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.