Second Life

I know everyone has written about Second Life and all of its many implications, but in an effort to do some actual media research, I've actually created an account. I spent most of the afternoon in an attempt to make myself some money from nothing. I made $20 by signing up to participate in the occasional market research group.

The weird thing about Second Life is that there are actual jobs, with actual time requirements. There's a huge market for designers and coders, both in and outside of the SL environment. There's also a huge market for pornography, stripping, and other "illicit" activities. That's right. Have your created avatar strip for video game money. In fact, because of the online nature of second life, I'd venture to say that activities that are illicit in our "First Lives" are less so in Second Life.

I spent my afternoon pulling together $20 (thanks to a survey) in Second Life and turning it into $50 in a casino. I was hit on twice ("good looking avatar"...I wish I was kidding), I danced by the money trees, and I flew around. The world is on overload, so the graphics are slooooow. I doubt I'll stick around long, but it was an interesting experiment.

This was the article that spawned my interest--suburbanalia invading virtual space. When I think of the idea of a "second life," to me it's about doing something with your life that you don't have the freedom to in your "first life." But Second Life is turning into a replica of real life, exaggeratedly normal. There are fewer inhibitions and more designers, but my experience so far is that little else is different.

EDIT: Just as I was wondering how the hell people actually created ENTIRE second lives, somebody decide it was satire time. Check it out here, and get your First Life NOW! ;)

The Case of the Cranky Critic

I just finished Everything Bad is Good For You by Steven Johnson. I had hoped Emergence would go further than it did, but overall, I liked the book. Everything Bad was a completely different experience.

Before I go on, I want to say that I agree with Johnson's main point: TV, video games, and other visual media aren't inherently bad for us, and they aren't growing worse with time. I concur that popular media can make you smarter, and that they have a significant effect on human sociocultural growth. In all fairness, Johnson addresses a few of my complaints in his Afterword. None of that changes the fact that reading it was like pulling teeth. Aside from the hit-you-over-the-head-until-you-like-it tone and the (I'm sure unintentionally) snarky intonations of "indeed," "to be sure," "no doubt," and "to be certain" (not to mention incessent "I think," "I suspect," and "I imagine" phrases), I have two major criticisms, and it seems I'm not alone. Dana Stevens, also known as Slate's "Surfergirl" of pop culture, said this of an excerpt printed in the New York Times before the book's release:

“Not only does Johnson fail to account for the impact of the 16 minutes' worth of commercials that interrupt any given episode of, say, 24 (a show he singles out as particularly "nutritional"), but he breezily dismisses recent controversies about that program's representation of Muslim terrorists or its implicit endorsement of torture, preferring to concentrate on how the show's formal structure teaches us to "pay attention, make inferences, track shifting social relationships." Wait a minute—isn't a fictional program's connection to real-life political events like torture and racial profiling one of the "social relationships" we should be paying attention to? 24 is the perfect example of a TV show that challenges its audience's cognitive faculties with intricate plotlines and rapid-fire information while actively discouraging them from thinking too much about the vigilante ethic it portrays. It's really good at teaching you to think … about future episodes of 24.

Johnson certainly has a point, and I do think visual media have the ability to push our cognitive boundaries...but "smart" and "good" are hardly synonymous. Heck, bombs have gotten "smarter" in the last half century. "Smarter" isn't "better" unless there's an accompanying interest in using those newly improved problem-solving skills to solve, say, the immensely complex social and environmental problems facing our world.

I'm with Stevens on the second point, too: Visual media may encourage us to seek out new challenges, but that's not always a good thing. Challenging ourselves to regularly use our problem-solving skills is one thing, but the addiction Johnson associates with constant challenges in video games is, well, addiction, and like any other it has the potential to seriously disrupt an otherwise well-organized life. If you're bored to tears by menial tasks, you'll likely have trouble starting out in the workforce, especially if you're also very good at higher-level cognitive skills. It's good to have those skills, but I'm not so sure it's good to require mental exercise at all times, largely because menial chores will always be necessary for society to function.

So I'm sorry to "Heroes" and "Smallville" for taking my Johnson-inspired frustrations out on you. Each showcases social commentary in its own way. Whether that commentary is always forward-thinking or agreeable to this particular critic is a different issue which I'll happily discuss in-depth later.

Like Violent Video Games? Don't Move to Germany.

A recent article from MSNBC reports that legislation is in the works in Bavaria and Lower Saxony to lock up creators, distributors, and even players of violent video games in the wake of a recent school shooting.

I'm sure I'm not alone when I say I have serious reservations about media censorship. Germany both before and after reunification in 1989 has something of a history (though it is hardly unique) when it comes to censorship. While the official German constitution (taken from the West German constitution under post-WWII occupation) includes the right to free speech, it is subject to restrictions. Many of these restrictions, published in an index of "harmful materials" established by the Bundesprüfstelle für jugendgefährdende Medien or BPjM, are similar to American restrictions. Pornography may not be distributed to youth, and materials inciting violence or instructing people on how to commit crimes are heavily regulated. Materials provoking racial hatred are also regulated.

More notably, Germany regulates historical thought relating to its role and history in WWII strictly. The 2006 World Cup brought this regulation to the forefront of public view when President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran announced his plan to attend games held in Germany (he did attend, with diplomatic immunity) and over 1000 people gathered in Nuremberg in protest.

Controversy has surrounded violent video games since their very inception; political leaders and special interest groups around the world have long sought their regulation and censorship. Germany is certainly no exception in this case, and current attempts to censor games in Germany mirror reactions in the United States after the Columbine High School shooting of 1999 where a group representing families of Columbine victims pressed charges against the creators of the video game Doom. The presiding Colorado judge dropped the case citing "social utility in expressive and imaginative forms of entertainment, even if they contain violence," but the gaming industry has long exercised a certain amount of self-censorship.

Recent studies have partially vindicated groups who claim violent video games exacerbate violent behavior. On November 28, 2006, researchers at Indiana University released a report finding that adolescents who played violent video games experienced increased emotional arousal and decreased self-control.

By the standards of the Colorado judge, the violent content and even effects of video games does not eradicate their social value. Nevertheless, many political states limit free speech when it incites violence. In my opinion, video games--even violent ones--do not intend to incite violence. Nevertheless, the Indiana U study and others like it demonstrate correlations between biological and psychological damage (not necessarily violence) and violent video games. Under Germany's "Youth Protection Law" (Jugendschutzgesetz) that seems reason enough to regulate or restrict their use, and Germany in fact already requires video games distributed within the country to be altered to limit their violent content (see the article listed in the first paragraph). But the legislation under review goes further than those restrictions to imprison players of violent video games.

The relation between violent video games and real-world violence is indirect, but it is not absent. Nevertheless, it seems absurd to imprison players on the off-chance that their game-play may cause them to commit an act of violence.

Thoughts are welcome.