Anti-Business Griefing Versus Business Griefing

The LATimes, with an infernal login process, had an article yesterday on business within SecondLife - Virtual loses its virtues. It even has a picture of Prokofy Neva. It talks about the 'Second Life Liberation Army'. Odd that they placed Prok's picture next to text related to Cahill - inappropriate, I think. I may think of Prok as a griefer in her own right, but she most certainly hasn't used her avatar for detonating the nuclear warhead outside of a store as Cahill claims. In that, she's as potentially guilty as the rest of us. Anyone can create an alternate avatar and do that. This begs the question - what makes someone who does that so special? Don't answer that just yet.

And yet, with all this insight, it fails miserably in explaining what is being discussed by calling SecondLife a website:

...The website is facing the problem that many would-be utopias faced before it: When building the ideal world, it's impossible to change while remaining perfect in everyone's eyes...

I suppose 'virtual world' has too many syllables? I digress.

They interviewed the 'Political Officer' (Cahill) of the SecondLife Liberation Army - a very communist title, I may add - and brought a few things to the fore:

...Cahill and his compatriots say they don't necessarily mind the new residents, but they want more influence in deciding the future of the virtual world. Most important, they want Linden Lab to allow voting on issues affecting their in-world experience.

"The population of the world should have a say in the running of the world," Cahill said during an in-world interview. Cahill is this participant's online name, incidentally. He refused to reveal his real-world name for fear of banishment from Second Life...

Banished from SecondLife? Well, if that happened there wouldn't be articles about it. I find it odd that Linden Lab hasn't figured out Cahill's computer's identity - perhaps Cahill is using disposable network cards? Unlikely. But should someone like Cahill be banished? Is it a just cause, or is it 'just because'? Anyone remember the twin towers? Where do you stand on that issue?

In SecondLife, there's plenty of space for everyone, so someone actually has to go out of their way to do this sort of thing. Generally speaking - if you don't like something, don't go near it! Yet griefing at an area of SecondLife you do not like is... what? A rationalization, perhaps.

...The army has staged a number of protests in Second Life to publicize its position. Three gun-toting members shot customers outside American Apparel — bullet wounds in Second Life are not fatal but merely disrupt a user's experience — and Reebok stores last year.

Then they stepped up the campaign, exploding nukes, which manifested themselves in swirling fireballs that thrust users at the scene into motionless limbo.

Cahill said the group targeted in-world corporate locations to draw real-world attention to its cause.

LONG-TERM Second Life residents have given Cahill and his conspirators money to buy virtual guns and other weapons. Cahill says he believes that 80% of long-term residents support his cause...

80% of the people who have been online since 2003? So - that means roughly 4/5 of the authors of 'Second Life: The Official Guide' have been funding Cahill - statistically speaking. Perhaps the book is somehow funding Cahill? I find that a bitter pill to swallow.

80%. Right.

And a quote from Urizenus Sklar Peter Ludlow):

..."The utopian age has passed," said Peter Ludlow, professor of linguistics and philosophy at the University of Michigan and editor of "Crypto Anarchy, Cyberstates, and Pirate Utopias." Ludlow, whose Second Life persona, or avatar, is named Urizenus Sklar, compares Second Life's current status to the ending of the "Lord of the Rings" trilogy, in which the Shire, previously untouched by the outside world, is destroyed...

Well, perhaps Peter's utopian age has passed. Utopia is subjective. And as far as the Shire, well - that is interesting. This equates everyone who has come into SecondLife after the 'Utopian period' to be agents of Mordor and Saruman? No, because at the end of that trilogy of books the might of Mordor has been beaten - and Saruman has suffered his own defeat. All that remains are Wormtongue and others... who are then beaten out of the Shire. Dear me. That sounds pretty Utopian and happy, actually - and includes the Return of the King. Perhaps the mourning at the leaving of the elves is appropriate, but it is difficult to mourn the passing of the elves if you're calling yourself an elf. Huh? Well, actually, one elf did leave SecondLife:

..."You're seeing these little indigenous communities and fantastical creatures being forced out by 20th century corporations coming in," he said. For instance, the head of a council of elves — one of the earliest groups present in-world — left the game amid the changes, he said...

An eery connection. The elf has left. The sky has fallen. Stop biting your nails, it's bad for them and is unseemly. Quiver more honorably. Thank you.

...Meanwhile, Linden Lab is caught in a bind. To survive, it needs the revenue that comes with more users and corporations buying "land" on the "grid," as Second Life's online space is called. But it wants the creativity of its original users to flourish...

Oh, but this all seems to assume that everyone has to interact with others. And really, you don't. You can teleport away, you can mute people... you can avoid going to places that will aggravate you... and you can do your own thing. It's virtual space, folks. Perhaps if the servers and bandwidth didn't cost money there would be some sort of escapist utopia - but they do cost money, and someone has to pay. This means that the entities with money have the advantage, just like in the real world (including lobby groups). So the utopia spoken of has been an illusion since the Linden could be bought for dollars - and vice versa. There probably were doomsayers then too. Maybe even the same ones as now.

Oh, now Prok:

...THAT'S not how Manhattanite Catherine Fitzpatrick, a Russian translator, sees it. Fitzpatrick, who in the game is a man named Prokofy Neva, worries that corporations will force small businesses in Second Life to close.

Fitzpatrick, 50, joined Second Life to explore her creative side and meet like-minded people and eventually got involved in selling real estate. She built a nice home for herself with an ocean view, which she said was ruined when someone moved in next door and built a giant refrigerator that blocked her light.

The disruptions avatars are experiencing are like those faced by residents of the Soviet Union as it industrialized quickly, Fitzpatrick said...

Sounds anti-capitalist, actually - which is odd coming from the same person who calls this writer a socialist. Comparing SecondLife to the Soviet Union, well - I guess when you have a hammer, everything looks like a nail. Whack. And being 'anti-corporate' in an age of globalization? But Prok will call me the anti-globalization person. Hmm. Very confusing if you take it seriously - so don't.

Thankfully, the article ended with Saffo's Sanity Check:

..."In cyberspace," Saffo said, "there's always room over the next ridge to build a new perspective of heaven."...

Exactly. People who disrupt your harmony are griefers to you, and should be held accountable (that includes the SLA and the Politburo). But if you go out of your way to be miserable, then by all means - be miserable! If that is what makes you happy, then so be it!

SecondLife is great. It is having growing pains, and it suffers a bit of the 'old boys network' as well - but there is space to make a mark, to have fun, and to even make some humble to modest amounts of money.

Sort of sounds like real life, actually. Some people want attention, even if it is negative attention, and some - through manipulating media - can be said to be creating negative attention when in fact they may be the best examples of what is wrong with SecondLife.

Are corporations without blame? No. But we can't hold them to high levels of ethics by using a lack of ethics. Are some corporations doing the equivalent of griefing? From certain perspectives, I suppose so... but with so many concurrent users on the grid at one time, and increasing... doesn't it seem odd that with things so bad people are still there? If the malcontents are so unhappy, why do they log in?

As Michelangelo said - Criticize by Creating. Within a healthy capitalist global economy, what we are seeing is simply the reinvention of the world around us. Has it all been good? No.

Is it as good as you make it? Yes.