A new world order?
Cahill describes himself as a kind of John Adams — a revolutionary who is just trying to make the world a better place. The analogy is certainly interesting. Many New World settlers who emigrated from Europe were certain that they could establish radically new social orders in the Americas. Early settler John Winthrop was famous for saying "we shall be as a city upon a hill, the eyes of all people are upon us." The goal was to create a new Zion free from European conventions and political baggage.
Today, Second Life and other virtual reality environments reveal the very real possibility that virtual space is livable space. Like the New World, it is virgin territory, unspoiled and open-ended (with all due respect to native Americans). The prospect for social renewal has some political ideologues (including some transhumanists) frothing at the mouth in consideration of the possibilities. In their mind utopia is only a few mouse clicks away.
At least until the big nasty corporations come in and rain on the parade. And that is precisely why the SLLA has taken it upon themselves to uproot what they perceive to be a very serious problem.
Personal livelihood and distributed personhood
Linden Labs claims that by allowing corporations to operate in Second Life they have opened a legitimate revenue stream. It's only recently, they say, that they have become a profitable company.
Which brings up an important question: is Linden Labs accountable in the way the SLLA claims they should be? There are a number of factors to consider.
First, Linden Labs is a company, not a government. Users are paying customers who voluntarily enter SL for entertainment purposes. Some even make a couple of bucks on the side. At the same time, however, users are the cogs that run the machine. In this sense they are like collaborators or workers who keep the environment running. The line distinguishing customer and collaborator is becoming hazy.
That said, there are two critical aspects to consider as virtual worlds mature: personal livelihood and distributed personhood.
Linden Labs opened a huge can of worms by allowing an internal economy to exist in-world. Savvy users are finding ways to make a living by exploiting scarcity in SL. Consequently, more and more people are becoming dependent on SL for their income. Moreover, it's not unreasonable to suggest that many future business models will come depend on virtual environments of this sort. They will be places to conduct business.
Article comments
1 - Raoul
This is all so silly to me. I just don't see the point of wasting one's time in a virtual world. There's a whole real world out there for humans to explore, love and cherish. That's where I prefer to spend my time.
2 - Prokofy Neva
I'm fairly certain the SLAA is fake, a concoction by metaversal development companies to sort of spoof and guide the media coverage of dissent in SL, to make it look ridiculous and a caricature of itself, and thereby discredit any dissent. Each time some serious criticism or movement gets going in the world, like the Tsar's Secret Police concoction Prompartiya, the SLAA appears and grabs headlines so that the real issues are ignored.
If they didn't exist, someone would have to invent them; and so they did. No one ever heard of them before American Apparel was opened; they have no indigenous roots at all.
It's funny to me that you're just tuning into dissent that seems to fit into some transhumanist worldview of yours, George, and you've ignored other kinds of dissent from liberal to conservative that goes on all the time in SL. You have the long-term problem of people permabanned from the company forums and blogs for critical expression; you have people even permanently expelled who are non-conformists in various ways while a blind eye is turned to those who are privileged coders -- they're given a pass.
I've led the call for demanding a collective seat on the board of Linden Lab for all those paying tier, or maintenance fees -- which now make up 80 percent of LL's bottom line, and are their chief source of revenue. Nothing about us/without us, I say. Profound changes are inflicted on the world and we have little say in them. Ways must be found to ensure representation of all kinds of classes of people -- non-verified no-payment accounts; educators' free accounts, etc.
Imagine, in keeping with a rigid, orthodox notion of "the wisdom of crowds," the Feature Voting Tool does not enable you to vote "no"; it's like a Soviet republic, only yes, and only yes to what already fits the Company's line.
The SLAA never takes up any of the inworld issues and never really grapples with the serious issues of corporate accountability in the real world, in areas such as extractive industries. Instead, it's a caricature of a radical movement with artwork that looks suspiciously like the builders of American Apparel itself -- it's a kind of gag, no doubt, a marketing stunt that lots of people have fallen for.
I do hope you take a closer look at SL and become familiar with the inworld and outworld corporate influence issues. I think the word needs more critical perspectives from all types of worldviews.
More avatar rights are bound to come, but these notions of endless land or property or creativity for everyone has to run smack up to the problem of who pays. Like freedom of the press belongs to him who owns one, maneuverability of governance in SL belongs to those who own land.
3 - Keksakallu Klata
I think Prokofy Neva's tirade is rather ill-informed and prejudiced.
If anyone wants to know if we in the SLLA are sincere or not, why speculate? Come and talk to us inworld. You will meet scores of serious and intelligent people committed to securing a representative institution for avatars.
Keksakallu Klata, Strategy Officer, SLLA