The illusion of Second Life government
Filed under: Opinion, Second Life, Politics, Virtual worlds

Tateru Nino's recent post about F.I.R.E., an organization claiming to be Second Life's first political party, reminded me of a blog I wrote in 2005 about Second Life's de facto political parties. It's well worth the read, if only for the humor factor, but the gist of the article was basically that several political parties are starting to informally emerge in the arena of ideas. In today's article I would like to discuss two of the most passionate and vocal de facto parties whose debate rages on even today...
The Nation Party - Those who believe that Second Life is a "world," a "nation," or a "country," and should be treated as such which includes the formation of a government.
The Platform Party - Those who believe that Second Life is client-server software owned and operated by a private company and should be treated as such.
What should be an obvious and quick debate can actually become quite sticky, especially when the definitions of terms like "world" and "government" can vary from formal to casual usage, and when the legitimacy of a term's usage may vary with scope. It becomes even more confusing when the nature of Second Life itself creates an illusion that resembles something profoundly familiar to us for which we have deeply-held, preexisting expectations.
To avoid getting bogged down in loaded terminology, let's take a moment to peel away some of Second Life's marketing, their romance, and their dream to examine exactly what Second Life really is. Second Life is software and an array of databases owned by Linden Lab that store and retrieve 3D geometry, textures, and other kinds of data to be accessed via a 3D user interface by multiple users on the internet. Like any data storage and retrieval system, users can store whatever they want on this database including 3D pie charts, graphical representations of live data, or surreal streams of swirling color and light. The possibilities are endless.

But what Second Life residents mostly enjoy creating on this platform are virtual representations of the real world, or a slight fictional variation of it. Residents create cities, suburbs, farms, oceans, airplanes, automobiles, cottages, furniture, firearms, sex toys, pets, and many other things we would find in the real world. But they don't stop at simulated property as they also use Second Life as a medium through which to they can express themselves, socialize, debate, or even fall in love.
The more SL residents make this platform appear "real" the more we may fall into the trap of using incorrect models and analogies comparing Second Life to the real world. After all, an explorer in Second Life will immediately notice simulated land masses with different regional areas that host different SL cultures such as furries, goths, or Gor. These communities band together to achieve common goals and repel opposing interests (did somebody say war?) Groups are formed where informal or even occasionally formal rules dictate their behavior lest they are asked to leave. The land, the social interaction, the governance ... it really does remind us of our everyday lives.
So why then doesn't this world have a government? Well, I guess it depends on your definition of "government." In informal terms, pretty much any organization that imposes rules over any group is, in a matter of speaking, a government including your own group of friends. On a slightly more formal level, the famed Neualtenburg project founded by Ulrika Zugzwang and Kendra Bancroft featured three governmental branches including an Artist's Guild, a Representative Assembly, and a Supreme Court. But Neualtenburg was never Second Life's government.

These highly localized notions of government just don't get to the crux of the Nation Party's ideals. To the Nation Party, SL government goes all the way to the top, right to Linden Lab itself. Rather than seeing Linden Lab as a corporation, this party believes LL should be viewed as a ruling body with all the responsibilities of a government "by the people, for the people." For example, a failed 2005 effort by Jarhyn Wilde to submit a user "Bill of Rights" included demands such as Freedom of Speech, Expression, Press and other mainstays of a free society that are beyond what a corporation would be required to offer. Many others wish to dictate Linden Lab's hiring practices, how they promote people, with whom they contract, and their employee policies. Others have gone so far as to propose a completely democratic rule over Linden policy that would essentially amount to allowing Linden Lab's customers to make corporate decisions.
I see this as a confusion in scope, where "governments" (and I'm using this term very informally) are contained by other governments, like a set of Russian matryoshka dolls. In the Real World we could start an analysis of governmental levels with the laws of physics ... by far the highest authority there is. Beneath that we have International law, which (more or less) presides over the governments of sovereign nations, which go on to oversee state and local government which contain mini-informal governing bodies such as corporations and clubs.
Given this model Nation party members see Linden Lab as a sovereign nation, but I think this view is flawed. As real world colonists arrive upon an unoccupied patch of land it's understood that no single human created that land. It is therefore out of fairness that governments are formed to determine how they will live and allocate resources in this newly discovered country. A sovereign nation is born.
But in Second Life we do have a creator and owner; it's a corporation ... Linden Lab. Linden Lab designed the software, implemented the framework, spent the (considerable) capital, hired the employees, and owns servers. Second Life residents did not happen across Linden Lab's servers as if they were some kind of natural resource which they must now determine how to allocate. They set up their home within Linden Lab's realm. It would perhaps be a better analogy to think of resident-driven governments like Neualtenburg as the nation, and the policies of Linden Lab as the universe's laws of physics. Your avatars can meet, discuss, vote, and legislate all they like, it's not going to change anything.
If this seems oppressive or unfair, then it may be because you're still staring at Second Life's compelling 3D user interface and seeing something other than a privately owned database. Users of IRC, Facebook, Myspace, and other online social environments never get around to demanding a government. These applications just don't LOOK like something that should have a government. But at the core the systems are identical to Linden Lab when it comes to government responsibilities ... they have none, only corporate responsibilities.
Don't get me wrong. I'm not trying to tell you to shut up and take whatever Linden Lab shoves your throat! Residents have real power to change things. But it won't happen by treating Linden Lab as a government but rather as a corporation vitally interested in staying profitable. Feature and policy requests by residents will be taken very seriously if they fit in with Linden Lab grand scheme and if they perceive the changes to be potentially profitable. Under more hostile conditions, a boycott and an appeal to the press could shake LL into corporate action. Finally, residents always have the option to take Linden Lab to court if the company's policies may be considered unlawful. None of this makes Linden Lab a government, but it is a real way users can influence their virtual world.
So folks can play government if it pleases them. At best the exercise will be fun but ineffective. At worst the faux governmental airs will add a cumbersome and unnecessary layer of formality that will distract from the free-market relationships that exists between Linden Lab and residents ... company and customers.

















Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
AnneDroid said on 4:31PM 11-04-2007
FIRE is ultimately doomed to mediocrity, due to the simple fact that there are no positions to which anyone (regardless of political affiliation) can be elected - save perhaps a position within thier own group.
At best, they'll end up being yet another set of special interest lobbists.
I use the term "special interest" for two reasons.
(1) The little I've heard about the group makes it sound like their main cause is gambling (i.e. "fix it, don't ban it").
(2) Few people I know who care to have a 'representative' from outside their own coterie. If politicians aren't bad enough, one that isn't even a member of your group isn't going lobby in your interests (except by accident).
The effect of lobbying isn't terribly strong in SL - especially when it comes to compliance with legal matters. Because this is widely known, their membership will consist mainly of those who are already interested in their foundational motives, and noobs who don't understand corporate liability.
Reply
Tateru Nino said on 9:11PM 11-04-2007
I call this my trailer-park model of governance. You and the park owner are both subject to the same basic rules. Within the park-owner's additional and lawful governance you may then lease (or buy under a covenant) land, and generally go about your business.
Reply
Uccello.Poultry said on 10:14AM 11-05-2007
A nation, as I learned in school (and from my Social Studies teacher brother), is a collection of individuals that share sufficient cultural traits and social goals as to be considered homogenous. I'm not sure that this could even describe many of the various groups I've seen in Second Life (SL), so I don't see how it could apply to the world in total.
Role Play (RP) communities that I frequent, such as Tamerthon, have governments because their participants agree to such as part of the game play. Non-RP communities also establish rules. As such, visitors are usually given a rules card or some other notice to behave within certain expectations. This makes a defacto government. This may work on a relatively small scale.
Consider the larger scale, though. Some values may be shared by communities of a similar nature, such as the Isle of Lesbos and Mysteria, or within the various lands used by Furries, but the differences between communities are fueled by the chaos created by failure of Linden Labs (LL) to sufficiently enforce existing rules and show that they support the decisions of individual communities to police themselves.
Chiefly, I refer to law breakers commonly referred to as "griefers." Recently a sandbox in the Wryms sims needed to be closed due to a griefer letting loose self-replicating objects. Yes, the sim owners had the tools to stop the problem. But LL would rather be able to crow about having a huge resident base than control the creation of free accounts favored by griefers for such attack or to restrict the abilities of these free accounts to be used to for ill will.
Similarly, LL merely slaps the wrists of those "regular" residents that decide to turn to griefing rather than behave as responsible adults. Instead of intelligently discussing her views or to back her claims, a visitor to a community I frequent recently attempted to cripple access to SL for several staffers of the community because she disagreed with the published rules. She created a free Alt account and used scripts published by a known griefing group to attack others. After about a half dozen Abuse Reports were filed by those affected, the Alt-avie recieved a three-day suspension before she attacked again.
Linden Labs may not have set out to be a government, nor may they wish to be one, but at this time LL is the only regulatory body. That others are seeking to displace LL from this position tells me that either there are a lot of people with nothing better to do or that there is a serious need.
Reply