Zoning? In a Virtual World?

The past two posts have sketched out the cases for and against regulation. On one hand we need regulation in virtual worlds to provide the orderly and predictable environments in which commerce and education can be pursued. On the other hand, regulation seriously inhibits the potential of virtual worlds as a medium of self expression and exploration. Can these two conflicting potentials of virtual worlds both be achieved? Or will one have to give way to the other?

I think they can both be achieved via virtual world segmentation or in more common terms zoning. Zoning can be achieved fairly easily. Each simulator or virtual location should have a set of attributes associated with it indicating its regulations. For example, it may require visitors to be over a certain age and may require user authentication. Another simulator may allow anonymity but require visitors to adhere to role playing rules. Anonymity may require some refinement. For example it is one thing to be anonymous to the land owner and another thing to be anonymous to the other visitors.

It may take some time to get a standard set of attributes that simulations will set, but careful zoning takes careful planning. Further, if the zoning attributes are selected carefully it will be possible to group simulators into parallel virtual worlds. These parallel worlds might emphasize commerce, education, tourism, art, socializing, self expression, or any other thematic attributes.

In addition, each avatar would have similar attributes. These may include age, anonymity, credit worthiness, and social or moral restrictions. Again, these attributes would have to be carefully thought out. And just like today where vendors target certain market segments, virtual world developers would target a specific segment of the visitor population.

This attribution would allow a wide range of opportunities for sef expression while preventing someone from inadvertently landing up in an undesirable neighborhood. At the same time it would allow land owners to restrict undesirable visitors. If this all sounds a little too confining, don't forget that you can always have multiple avatars, some well documented and some anonymous. So, it seems to me, that it solves the problem of reguation. Hey, maybe we should start doing this in RL as well.

The Argument Against Regulation

By far the most impressive feature of Second Life in particular and virtual world technology in general is the capabilities that it provides its users to express their creativity and imagination in a globally accessible public forum. This includes creating a new environment and creating new persona. If you can imagine it, you can create it and experience it. See

http://doctorcosmos.blogspot.com/2009/01/creating-your-second-life-part-2.html

for more details on this idea.

So, if we see virtual worlds as a technological extension of our imaginative capabilities, then regulating virtual worlds would be like regulating your imagination. It would be like saying - no, there are certain things that your are not allowed to imagine. This sounds an awful lot like the thought police of 1984. I should mention that I am referring to the book 1984 by George Orwell. In this world of web pages and short memories, readers might think that I am referring to the year 1984 when the world was ruled by dinosaurs and Roman Legions.

But, if the negative implications of the thought police are not sufficient justification for limiting regulation in virtual worlds, or if 1984 was so long ago that it has no bearing on what we are discussing today, then consider what we might loose in the future by regulating virtual worlds.

We believe in freedom of expression as one of the basic tenets of our modern world. If anyone were to suggest regulating the content of web pages, there would be an out cry of self righteous indignation that could not be contained. Even if a web site says offensive things we believe that free expression benefits society far more than the offensive expression hurt it.

The things people do in a virtual world are no less expression than words on a web page. And while society benefits from a diversity of idea, both society and individuals benefit from the ability to freely explore their imaginations and creativity. You can try things in a virtual world that you cannot easily try in the real world. And you can try these things in an environment where potential damage is minimal. If we regulate virtual worlds we are saying, not only that there are ideas you cannot think, but there are new ideas that you cannot try. This in turn suggests that we already know the answers to all our questions about everything and we know the answers to any future questions that might arise. This is silly on the face of it. And, in turn, regulating virtual worlds is silly on the face of it.

But, in order to make this argument more compelling, we should ask - what are some of those things that we need to explore in virtual worlds that justifies this lack of regulation? And that will be the topic of the next post.

The Argument for Regulation

In this post and the next I plan to make the arguments for and against regulation of virtual worlds. The argument for regulation is the easiest and the least compelling so I will address it first. The argument for regulation of virtual worlds is basically the same as the argument for regulation in any sphere. People need a predictable environment in which to conduct their businesses and social affairs. Without some sort of regulatory structure short term gains by opportunists will lead to long term losses in the system as a whole. This is not to say that there is anything inherently wrong with short term opportunists. In fact, there is much to be said in favor of them. Them make the system more efficient. But the line between efficient and predatory is often very finely drawn. And a predatory environment cannot flourish over the long term.

To put this into more pragmatic terms, if I cannot trust an environment in which I am operating, I am unlikely to take risks in that environment. If the environment needs people to take risks in order for the environment to flourish, then the people must be able to trust the environment and the environment much meet the expectations of those risk takers.

To put this into even more concrete terms, if I do not trust a virtual world environment I will be unlikely to start a business, sell a product, offer a service, teach a class, hold a meeting, or any of the other activities that the virtual world needs me to do in order to reach its full potential. So, regulation is necessary if a virtual world is going to become a place of commerce, education or socializing.

In the early days of web technologies, people were reluctant to buy products that they could not touch and even more reluctant to give their credit card number to some unknown entity in cyberspace. Companies like Amazon.com offered excellent return policies and promised to protect their customers private information, such as credit card numbers. This was a form of self regulation and, in the case of the web, it was all the regulation that was necessary.

I don't think that this would be enough regulation for a virtual world. On a web site, you don't have people from some other web sites coming to where you are and harassing you. And if you find yourself on some undesirable website, you can merely close your browser. You don't have to worry about leaving your avatar there until you log in again. So, virtual worlds present difficulties that do not exist on web sites.

I would view a virtual world more like a shopping mall, maybe even a town. Even though the individuals in that mall or town may be behaving within the boundaries placed on them as individuals, a few more restrictions are probably necessary so that everyone can get along and prosper. So virtual worlds will require some level of regulation to thrive and the question is - how much? Too much regulation has its down sides as well. And we will get to that next.

Should Virtual Worlds Be Regulated?

Should virtual worlds be regulated? The simple answer is - yes, of course they should be. This is, as they say, a no brainer. Everything in civilized life is regulated. The important questions are how much and what kind of regulation are appropriate. And that is where it gets tricky. What we strive for in ethics is to find a balance between individual empowerment and social harmony. Virtual worlds provide amazing opportunities for individual empowerment and that should be encouraged. However, empowered individuals can be a major threat to social harmony and that needs to be curtailed.

One way to approach the idea of regulation in a virtual world is to ask which of these two desirable goals (individual empowerment and social harmony) is more fundamental. In the real world we usually take social harmony as more fundamental, allowing individuals to find ways to express their individuality as long as it does not seriously impact social harmony. So, should virtual worlds follow the same priority scheme and balance that we find in the real world? Perhaps, yes. Perhaps, no. And despite indications to the contrary, we are making progress.

If we see virtual worlds as an extension of the real world, then our priorities with regard to the real world should carry into virtual worlds. If we see virtual worlds as a thing apart from the real world then perhaps it may make sense to change the priorities. Let's consider two examples; one in which virtual worlds are an extension of the real world and one in which virtual worlds are a thing apart. Perhaps we can then extrapolate from those to cases and make some progress on this issue. And we will do that. But that will begin with the next entry.

Reflecting on Virtual Worlds

I got lazy over the holidays and did not post a blog entry last week. I apologize for that. I did, however, spend a fair amount of time reflecting on things as I am accustomed to doing over the winter holidays. One of the things I reflected on was the significance of virtual worlds. And, as the title of this blog is Ranting and Reflecting, I thought a little reflecting might be in order.

It was a little over two years ago that I stopped caring about the real world and started caring about virtual worlds. I know how bizarre this sounds but if you will bear with me over the next few paragraphs I think I can make some sense out of it.

I used to be obsessed with the real world; particularly in the areas of history, geography, literature, philosophy and technology. Over the past twenty or so years I have listened to hundreds and hundreds of recorded books. (I am a slow reader so listening is much easier for me.) I have listened to thousands of hours of recorded lectures. I was an obsessive viewer or documentary cable channels such as History and Discovery. And, in recent years, I had become a news junkie. But, just a little over two years ago, all that changed. I discovered virtual worlds. And now I study virtual worlds with the same passion that I used to apply to the real world. Am I crazy? Or, it there an important underlying logic to this shift in focus?

Galileo is credited with the observation that people studying the natural world should not waste their time with what is actually "out there". Instead, he suggested that we should study idealizations of things in the natural world. Anyone who has had an undergraduate physics class has heard of some of these elementary idealizations such as a frictionless inclined plane, free fall in a vacuum, or an ideal spring. These thing do not exist in the world. They are constructs abstracted from things that exist in the world for the purpose of study. Relativity theory would be largely unexplored if we actually had to observe real world object traveling at the speed of light.

Centuries later Max Weber made a similar suggestion for social science. He observed that things like bureaucracies do not actually exist even in the social world. And yet to study the social world we need "ideal types" - concepts abstracted from the real world for he purpose of study. The real world is a messy, unruly and uncooperative place for study. By abstracting the essense of some phenomenon and studying the essence, we can make much bigger strides in understanding what is out there.

It isn't just scientists that do this. Writers of fiction do something very similar. They abstract the essence of human experience and motivation and call it a plot. They study the plot in the abstract and see how it will unfold. You can learn a great deal about life by reading a good novel. In fact, you will learn a great deal more about life from a novel than you will ever learn by reflecting on your own experiences. It is this process of abstracting the essence and then studying the abstracted essence that gives us such profound intellectual purchase.

In much the same way, virtual worlds are an abstraction or an idealization of the real world. They allow us to abstract the essence of our experience in an idealized environment for the purpose of study. While all those tapes that I listened to on history, philosophy, literature, and science have given me insight into what has happened, the time I spend studying virtual worlds gives me insight into what "can" happen. And in a rapidly changing world there is value in knowing what is coming as well as what has come and gone.