Sustaining the Metaverse: A 3pointD Think Tank
As mentioned previously, 3pointD held its first Think Tank event last night in the new »Dirty sim« to discuss issues of sustainability as they relate to the broader metaverse. We had a gratifying turnout of 40+ people, with around half staying more than two hours until the proceedings were done. Thanks to everyone who showed up and contributed ideas, or just showed up to listen. A handful of really nice ideas came out of the meet. You can read a full chat log of the session, posted by SL resident, SignpostMarv Martin, but I’m going to sum up and extend a couple of the ideas that came up below. And look for our next Think Tank coming soon!
We began by simply going around the circle with everyone in turn contributing a few ideas related to metaversal sustainability that we could then expand on in the second half of the meeting. It was great to see such a broad range of topics raised, including:
• standards and interoperability between platforms
• user experience and retention
• technological barriers to entry
• technological limitations (avatars per sim, etc.)
• building community
• setting societal standards
• creating sustainable learning projects
• SL-Web functionality
• tools for communication and collaboration
• making avatars more expressive
• creating identities that are portable across the metaverse
• promoting “dirtworld” sustainability
• virtual architectural preservation
• integrating corporate projects
• relationship to real-world governmental concerns
• preserving privacy and anonymity in-world
• broadening concepts of what the metaverse is
We then split into five groups, each of which took on an admittedly broad topic. The groups discussed their chosen topics for half an hour, after which we gathered again to hear a presentation from each group, which I’ll sum up very briefly below. I had asked to concentrate on coming up with a project or other way we could push forward the ideas under discussion, so that’s what I’m concentrating on here. There were one or two other ideas that came up, which I’ll append after these summaries:
Group #1, Standards and Interoperability:
Group #1 suggested a public documentation effort to cover 3D Web protocols, the thought being that this might promote the creation of a standardized virtual space that allowed anyone to use and develop it. Adopting an open protocol or standard would allow for the import and export of objects between metaversal spaces, which would knit the metaverse more tightly together.
Group #2, User Experience and Community:
Group #2 discussed the need for better self-expression tools within the virtual world (such as emotes and avatar interaction, etc.), and the fact that increasing community events — such as a regularly scheduled themed event for the community that happened more than once a year — and giving the community better tools, etc., would have to come from the community itself, rather than from Linden Lab or another administrator. Making tools and capabilities more evident and easily accessed was also a goal, perhaps to be accomplished through heads-up displays for new users, as well as better in-world search functionality.
Group #3, Communication, Collaboration and the Web:
Group #3 agreed that for the metaverse to be sustainable, it would need a much better and more interactive connection to the World Wide Web. Interestingly, the group was split between whether it would be better to have the 2D Web embedded within a world like Second Life, or to be able to access the 3D world from within a Web browser.
Group #4, Promoting “Dirtworld” Sustainability:
Group #4 discussed the challenges of making the back-end infrastructure that runs the metaverse more environmentally friendly, and also whether there were ways to use the metaverse to make the rest of the world more “green,” including virtual conferencing and the like that might cut down on fuel and other costs. One of the ways to accomplish the later might be to speed adoption of metaversal platforms by improving interoperability or finding a “killer app” that promoted use (just as Amazon.com and eBay have promoted Web use). It was agreed, though, that despite past attempts at things like “the paperless office,” resource use has only continued to grow.
Group #5, Commercial, Political and Societal Concerns:
Group #5 agreed that societal standards were probably a good idea, but that they would need to be set and enforced at various levels, from real-world governments to companies like Linden Lab, organizations operating within the metaverse, and individuals themselves. Terms of Service were seen not to be sufficient, since different communities within the platform often have different standards of behavior. Promoting awareness of the metaverse as more than a game was thought to be helpful in this area. Metaversal residents would have to have a voice in governmental legislation specifically covering virtual worlds. The issue of protecting anonymity but also protecting privacy within the virtual world (from prying cameras, for instance) was also raised.
After the presentations wrapped up, we all ate some virtual cheese.
Speaking very broadly, there seemed to be three main lines of thought, each of which encompassed several issues, some overlapping with each other:
Community
• Promoting community cannot be left to the companies behind the metaverse
• Better technologies and applications of various kinds are needed to promote adoption and retention
• More autonomy was needed for users of the metaverse, as well as greater attention to privacy issues
• Users must pay more attention to the some of the ways in which the real world is beginning to overlap the metaverse, including governmental legislation and corporate concerns
Technology
• Open protocols or standards were needed to knit the metaverse more tightly together, and to the rest of the online world
• Beginning a public protocol documentation effort would be a good way to promote the above
• Better integration with the Web was needed for the same reason
Environment
• Users and creators of the metaverse must take greater care in seeing that they are doing so in an environmentally friendly way
• Applications can be developed to promote uses of the metaverse that might be beneficial to the real world’s environment
I’m sure I’ve missed some of the ideas that were brought up, so those in attendance should feel free to contribute them in the comments — and those not in attendance should feel free to contribute further ideas. I definitely want to hold more of these Think Tanks, hopefully on a regular basis.
One thing we might also want to do going forward is see whether there’s anyone interested in taking an active role in promoting some of the ideas above, by creating projects that residents and others can take on. Get in touch if you’re interested in any of this. I felt there was a fantastic level of energy at the meeting, and though not all the ideas were brand new to such discussions, I think an ongoing effort could help push them forward in ways they haven’t been before.
For now, thanks to everyone who showed up. I’m looking forward to next time.
Feeds
You’ve summed it up quite well ;0
I was sorry to have to miss this. The transcript makes interesting reading; all five group discussions were on important subjects, and all are things that need more thought. Great stuff. I will drop everything to be at the next one.
Walker, I was sorry to miss this event too and look forward to staying in touch with the group.
I have to say that the summary looks much better and much more detailed and coherent than the transcript, and I suspect that you have a lot of your concepts for structuring this discussion that you’ve superimposed on the summary. That’s ok — somebody has to do it — but I think it’s important to be aware that some of these values different groups are articulating are at odds with each other.
Some voices distinctly called for things like privacy and getting rid of the ability to maneuver cameras inside homes — they are in the Immersionist camp and using SL for socializing, cybering, etc. and not amenable to the values of creatnig real-life names, etc.shown by the Augmentationist camp using SL for business, ad campaigns, education. There are some cultural differences at stake surely; ultimately they are political. Will the same leftist/libertarian utopianist tekkie bunch who originally worked around Web 1.0 but who lost complete control over it as it became commercialized and controlled by variety of governments with opposing social systems now be able to seize control of Web 2.0 merely by leveraging their much-in-demand skills and early adapter connections? That’s how I see it.
Those who hanker to make uniform standards and identities across platforms and such tend to cluster with those advocating open source, yet the very capacity to make compelling immersive worlds may hinge on them keeping their proprietary, walled-garden status. The very ablity to keep these worlds from becoming menaces to the real world by serving as malicious griefer playgrounds and even terrorist networking base camps (in the worst case scenario) and or least cultural menaces that prey on vulnerable people with malevolent cults may hinge on the ability of meatworld government to intervene.
Who will pay for the Metaverse? There’s a received wisdom that the Metaverse growth will repeat the experience of the original World Wide Web, with mantra being that no company can create a walled garden like AOL or they will horribly suppress creativity, information wanting to be free, etc. (Because Compuserve is no more, they forget that AOL very much persists.)
To be truly intellectually rigorous, however, this group has to entertain that it might not be the case twice — that just as countries can’t all band together under the UN, open up all their borders, and have all their goods flow equally to each other, so virtual worlds may be compelled for all kinds of reasons of culture and economics and security — and yes, sustainability — not to allow this endlessly impermeability.
If you can transport objects between worlds, then that means they can be easily copied by extractors and replicators, and they lose their value for sale in their original world, and the free-market model for development is thrown out the window.
The governance issues discussion seem to revolve only around meatworld governments encroaching on virtual worlds and cyberspace.
But there’s a crying need for governance inworld, of course, and the management of conflicts and the creation of means to resolve disputes and end griefing. Obviously, that can’t be left to the Lindens, their chosen Resmods, or elites like the FIC or this self-selected group of metaversal musers, 39 of whom could fit on a sim, the discussion has to be as broad as possible and means for creating democratic participation have to be sought.
A missing piece to this discussion it seems is the affects of big business and commercial ventures on artistic and non-profit ventures or “pure sciecne” sustained by enthusiastic crowdsourcing; the preservation of value for small business and indigenous business and non-profit projects; and the issue again of who pays. A serious discussion of sustainability really has to focus on the issue of funding. Will it be Congressionally-funded or funded by government agencies like NSF? Will corporate sponsorship and private foundations be sufficient? Will consumers have to bear a significant cost, more than they do now for access to the original Internet, because there is simply a lot more labour and horsepower involved?
There’s a sort of touching assumption that Linden Lab, which isn’t quite yet profitable by their own admission, will be able to go on endlessly adding servers and even their own limited content and keep subscriptions free so that people trying to reduce conference costs promising free accounts.
While paying $9.95 seems nothing compared to paying $995 for an air ticket, by the time you have to tell a network of people you were able to talk to merely on email that they all have to pay $9.95, you’ve lost some of them.
There is also the question of the digital divide, which pertains not only among countries of the world, but right within generations within a household.
Good points, Prok. I’m definitely mapping my format onto the summary there. Also, I’m aware but could have made more clear that some of the ideas put forward contradict each other. But that’s okay, my goal was not to form a consensus, just to get people thinking, and hopefully doing as well.
Great session, thanks for making it happen. Yes, the ideas do contradict each other, that really is the whole point of it all. If there were no conflicting agendas and views, sustaining the growth of a healthy metaverse would be somewhat less challenging.
I had to leave before we presented our group’s discussion (#5), and I just wanted to add that it really comes down to people having choice.
Prokofy’s observation on the nature of something as fundamental as names is a great example. The metaverse tools should support both (all?) groups, giving people, groups, and organizations the ability to choose which path they want.
I’m looking forward to the next session to continue the dialogue.
Prokofy, keep in mind my tone here is not snarky. I merely wanted to clear up a few points, based on how I interpreted some of your comments. And I’m not saying that your intentions weren’t well-meaning, but I must admit that I was offended by some of what you said.
You said, “Some voices distinctly called for things like privacy and getting rid of the ability to maneuver cameras inside homes — they are in the Immersionist camp and using SL for socializing, cybering, etc. and not amenable to the values of creatnig real-life names, etc.shown by the Augmentationist camp using SL for business, ad campaigns, education.”
Firstly, I don’t think it’s fair to have me lumped in with a “camp” via this one-size-fits-all, us-and-them assessment. I was one of the participants who raised the issue of privacy, however if you knew me, you would be aware that I view interaction in Second Life and virtual worlds in general as an expansion of human existence into 3-D online space, not as something that is completely separate from the physical world. Through your words, it you wrongly judged me (even if indirectly) to be someone who is not open to using virtual worlds for purposes such as education, business and other endeavors. And that is completely inaccurate.
I just happen to value my privacy and I would like to be able to maintain it, including in the virtual realm — or at least some semblance of it. Or is privacy on a path toward becoming obsolete in places like Second Life? Also, why slap the label of “immersionist” on people just because they value their privacy? I just don’t understand the sharp line you drew, when in fact there are all sorts of nuances when it comes to how different people view virtual worlds.
In addition, I was by no means calling for “getting rid of the ability to maneuver cameras inside homes.” I was merely discussing the possibility that some feature(s) be developed in the long-term allowing users to decide for themselves how vulnerable they want to potential snooping — particularly inside of private residences. I don’t know what those features would be, or what the dollar cost would be, or how difficult implementation would be. I do, however, believe that it’s worth thinking about and exploring, at the very least.
Heh, that second sentence in the last graph should read: I was merely discussing the possibility that some feature(s) be developed in the long-term allowing users to decide for themselves how vulnerable they want to be to potential snooping — particularly inside of private residences.
What, no language? Software localization, et al? Global internet penetration is increasing; if you want to talk to people there should be preparation for that.
And insofar as the event - sorry I missed it, but I didn’t even know it was going to happen. Hmm. ;-)
What about Robert Nozick’s vision of utopia in “Anarchy, State and Utopia”. It seems to me that though his vision is not realizable in the real world due to the transaction costs involved in switching from one government to another, it is realizable in the virtual world because the transaction costs of switching are zero. Thus instead of democracy we could have a variety of different governance models, anarchy, communism, etc and anybody could just decide what government model they want by switching worlds.
I’m sure it must come as a terrible shock, Cheri, when you imagine your very pedestrian views to be so nuanced and special, but you *are* in a camp and there are many who *do* think as you do, and it’s a cluster. If your particular cluster also intersects with augmentationists, that’s fine, but for many it doesn’t — and you’re still in the privacy cluster. There’s a substantial minority that find privacy absolutely laughable, indeed any kind of life at all.
Maybe there are nuances, but the privacy issue is a very sharp dividing line. Those who have absolutely no concern about it don’t have any desire to use SL for anything private. They just goof around in it or do work or parachute in briefly. Those who want privacy want a second life — of course they are immersionists.