Wallace solicits conversation on RL identities in SL

Dusan Writer decided to devote his bloggericious talent to a response to Wallace's post today. He put it on both on Wallace's comments and his own blog. Give it a read ... among other things, it contains this little tidbit:

Don't people speak in simple English on the Internet any more?

I don't understand why we can't decide, on an individual level, how much of our SL presence is "real" and how much is "imagined." Why do we need rules or a consensus on what should be?

This is another case of LL trying to force SL into a platform to do something it's not. It started with the idea that SL can be used for business meetings, even though video-conferencing is far superior. Is the next direction making SL a place for real life hookups? Skype is better suited. Or heck, real life is better suited for real life hookups.

It's beautifully written, very cogently argued, and (generally) on the side of the angels.

My only reservation is this part:



There is much in this passage that I agree with, yet it seems to me to show a limitation to his thinking, a limitation that is, I believe, built into Rosedale's original vision. The problem here is the relatively blind acceptance of the dichotomy between individual/collective, as though we can only ever really be part of one or the other.

It seems to me that that is not, in fact, the way that SL works. This virtual world was built first upon a belief in the power of the individual and the importance of individual identity. And yet, it was built by means of a shared virtual space, and has developed into a fantastically complicated (and, as LL is learning, ultimately uncontrollable) community that is far more than the sum of its individuals. To focus merely upon either the power of the individual, or of the Web 2.0 "hive mind," is to miss the complexity of the way in which enormously diverse individuals have come together to create a collective entity that nurtures, rather than suppresses, individual differences.

Why can't we improve social networking WITHIN SL, rather than insisting upon plugging it into the bland, reductive network of MyFaces? That way we can build on what we have here, instead of flattening the diversity and individuality that has made SL what it is.

And now I am going to copy and paste this nearly verbatim into Wallace's thread . . .

I wasn't entirely clear on the point of Wallace's vague, rambling blog. But now I do. SL has been so eager to link to something like Facebook. Facebook won't allow virtual identities. So, LL is considering complying by disallowing us from having virtual identities.

Second Life is to be reduced to some sort of plug-in for Facebook? Wow, how the aspirational bar has fallen.

Indeed. This is, of course, an unspoken subtext, but it's an inevitability if this follows the course that LL seems to be charting for it.

It's been interesting watching Hamlet Au working hard in New World Notes to build up a case for this kind of SL/RL linkage: it seems to be all he writes about now. One wonders why. Maybe he wants to use SL to find a date?

From the Wild Speculation file: I seem to recall someone saying that Prok mentioned that a departed Linden would be returning to the fold soon - perhaps that would be Hamlet?
.

Wow. Talk about conflict of interest!

If that happens, watch Prok go ballistic!

/me puts the popcorn in the microwave.

The SL train is well in hand...

ROFLMAO!!!

My RL is bizarre and boring as is. God/Goddess help anyone who finds out about me

There are rules about bloggers now. If you suspect someone is taking money for blogging and not publishing the fact they are paid to write articles then the FTC needs to know so they can take them offline permanently.

Interesting; I didn't know that.

Mind you, this case would be a little different, presumably: I doubt very much that anyone on NWN is being paid by LL to write supportive articles. But Nika raises an intriguing idea: certainly, Hamlet's editorial stance would make him an ideal fit for LL's current direction.

And there is a certain symmetry to it, no? Add a former publisher/editor of the Herald, and then the publisher of NWNs . . . it covers all the bases.

What's next, one wonders? Tenshi Linden?

When did those rules appear? The last I knew was that Google was against paid blogging, which is/was done for the relevant links, of course. Other engines no doubt adopted the same thinking.

The FTC only applies to the U.S., so the rules you refer to can only be local, but I'd like more information, anyway.

The same concept should apply to Paid Picks in SL.
- or Picks for any reward.

Ok. It's a local rule that only applies to the U.S.

It's not a rule, of course, but paid picks are out in the open for all to see. There is no indication in the pick itself, but it isn't hidden. If it was, it wouldn't work.

Be an informer for the Feds? It doesn't seem like your style.

Most of Writer's post didn't register with me, too geeky, but I with the same paragraph Scylla quoted, I think.

Paid blogs/tweets are out in the open for all to see. There is no indication in the blog/tweet itself, but it isn't hidden. If it was, it wouldn't work.

Think of it as shafting a low-life, rather than feeding the Feds.

What applies in the US applies in SL too. See what happened to gambling.

Now, what applies to EU may be applied to, like the VAT.

Now that's just crazy talk. Tomorrow you'll be trying to tell us LL is going to buy up On-Rez and SL Exchange.

Oh.... nvm.

Sorry I can't. Murderers, drug dealers and politicians are lowlifes to me. Not someone who bribes someone else to write something good about them on some obscure internet blog.

True, and the search engine's objections to paid blogs is understandable, but I've no idea why the U.S. FTC would want to get involved - tax office, yes.