Living a 'Second Life'

I have a confession and I’m actually a little ashamed of it.  In my final year of high school I was addicted to… Farmville…

Well there you have it, out in the open for everyone to see.

Games such as Farmville, Second Life and The Sims use simulacra which according to Plato is a term used to describe a false copy of something (Mann).  These games provide a copy of society in an online environment where people are substituted with avatars.  thefreedictionary.com describes an avatar as a moveable character the user controls (Farlex Inc. 2013)

In Farmville I created an avatar in my likeness and through my avatar I built my farm from the ground up, building fences, acquiring animals and planting and harvesting crops.  The crops themselves depending on the plant would take from a half-hour to three days to grow.

Theorist Baudrillard argues that ‘in a world dominated by media and the internet the idea of a ‘true’ or ‘false’ copy has been destroyed and all we have left now are simulations of reality which aren’t any more or less ‘real’ than the reality they simulate’ (Mann). 

Though I was quite addicted to the game I didn’t feel the need to push my obsession to the next level and actually pay for additional things for my avatar.  It is argued that these hyper reality games are simply replicating our consumer driven society, however I think it is a little more complex than that.  It’s not uncommon in these games for people to exchange their hard earned cash for the equivalent of the game’s currency.  Julian Dibbell (in the documentary You Only Live Twice) (2007) states that people become that invested in the game socially and psychologically that they are willing to pay for these fake things and actually perceive it as an investment (Four Corners 2007). 

You Only Live Twice explores this social and psychological investment in the game Second Life where people become quite attached to their avatars living through them and value the social relationships forged with other people’s avatars (Four Corners 2007).  The documentary’s presenter, Ticky Fullerton experiments by adopting her own avatar and soon becomes attached to the avatar taking the insults and compliments it receives quite personally (Four Corners 2007).

Businesses and chain stores are starting to move into games such as Second Life taking advantage of people’s attachment to their avatars.  People such as Veronica Brown have found Second Life to be quite lucrative for them and are able to draw a substantial income from it (Four Corners 2007). Brown became quite successful designing bridal and evening wear for people’s avatars (Four Corners 2007).  Chain stores such as American Apparel have also set up shop within Second Life where you enter the store, click on a piece of clothing and two images appear, on your left a piece of clothing to purchase for your avatar and on the right a version for you which can be purchased and delivered to your door (Four Corners 2007).     

 As great as it is for businesses to take exploit people’s attachment to avatars it’s important to examine what this is doing to our real world relationships.  On games such as Second Life, users’ avatars can meet each other forging social relationships online (Four Corners 2007).  Psychologist, Sherry Turkle (2012) explains the implications of these online relationships she states that people are afraid of intimacy and that ‘people can’t get enough of each other as long as they can have each other at a distance in amounts that they can control and an effect of this is that we sacrifice conversation’ (TED 2012).

One may argue that through games like Second Life people can converse with other users however, these conversations can be edited and retouched; Turkle emphasises that with conversations that take place in the real world you can’t control what you’re going to say, you can’t edit or retouch (TED 2012).

Taking this all into consideration will we all end up living a ‘Second Life’?  Will the way people work, play, socialise and develop relationships all move online?  In a way I think this has already occurred people often work and communicate through email, people shop online,  play virtual games with each other and socialise and develop relationships through Facebook and Twitter.  Conversely, my job (in banking) is customer centric and internet banking has not eliminated my role (for now) and I much prefer the instant gratification of shopping in a store and I communicate with family, friends and my partner through technology but I will annoy them if I haven’t seen them face-to-face in a while.  I can’t imagine living in a world where people all live a ‘second life’ to be honest I have a hard enough time navigating my first life with work, university and different relationships I haven’t even been on Facebook today.

***The author of this blog would like to disclose that she does not use Farmville anymore and this was just a phase***  

 

(iPad News Daily 2002)

 

The Need To Know (WikiLeaks)?

In 2010, the organisation WikiLeaks released 250,000 diplomatic US cables for the world to see (Kinsman 2011, p. 45).  These cables (messages between diplomats and the government) contained information on geopolitics, smugglers, ex-military fixers and corrupt politicians and businesses (ref).  US Secretary of State Hilary Clinton believes that the leak ‘puts people’s lives in danger, threatens our national security, and undermines (US) efforts to work with other countries to solve shared problems’(Kinsman 2011, p.45).  Former Governor of Alaska, Sarah Palin likens WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange (and his team) to terrorists like Al-Qaeda (Kinsman 2011, p.45).  Though I wonder if she is still sore about WikiLeaks hacking her Yahoo (email) account (Wachter 2010).

 

(Ted Goff 2008)

It is unclear as to if the leaks have endangered any lives though she does raise a valid point there must be a limit to ‘maximum possible disclosure’ as the US (or any country in fact) needs to be able to communicate in confidence and in turn protect the information they receive in confidence (Kinsman 2011, p.46). 

The cables have proved to be quite embarrassing for the US as they have revealed confidential information about international relations, one cable describes the German foreign minister as ‘incompetent, vain and critical of the US’ (Kinsman 2011, p.46).  It reminds me of the common adage ‘if you don’t have anything nice to say don’t say it at all’.  Messages such as this are perhaps interesting to the public but they aren’t really ‘need to know’. 

However, social media does play a vital role in disseminating information and reducing corruption.  In terms of fighting corruption, social media can empower users giving them a platform on which to speak (Bertot, Jaeger and Grimes 2010, p.264).  It also allows users to collaborate and connect with each other and form what Howard Rheingold calls a virtualcommunity (Rheingold).  A virtual community involves people coming together, in an online environment based on a common interest and in this case it would be political activism (Rheingold).  Social media also allows users to participate both in the creation of media and the ability to share this media and other information.  Social media sites such as WikiLeaks fosters what media theorist, Henry Jenkins calls participatory culture (DMLReseachHub 2011).  Assange and his WikiLeaks team take it upon themselves to be whistle blowers or digital activists (I’m sure the government believes them to be hacktivists) they take media into their own hands, producing and sharing media in their efforts to make a difference; holding the government(s) accountable for their transparency (DMLResearchHub 2011).

With all of this said governments are becoming more forth-right with sharing information with the public, encouraging transparency through the implementation of information communication and technology (ICTs) tools such as e-government sites (Bertot, Jaeger and Grimes 2010, p. 265).  In their bid to reduce corruption many nations have released these e-government sites giving public information on things such as how the peoples’ hard earned tax money is being spent (Bertot, Jaeger and Grimes 2010, p.265).  As the public can monitor the government’s expenditure it eliminates spending on wasteful projects (Bertot, Jaeger and Grimes 2010, p.265).

As long as people feel that the government is keeping public ‘need to know’ information from them, sites like WikiLeaks will continue to exist.  Even after all the ‘government attention’ WikiLeaks have confirmed that Assange has not been arrested yet (WikiLeaks 2012). 

 

Though the question remains is Assange a whistle blower, activist, terrorist or hactivist?

Comment below and tell me what you think

 

References

Bertot, J, Jaeger, P and Grimes, J 2010, 'Using ICTs to create a culture of transparency: E-goverment and social media as openness and anti-corruption tools for societies', Government Information Quarterly, vol. 27, no. 3,, pp 264-271 viewed 19 January 2013 http://ac.els-cdn.com/S0740624X10000201/1-s2.0-S0740624X10000201-main.pdf?_tid=6cc2aca2-773a-11e2-9e19-00000aab0f01&acdnat=1360910539_286d64a5b0e5cf7f6a966aeea7aa6be1

Kinsman, J 2011, TRUTH AND CONSEQUENCE: THE WIKILEAKS SAGA, viewed 19 January 2013 http://www.irpp.org/po/archive/feb11/kinsman.pdf   

Wachter, P 2010, Just Who is Julian Assange, the Man Behind WikiLeaks?, Aol News viewed 19 January 2013 http://www.aolnews.com/2010/07/26/just-who-is-julian-assange-the-man-behind-wikileaks/

 

Vote 1 for Social Media!

I recently went into a local election where I had no idea who the candidates were or what they stood for.  In the weeks coming up to the election I tried to find out.  I went through my usual channels I asked my friends, my family and then I went to Google.  I even tried watching the local news hoping that I could get some information but there was nothing… 

Come Election Day I voted for the names I liked the best and I wasn’t the only one.  My Facebook Newsfeed echoed the same concern, we the younger voters (even the more mature voters) had no idea who was to run our city and what they stood for.

Contrary to popular belief young people do care who is running their country (or their city).  In the book Millenial Makeover: How a Generation is Remaking America Mohammed (2006) said

‘Young people are not apathetic.  They don’t suffer from a lack of interest, but suffer from a lack of access’ (cited in Winograd, Morley Hais and Michael 2008, p. 164).

Let’s discuss a lack of access.  Young voters aren’t inaccessible when at any given time of the day they are connected to Facebook, Twitter and Instagram.  Perhaps the younger voter is not accessible in a way that Australian politicians are promoting their cause. 

The younger generation of voters are defined by sharing.  They feel the need to share whatever comes to mind at any given time enabled by social networking sites (Winograd, Morley Hais and Michael 2008, p. 167).

Most recently a YouTube video captured by the ABC (2012) of Prime Minister Gillard’s speech went viral.  She gave a speech labelling opposition leader Tony Abbott as a misogynist defending both herself and the women of Australia against alleged sexist remarks made in the past.  The West Australian (2012) reported that the video resonated so strongly with the Australian public the video was viewed more than 300,000 times on YouTube within the first day and made its way into international headlines in the U.S, Canada, India and South Africa.

According to social media expert Dean Power the sharing of the video was key to its success.  The more a video is shared, the more likely it makes it onto most watched lists and through the velocity of sharing it gets even more attention as it becomes famous on the internet.

Politicians may be feeling the pressure that they need to provide entertainment as well as credibility.  As Ms Gillard has just proved the public responded when she stood up for what she believed in.  She delivered a speech that was both passionate and eloquent.  There wasn’t anything humorous about the speech, she was authentic and it’s this authenticity that the Australian public responded to. 

In the book Campaigning for President (2008) Garrett M. Graff, author of the ‘The First Campaign’ observed the working of American presidential candidate Howard Dean’s campaign in 2004 he noted that

‘Dean didn’t master the technology, but he understood the energy  that was going on online’(cited in Johnson D 2008, p. 153). 

It’s this energy and passion that grips people emotionally and makes people want to support a candidate and if social media is used the candidate’s message will reach more people.   

Graff made the important point that

‘Now as the media and media choices change, so politics must change’ (cited in Johnson D 2008, p. 153).

In 2007 the Australian Labour Party tried something unheard of in Australian politics they launched the social media campaign Kevin ’07.  The campaign involved YouTube videos, text messages, blogs and the infamous Kevin’07 t-shirts.  Though not nearly as sophisticated as American social media campaigns this was a new way of attracting the public particularly the younger vote. 

During Barack Obama’s election campaign the website MyBarackObama was set up where the user can register to vote and contact others within the site sharing their opinions and organising events persuading the undecided to join Obama’s campaign.  This is what theorist, Howard Rheingold describes as a virtual community as people are uniting online and coming together based on the common interest of their political party (Rheingold).

The communities are a part of what theorist Henry Jenkins calls a participatory culture (DMLResearchHub 2011).  They are participating in a cause that they believe in producing and sharing media creating these events and showing support through email, Facebook, Myspace, YouTube and creating entities such as ObamaGirl trying to persuade the undecided or the ‘non-believers’ to convert.

This year the Prime Minister must set a date for the federal election and judging from Julia Gillard’s and Tony Abbott’s Facebook pages (152, 201 fans & 27,946 fans) social media doesn’t appear to be their angle.  To capture the votes of the younger voter and the time poor it is imperative that they move some of their campaigning online and perhaps employ the participatory culture tactic as Obama did, letting his supporters boost his profile.  However, Australia has a long way to go before politicians start using the sorts of social media campaigning that American’s have adopted.  As they say Australia is 10 years behind America (maybe in this case 20).  Thanks for having a try Kevin!

(Hawkins 2012)