twitter
rss
email
calendar
mobile
more infoUpholding Social Norms - Part 2
I didn't intend for Upholding Social Norms to be a multi-part post, but the conversation has become compelling and widespread. It's a subject that has reached a certain resonance around the Second Life resident blogs, and the comments on this blog alone have been thought provoking and highlight the complexity of the topic.
Here are a few other perspectives from the personal blogs of fellow Second Life residents:
- Chestnut Rau's "TOS - privacy and RL"
- Prokofy Neva's "Invalid Interlocutors"
- Otenth Paderborn's "Social norms, privacy, and community"
- Zha Ewry's "Congruence -- Words and Actions"
- Mera Pixel's "The Decline of Society in Second Life"
- Crap Mariner's "Erosion"
Coincidentally, the Berkman Center for Internet and Society launched the Publius Project today. From the announcement :
Berkman can tap industry leaders across a wide display of disciplines. The first three articles are worthy reads, but I noticed the one important element. They are touching on the same points as the rest of us "non subject matter experts".Publius brings together a distinguished collection of Internet observers, scholars, innovators, entrepreneurs, activists, technologists, and still other experts to write short essays, foster a public dialogue, and create a durable record of how the rules of cyberspace are being formed -- with a view to affecting their future incarnations.
The first essays are now live:
- John Palfrey, Preface
- David Weinberger, Tacit Governance
- Esther Dyson, Governance - Tacit or Explicit?
- Kevin Werbach, Steering to the Edge of Trust
We take our inspiration and mode from the Federalist Papers, but our goal is to highlight a variety of perspectives on the evolutionary process of rule-making in cyberspace. The early American context and perspective is supplanted by our modern, global, and diverse experience. The notion of a singular constitutional moment is replaced by a vision of multiple forces shaping the structures that both open and constrict online spaces. Participants will reflect on the various elements of this loosely-joined architecture and consider how traditional understandings of regulation, control, and governance are manifested and constructed anew in cyberspace.
John Palfrey, Executive Director of the Berkman Center for Internet and Society sets the context for the discussion:
The ability to govern activities online is not the exclusive province of the state, and the line between public and private action is getting blurrier, not clearer, as more of life moves into the networked public sphere.Lines are indeed blurring, but how those lines blur do matter and I believe that without conscious and deliberate discourse, things will merely evolve to a point of the lowest common denominator. How else can we positively shape social norms in spaces in which there is a permeable membrane between the real and the virtual?
Some (removed ref to Chestnut Rau based on clarification in comments) argue that the Second Life Terms of Service are necessary and sufficient means by which we can regulate, but Prokofy Neva argues strongly that the Terms of Service are arbitrary, abusive and over broad and in turn residents cede too much power to the private corporations that sponsor them.
One might argue that *any* rules in the form of a Terms of Service or otherwise could be interpreted as too stringent and therefore stifle social interaction and the subsequent norms that emerge out of it. Quoting from David Weinberger's article:
The fuzziness of norms is their strength. We need the looseness of norms to enable us to be with one another in surprising ways. The narrower, more explicit, and less ambiguous the norms, often the deader the social interaction: “Come now, Marjorie, you know that we raise our hands before speaking.” Norms are not rules that have yet to mature. Rules are norms that have failed.If you believe Weinberger, then the Terms of Service will fail us, just as Prokofy claims. However, that does mean that there must exist some tacit governance to keep the community healthy and alive. How then, does tacit governance evolve, thrive and be effective in a large, growing, and diverse community like that of Second Life?
Esther Dyson provides an interesting perspective on that issue as she provides the following illustration of her experience at a seminar with a group of Russians.
In Russia, there’s a proliferation of laws, but the overall system of governance is mostly tacit in practice. (That’s not to say that there is not a lot of excruciatingly explicit paperwork, but most of it is irrelevant.) This tacit system – of connections, unspoken rules, shadowy powers - leads to all kinds of maladies. Those in power can act as they like almost with impunity. Those without power but with an understanding of the rules can mostly stay out of trouble.But those who don’t understand the rules, or who question them, can lose their freedom or even their lives. (As Russian politician Boris Nemtsov once pointed out [in paraphrase], “Yes, there is freedom of speech. But that does not necessarily mean freedom after speech.”
Tacit laws are difficult to understand, to share with newcomers and to spread across a large population. Tacit laws are also more prone to unfair balances in power and influence, which serve as particularly bad influences on new and emerging markets as those afforded by virtual worlds.
Now I don't know about you, but I feel stuck. Outright written rules fail us, and tacit governance is nearly impossible if not unbalanced at scale. Where does that leave us?I think it leaves us at the root, the elephant in the room, with that which is so ill defined that while we write laws around it, socially we embrace a tacit governance that allow us to rationalize our circumvention of legality in a case by case way.
That root, is trust.
I thought Kevin Werbach may have nailed it with his article entitled "Steering to the Edge of Trust", but sadly he presents a largely technocentric "Abundance trumps governance" argument which is a necessary part of the discussion but leaves me cold. I personally keep coming back to simple human trust which is often mediated (at least partially) by well designed technology.
Like many fellow residents, I don't have answers. I have still more questions.
Do the Second Life Community Standards and Terms of Service establish some baseline for defining the expectations of a "trusted" environment in the world of Second Life?
What makes the Terms of Service, as Prokofy suggests, over broad?
The Terms of Service and Community Standards are written rules to which we all agreed to abide; are they failing us?
Are there more powerful tacit governance structures within Second Life?
If so, what are they and how are they adopted, reinforced, spread, and modified?
What else am I missing in this discussion?
Posts
7 comments:
Trust is easily broken in SL due to the previaling climate of perceived anonymity. An individual is free to lie, cheat, steal because they feel safe behind their avatar. The desire for Power is the major driving force when it comes to anti-social behaviour. Individuals will purposely harm you to acquire power. The "sheep" will remain silent in your case for fear of having that power used against them.
When it starts to invlove money and reputation you can bet that the persons behind the avatars will be exposed. If we can't act like grownups and treat each other with respect and honor then we are doomed to outside intervention.
My post was something of a vent and I did not intended it to be read as my position in the debate on how we should govern the virtual world.
The LL TOS, as flawed as it may be, is currently the mechanism used to enforce our right to personal privacy within Second Life. While I am grateful for a basic set of rules I have heard and thought about Prokofy Neva's suggestion that the existing TOS overreaches.
I offer no answers to the many important issues you raise Grace. I do look forward to reading the insightful responses your post will surely generate.
@ravishal Are there not two sides to the anonymity argument? Your "people are anonymous for malicious reasons" and the equally important argument that anonymity can actually free people from constraints that would otherwise limit their ability to contribute constructively to the community?
@chestnut I'm sorry I misrepresented your post. I'll go back and edit to clear that up. However, your point that the ToS are all we have right now in terms of self enforcement of personal privacy is important and should not be overlooked.
I'm very certain of one thing: I don't want the Berkman Center or any "center" to decide norms for me or anyone else on the Internet. That's like saying that because many countries and people share sources of electrical power and have electricity that there should be some set of norms guiding electricity users. The internet is a connector -- see, we need to stop glorifying it and spelling it with a capital "I" as if it was the Roman Forum.
The Internet is many things to many people and exists in many countries and communities and basically speaking, the Internet will always fall prey to the rules of those who own or control servers -- whether countries or university administrators or ISPs.
I find it troublesome that in true revisionist multi-culti fashion, so it seems, these new would-be cyber-framers are declaring the U.S. Constitution some sort of "moment," i.e. some sort of limited thing in space and time. ("The notion of a singular constitutional moment is replaced by a vision of multiple forces shaping the structures that both open and constrict online spaces.).
Baloney. This is merely a poor understanding of how constitutionalism indeed works. The constitution is constantly reviewed, interpreted, defined, and ruled upon by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court rulings constitute the law of the land. It is the constant review and rulings of the Supreme Court that make the Constitution not merely some historically-tethered "moment" but a constantly refreshed and relevant and vibrant source. The rule of law by precedent, and constitutional interpretation is rather special though, as things go; there are probably more countries with civil law traditions than common law.
Common law traditions (Anglo-American) tend to look for loose wording of overarching principles that can enable freedoms, with the credo "whatever is not prohibited is allowed", rather then lengthy precise tomes that start form the premise "whatever is not allowed is prohibited".
And that's why you get lengthy TOS norms, non-constitutional regulatory acts not under the rule of law, but the arbitrary whim of the magistrate or game or VW company. It follows the pattern of the world's most abusive types of governments, so I hardly see why they need to be replicated. Racism, hate, persistence of dissent -- none of these things are solved by restriction of speech; they are generally only solved by enabling good as well as bad, and through education and example.
I've known Boris Nemtsov since he was governor of Nizhegorodskaya oblast. He was one of the few liberals in the parliament -- they can no longer even muster the 5 percent to get elected these days, it's a very grim situation. He's actually telling an old joke told by dissidents for decades from the Soviet era, where activists from the US and the Soviet Union are comparing notes -- yes, we have freedom of speech to march on Red Square...but we don't have freedom *after* marching, i.e. go ahead and take the risk, but most of the time you'll be caught and punished.
I'm simply not for building elaborate, restrictive, civil-law type of norms into online communities, and especially not dumbing down to the lowest common denominator.
The problem with privacy emerges, as indicated, in part because the Lindens are uneven, inefficient or even grossly negligent in enforcing this norm and various forces within the community feel entitled to out others when they feel someone has "gone beyond the pale".
That's what happened to me when I was viciously and maliciously outed by Nolan Nash and Cienna Samiam (perhaps the same person) on the forums, both of whom rigorously stalked me, harassed me, and trolled among all my friends and enemies fishing for some kind of clue to my identity and scraping until they came up with bits of info they could match -- not hard to do with Google and with people who hate those criticizing the status quo, or hate transgenders, or just are gossipy, period.
Quite frankly, given that there is simply no recourse within SL -- no rule of law, no courts, not even some sort of peer review or counsel of wise elders -- anyone facing consistent abuse and harassment will in the end end up having to use this same method back, as I've indicated.
SL is an awful place. It always has been. It is growing worse. If some of you had happy little pools you played in as tadpoles, great, but you achieved this happiness by being oblivious to everything around you.
SL is this way precisely because it is a closed society, under ruthless authoritarian rule (whatever its tropical benevolent exterior), with no appeals system, no freedom of speech, and no remedies.
This won't be changing any time soon. The Lindens are not going to change. I'm really not for spending a great deal of time trying to make them change, after doing this for 3.5 years; I'm for trying to set the bar and the red lines very distinctly, and a) showing them as always below/outside norms of liberty and democracy b) working to get overall institutions with a Metaversal perspective that would not undermine both U.S. Constitutional norms and the Article 19 norms of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
The only thing to do is to create communities, whether loosely-based open ones under a basic set of rules like Ravenglass Rentals, or more specific ideological ones with constitutions like the Confederation of Democratic Simulators, and take it from there.
Didn't comment on the first one, but don't really want to do a blog post on this, so here's my take on this (btw, I feared this in my 2008 predictions post)
It's not like people in SL were once friendly but now, the same people are rude. The decline of social norms has to do with mass-marketization of Second Life and an influx of newbies, drawn into SL not because of a wish to form meaningful relationships in a virtual world, but to have virtual sex and make virtual money. The role of LL pushing this perception on the companies, media and users is not to be underestimated.
"All this has happened before and all this will happen again" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternal_september)
What can we do? If experience is any guide, nothing - or, that which we always did. Retreat into our shiny ivory sims and ban the annoying - or, in more extreme cases, all who do not conform to ideology and hence are potentially annoying. Or, learn to live with the failings of the human race and cherish the ones that are special.
I think you know which option I chose ;-)
Iyan, re: "he decline of social norms has to do with mass-marketization of Second Life and an influx of newbies, drawn into SL not because of a wish to form meaningful relationships in a virtual world, but to have virtual sex and make virtual money. The role of LL pushing this perception on the companies, media and users is not to be underestimated."
Well, this is merely your Marxist take on the situation, attributing all of SL's evils to the profit motive, of either Linden Lab itself, or evil corporations who play to mass marketing for virtual sex and virtual business.
I'm sorry, that's all bullshit, however. First of all, there's nothing inherently evil about virtual sex or virtual business. These are *good things* that help *many people* have more meaningful lives and income. It creates many more connections, depth of relations, possibilities to lift people out of poverty or simply enhance their lives. There is nothing evil about mass culture; mass culture serves *people* -- don't you Marxists *want* people to be served?!
What's wrong with Second Life's culture isn't business, capitalism, commercialism or crass mass culture which understandably, you as a leftist intellectual find repulsive (you're in the minority; your beloved People outnumber you).
Rather, what's wrong with SL is in fact the absence of the rule of law and an open society. These are political and legal and power-sharing issues, really separate from whether or not you decide to have a lovely socialist paradise with NPR playing in dulcet tones in the background and earnest people having seminars about global warming wearing politically-correct low-ARC avatars.
The power-sharing and policy issues will not change until the problem of the Linden Entity changes -- either it shares power with its prosumers who pay its bills (seats on the board, more interaction and decision-making input from tier-payers) or until it open sources/IPO's/whatever -- but even there, I'm skeptical, as I see it is laying the groundwork to keep a firm clamp over policy and culture even if it goes OS.
The viciousness of Second Life was there from the first moment a Linden used guns to break up the earth instead of making a plow or a tool; the malice of Second Life was woven into its forums and unfair oldbie class- and skill-based corporativism (which doesn't need *corporate capitalism* to prevail; it can be the sort of state capitalism that the Lindens represent).
What's wrong with your utopian prescriptions for SL is that you fail to realize that just such a utopia prevailed at the beginning and failed precisely because such utopias *do* fail. There was a wonderfully educated and skilled creative and innovative class that only "built for fun" or made little businesses "just to pay tier" or just to "help newbies with an economy". But it wasn't "evil" Anshe Chung who "ruined it for everybody" by shrewdly playing the landmarket -- tekkies and wikinistas like Rathe Underthorn or various alted-up oldbie weapons and script dealers and animators are the ones who *really* cleaned up without working a tenth as hard as Anshe, using tools to exploit the platform and people handily in the sort of casual and callous techlib manner we see in real life.
All your beloved techlibs with your proper politically-correct beliefs were there at the dawn of Eden, and they all failed. They turned to BDSM; they enabled Gor; they looked the other way at child pornography. They themselves set up the scripts for gambling and profited from them very early on (Moonshine Herbst and Games Prototype) -- not some later newbies with fake banks.
Seriously, it's very important not to rewrite the history of Second Life, and pretend that "it all went bad" because of "evil corporations" that came in, in 2006. I was the first (in the Times) to complain about the corporate invasion but not from the socialist perspective; I was concerned about it sucking out the highly skilled labour class (it did) and making newbies passively seek entertainment from big corporate sims (it did, in part) and forsaking the slower and harder task of building economies and communities from the grass roots (it did, in part). The corporate silos got ignored, but the recipe of "big corporate outworld budget buys out inworld skilled workers and puts up confection project" is indelibly stamped into SL now as an economic model which frankly isn't good for the capitalism of small and medium business as much as it isn't good for some socialist justice vision.
The seeds of the evil of Second Life were present at Creation in the beliefs of the Lindens and their early friends. They believe technically proficient people are smarter and better than other people and can solve all problems with software and tools. They don't believe in liberal democracy or free enterprise, except where they can exploit it to their own ends while limiting it for others. They institutionalized now a corporativist system that rewards only their sycophants and the "talented" not in any publicly-supported sense but in their own techlib corporativist vision.
I think that for all his ideological constraints and personal flaws, Philip Rosedale's genius in creating Second Life and his basic good intentions and dream for a Better World can still save the day. Philip said, when I asked him why he ushered in all those corporations, very sincerely, "I wanted to build it for everybody." When I asked him at SLCC what was the greatest influence on first life that he could claim for second life, he said "1,000 people can make more than $1000 a month" (and of course that means that thousands more can make the $100 or 200 or even $50 that also improves their lives, too). Making Second Life "for everybody" and making it so that people can make a profit does indeed mean opening it to mass public use, and not limiting it to socialist redistributive visions for the economy. And I hope the Lindens will stick to those two basic axioms for success for any society.
Again, I don't think the solution is to try to change the Lindens; they will not change. The task is to restrain or even merely isolate/go around them and try to use these tools to make your own thing by your own lights and see if you can get it to work. I think eminent possibilities still remain for that. I think each person or group has to set their own grid of what they will or won't tolerate for the purpose.
ravishal,
Everything you say is true, but there's a whole other piece of it.
I analyze closely all disputes that arise in my rentals system with me as manager or between tenants (there are probably more of the latter than the former).
When disputes arise, after you get rid of the obvious problems like "Your land ate my furniture!" which are due to people not reading the three different ways in which the news about relentless autoreturn is delivered to them, I find that the basic problem with people is not that they lie, cheat and steal (although I get some of those) -- and of course, I am not lying, cheating, or stealing from them (or I wouldn't be expecting to stay in business).
No, the basic problem with people is they SUSPECT THAT others are lying, cheating and stealing. They assume that you are a greedy and rapacious landlord out to steal or maliciously delete your furniture. They assume that you won't return their rent even though there is a REFUND button. They assume if due to a sim rollback somehow it appears the payment didn't go through, that you are viciously pocketing it and lying to you.
So they approve you with a huge bag of cynical hate, starting their communications like "Um, where the fuck is my money?" etc.
It isn't the actuality of people lying and cheating; it's the poisoning of the well and creating the hatred and suspicion that everyone is lying and cheating and assuming the worst.
Post a Comment