Linden Lab to regulate the banking sector in a way that would be both legal and in touch with the community (that was of a remarkably like mind regarding this decision)? We will never know, because LL did not make the effort of finding it.
Is there a way to regulate the SL stock market in such a way? Possibly, but I think that the history will repeat itself.
BTW - the term "SL killer application" does not mean "application that kills SL", but an application that is so useful that it propels SL to the mass market - like Lotus 1-2-3 in the olden days. Virtual workspaces, meetings and conferences could possibly fulfil that role.
But as far as killing Second Life - it is up to Linden Lab to decide whether they will share Netscape's fate or not. The strict focus on software improvement (needed as that is), rejection of community feedback and stamping RL solutions where they possibly do not belong could make it vulnerable to a technically similar rival from a less legally constrained environment.
iyan: 'In touch with the community' - That is asuming 'the community' would ever come to an agreement on the banking issue. Helpful and insightful as the metanomics meetings were, it was obvious the community does not have 1 voice, 1 opinion, 1 suggestion. They are often conflicting interests in individual solutions.
Second Life is Linden Labs product, but the common goal both residents and LL share is continuity. LL deals with issues as they come to protect their financial interest in the platform. This is their responcibility as owners of the platform.
The negative perception of community (mis)management seems to be a pattern troughout all virtual worlds and MMORPG's. Those who disagree are often given more voice than those who do agree with the developping side. 'They' (the developpers) never get it 'right' simply because (product)management is not about pleasing everyone all the time, sometimes you have to take impopulair descisions to realise continuation. (Suppose feb 2008 another bank collapses, huge negative media spin again - everyone will wonder why LL didn't act sooner against 100% interest rates and 30% default loans)
Fact is: Second Life is a product. Many people both inworld and on the outside in LL and dev companies depend on it for income. In order for it to grow, it needs to either continue to be profitable - or go open source. LL seems to have decided as of 2009 they will go with the second option and probably adjust their company model and role accordingly. Until that time LL provides the service, and sets the rules based on RL law for their cashcow.
It is a product, but it's not just a product - as Grace stated.
Of course the decision would not be consensual, but at least there would be some feedback. If they do polls on voice usage, could they not have done it on the banking issue?
I agree that banks, in the form they were, were a liability for LL. But is the only possible solution to deal with potentially disruptive practices in SL to (a) ban them or (b) use RL models? So much for improving the human condition..
(more ranting re this on my blog)
Well in the end they did choose the RL model. In fact they used it explicitly and exclusively by only allowing RL banks, and banned the high-risk privately run banks :) So if those are the two options they made a pretty good compromise already ;)
Though I'm not defending LL at all, and i think you have a good point if you argue a point of community management and communications or even consistancy in their outings. It shows LL has a long way to go as well, and I often think SL has outgrown LL because of the 'sneak' success, becoming world news overnight.
I just find it remarkable at times the context of these decisions by LL seems to be misunderstood in my opinion. It's corporate risk management, or business innovation based on RL laws. The way SL is placed in the context of being some sort of exception of this - sometimes as a pet project, as an institution, a new frontier, a government - is really interesting, but not the way to grow as a platform I believe :)
Thank you for such a thought-provoking post! I think you raise some really interesting and fundamental questions not only about the survivability of SL, but also about what form it is going to take if it does survive.
I echo your call to action - Linden Labs will do what they think they have to do to manage their corporate risk, but even with the "regulations" that they have gradually been introducing, the latitude we all have to create the social and ethical fabric of Second Life is still huge.
We have read some people opining that a truly free society will come together and organize/police itself as a natural part of it's organic growth, and it will do so without any real central controls (or in spite of them perhaps). Maybe Second life is just the kind of petri dish that can allow that to happen - i guess time will tell.
But as to the central question of the post:
What is Second Life?
Is it Philip Rosedale's world changer, or simply a business?
Can it be both?
I suspect that Second Life is less a world changer than it is the expression of a changing world. Virtual worlds and the creative expression they offer, the enhanced communication, the socio-political experiment that SL represents - all of these might simply be the initial embodiments toward new ways of interacting that promise to change the world in the coming years. But I think it overstates it to say SL is a cause - perhaps it is simply an effect of more fundamental changes in a long chain from (most recently) the internet to chat rooms to MySpace and Facebook, IMVU, MMORPG's, etc...
In the end, Linden Research is a business - and its success or failure rests on its ability to make SL (and its other products) profitable. Without LL - SL simply ceases to exist All of Philip Rosedale's dreams and philosophical leanings regarding SL and virtual worlds can only find expression through a profitable business model.
Within that context though, SL continues to grow and thrive - glitches and growing pains notwithstanding, and we all need to take some level of personal responsibility for shepherding that growth and vitality by participating in it! We can't wait for Linden Research to define our reality - as you have said Grace - we need to start engaging in the dialogue that addresses the social, political and cultural issues that you speak of. If we don't do it, who will??
Blogs like these are one of the places that this dialogue starts - so kudos to you!
DD
This is great commentary - I'll try to address some of your points.
@iyan
What "selected parts" of the SL community do you think are addressing these issues? If you mean the constant flow of grid talks, I personally don't count sitting around for an hour every week addressing issues. That's passive activity, we need action. Certainly, it's an important first step, but much of it is ala Echo Chamber.
As for LL regulating the banks, I see no reason why any business entity would pursue that as a course. In my mind, like in the case of gambling, there was no decision to be made, the US Courts make those decisions. And frankly, I don't see how the bank issue resides on the same plane of consideration as improving the human condition, but I'll jump over to your post and see if I can grok your point.
@digado
Your point about the misunderstandings is well put, and frankly that is what has been troubling me as well. I think the cognitive dissonance arises from the complexity of the LL mission - be a profitable business - AND - give people infinite freedom - AND make the world a better place. But in the end, it's the ability to hold two apparently juxtaposed ideals in balance that make the way for great things.
@Delicious Demar
.."Within that context though, SL continues to grow and thrive - glitches and growing pains notwithstanding, and we all need to take some level of personal responsibility for shepherding that growth and vitality by participating in it!"
So elegantly put, I wish I had said that. Thank you!
As a philosopher-king, Philip makes a great software engineer. Developing nations, like the US in the nineteenth century, did not have strong land and IP rights. Both historical claims are a late twentieth century fiction that first appeared about the time congresses and parliaments started extending the terms and reach of copyright far beyond where copyright had ever been before.
Beneath all the vision stuff that pours out of LL in a never-ending stream are a series of lousy business practices, poor customer service, dreadful customer relations, and a conviction that total silence is the best response to any community opinion.
Debating whether SL is a product is the exact equivalent of exciting debates about how many angels can dance on the sharp end of a pin. (Answer: Probably more than avatars can dance on a sim). Selling pizzas and regularly making billing mistakes does not increase your return on investment. Selling pizzas, regularly making billing mistakes, and making frequent high-sounding speeches about the central role of the pizza in the cosmic order does not do a lot for your return on investment either.
Good service and treating customers like they know what they're talking about would be a new policy for LL. Substituting better service for high-flown rhetoric sounds like a business plan that could work.
Treating customers seriously inevitably involves conceding them rights, whether they are called user rights, avatar rights, consumer rights, or the right of angels to dance on pins.
Philip needs to wake up and smell the pizza.
I'm a bit late discovering this post (RL had me very much offline in more senses than one these last weeks). Such an insightful post followed, and such thoughtful comments…
@Grace The blogger's block is a feeling I know all too well. I have found it helps me to remember two things :
1.) the world is a complicated place, and neither of us has to put it in place once and for all — meaning I found « it depends on how you look at it » and « both » are often good answer to « either or » questions.
In our case, SL is giving people the opportunity to participate in change, change themselves, and precipitate change shaped by a changing world. Neither a world-changer nor only the expression of a changing world, the word we look for might be catalyst (i.e. without effect where the right conditions do not prevail, but radically changing the situation where they do) to its residents — while of course being a business to the company LL is. There is no contradiction there, just two points of view :).
2.) Baby steps do it when blogging — nobody expects things to get nailed down once and for all in a blog, so even if the world afforded the big answers, the nature of blogging is such that we can merrily ignore that and latch on individual aspects. A blog that has all the answers isn't a blog any more, it's a manifest :). Just look at the fascinating discussion you have sparked. Keep on going, Grace, we love your stream of consciousness !
[I was going to add 3.) Don't be afraid of mediocrity, but that is for me, not for you :).]
@Digado : a peck on the cheek of my favourite reductionistic positivist.
@iyan writer : group therapy indeed , I'm going to quote you on that ;).vium
Grrr, I just noticed that Blogger's OpenID module asks for name and nickname, and then merrily ignores them when displaying the comment. That was me above :) !
Post a Comment