Second Life

In less than 20 minutes upon arrival, I found myself running around in a strange place with angel wings attached to my back and a beer bottle in hand.  No, I’m not talking about my Halloween experience last year.  I’m talking about my avatar, Rosie Osterham.

Second life is a virtual world video game on the internet in which you can choose your own character (called an avatar) as well as what it does.  The possibilities to this are endless.  Your avatar doesn’t even have to be human — some are even animals (or so I’m told…I’m still a novice so I haven’t seen one just yet).  As I started to fiddle around with my avatar’s appearance, I was given the option to have a double chin or not! (By the way, who would WANT a double chin?)

I’m still not entirely sure how I came across the wings (I think I found them in a box labeled “Free Stuff”), but I was able to use them to my advantage.  Not only did it give me the option to fly, but a very nice man named Eugene started a conversation with me which began, “Nice wings.”  Turns out he wanted a pair too.  So I just did a click-and-drag from my inventory box to him (still having no idea if that would even work), and he got them!  He was very happy about it.  In fact, he decided to give me a box of women’s clothing in return.  This was a great surprise to me because I was still in the generic dress that comes with the standard avatar.  I didn’t know how popular my avatar was until I arrived at “Orientation Island” and found about 8 other girls with brown hair and a pink dress roaming the island.  Although, I did stand out slightly since I had angel wings.

I probably spent a total of 4 hours exploring Second Life.  I barely scratched the surface.  There is so much to do, so much to see, so many people to talk to, so much to buy, SO MANY OPTIONS!  It is so open-ended, I was a bit overwhelmed with the magnitude of this game.  If Second Life has a point or message to get across to its users, I think I have a good idea of what it is:  Anything you can do in the real world, you can do here.  Anything you can’t do in the real world, you can also do here.

Second Life uses “Linden dollars” as its currency.  But make no mistake, this isn’t monopoly money.  It’s real.  That’s right, real.  People are actually paying for things that exist only in the virtual world.  Ailin Graef (avatar name: Anshe Chung) and her husband Guntram Graef created Anshe Chung Studios in Second Life.  CNET News reported that their company’s total holdings, mostly virtual land, were worth more than a million real-life dollars.  Wow.

Before you cry Emperor’s New Clothes on me, just think about this a little deeper.  REAL money is being exchanged in a FAKE world.  But is this world really fake?  I think we need to be careful with this one.  It’s virtual, not fake.  Although I can’t feel it, smell it, or taste it, I can see it and hear it.  That’s 2 out of 5 senses.  Having money factor into this virtual world makes it a virtual economy, which I think is a Pandora’s box just waiting to be opened.

Also pretty interesting is that some people participating in Second Life have gone so far as to attempt to perform Euripides’ The Bacchae.  Here is a clip of their rehearsals where they work out techinical difficulties with skin changes, etc.

Cancel your Netflix! Rally Together!

I’m leaving Netflix. Not only am I upset with the fact that they are getting rid of their profile option, but the way in which they are handling it is just plain rude.

It all started when I received an email telling me that on September 1, 2008 this option will be taken away.  Upon hearing this, I was pretty upset.  I became a member of Netflix in May 2007 and created a joint account with my roommate so that we could subscribe to Netflix while saving some money – we receive “2 at a time unlimited” for $12.99, thus we each pay only $6.50 to receive a “1 at a time unlimited” movie every month.  Considering that renting a DVD from Blockbuster averages about $4, and if you plan to see more than 1 a month, this makes sense.  If I were to subscribe to the “1 at a time unlimited” on my own it would cost $8.99.  With rising gas prices and a failing economy, I don’t want to spend an additional $2.50/month on movies.  So, it pays to have a roommate!  With the profile feature we can each log-in on our own, create our own playlists, and receive Netflix movies in the mail with our own name on it – no confusion, no hassle, no need to coordinate with each other.

This will all change when the Netflix profiles feature goes away.  They have announced this on their blog, and almost all of the 1,182 people that have commented (as of 11am on 6/27/08 ) say that this is a VERY BAD IDEA.  And I agree. SO WHY ARE THEY GETTING RID OF THE PROFILES FEATURE?  This is what they say:  “Please know that the motivation is solely driven by keeping our service as simple and as easy to use as possible. Too many members found the feature difficult to understand and cumbersome, having to consistently log in and out of the website.”

This feature was “difficult” ??  On the contrary, by NOT having this feature, my Netflix account will be VERY difficult.   And besides, this feature is an OPTION – it didn’t have to be used.  My roommate and I will no longer have the option to have separate log-ins or separate queues.  What does this mean?  A lot more hassle for the both of us.  We now have to strategically place each movie selection in our queue, and take turns as to who gets the next pick.  We will have to waste time talking about it and then waste more time online making sure that it our selections are equally distributed between us.  NOT HAPPENING.  I’d rather cancel and others feel the same way.

So, who’s with me?  Let’s band together and CANCEL Netflix. Or at least replace it with a different service.  Does any one have any suggestions as to a replacement?  Please comment below.  We are paying them for a service.  A service that is not listening to us and our needs.  We should really show them who is boss.

UPDATE…

Netflix has decided to NOT cancel its profile option.  Thanks, A.Tee.Dub, for letting me know.  Keep your Netflix, they do listen to what we have to say!

Wikipedia – What did we do before it?

I love Wikipedia.  Though it is not perfect, it is a truly brilliant way of sharing, collaborating on, and discovering information.

In Here Comes the Everybody, Clay Shirky describes this “unmanaged division of labor” as “spontaneous” and continues to write that “Wikipedia is able to aggregate individual and often tiny contributions, hundreds of millions of them annually, made by millions of contributors all performing different functions.”  Despite this “spontaneous division of labor,” I believe that we can trust Wikipedia as an beginning research tool.  By no means should we end there.  The amount of information that is available to us today through search (Google, Yahoo, AOL, etc.) is so large that we are able to look even further than Wikipedia.  Additionally, when compared to Britannica, Wikipedia is truly able to measure up.  And with costs of time and money factored in, Wikipedia wins hands down.

Part of the beauty of Wikipedia is that it is open to everyone — and I believe it should stay that way.  With the exception of a few articles that could be under heated debate, articles should be open to everyone and very rarely ‘locked.’  The entries in Wikipedia follow a power log distribution curve (where few people contribute a lot, and a lot of people contribute a little) which is similar logic to Chris Anderson’s The Long Tail. I believe that if Wikipedia closed itself down to the masses and allowed only verified ‘experts’ to create/edit articles, its popularity would quickly decline leading to an inevitable destruction of the site.  Prime example is Nupedia — the original intent of Jimmy Wales and Larry Sanger, until they stumbled upon what we now call Wikipedia.

I’m not sure how Wikipedia could be better set-up to better provide further accuracy.  Already, if an article is vandalized Wikipedians are quick to fix it, Wikipedia staff can put the subject matter on lock down or block a particular user, for repeat offenders, for a little over 1 day, which, they say, seems to work.

Here Comes Everybody!

Clay Shirky’s book, Here Comes Everybody:  The Power of Organizing Without Organizations,  eloquently describes how the Internet revolution’s social tools have given us the ability to form groups with ease we’ve never experienced before, causing major changes in social interactions, politics, and the economy. He compares this change with the invention of the printing press – scribes were put out of business, but the  society as a whole was able to benefit greatly (the increase in supply of books, increased literacy and knowledge, and therefore, increased employment).  With social tools available to us today, many-to-many communications are made easy and allow for a “shared awareness” to spread among people and groups.  Having a shared awareness among people in a group is key for action to take place.

Having lived in Boston during the devastating and shocking news of the abuse scandal in the Catholic Church, it was eye opening to read in Mr. Shirky’s book that it was the formation of the group VOTF (Voice of the Faithful) which led to Bernard Law’s resignation.  VOTF grew from just 30 people to 25,000 in half a year including international members, says Shirky.  VOTF used the Internet to get the word around.  Shirky writes:

What we are witnessing today is a difference in the degree of sharing so large it becomes a difference in kind…What technology did do was alter the spread, force, and especially duration of the reaction, by removing two old obstacles — locality of information and barriers to group reaction…No significant challenge to the hierarchy has ever come directly from the laity — until now.

Additionally, Shirky describes how the power law distribution also applies to social interactions.  I found this particularly interesting because a few weeks ago we read Chris Anderson’s The Long Tail in which he uses the same pattern to describe how online stores like Amazon, Netflix, and iTunes sell a large amount of popular items while the unique and less popular items are sold in small quantities individually, but as a whole, prove to be a large percentage of revenue.  Anderson’s power law distribution looks like this.  When looking at the power law for blogs, Shirky shows us that it looks like this.

Interesting stuff.

Lions, and Tigers, and GOOGLE, oh my!

What comes to mind when you hear the word Google?

Search, discovery, answers, questions, or even the colorful letters that makeup “Google” above the search box (which usually change daily according to the season/holiday, how cute!) — whatever may come to mind, it seems to be positive and beneficial.

So, you think, Google is great.  It allows the world to search its database about anything their heart desires, just one click, and we get it!  And their email is cool too – wow, it’s up to 6844 megabytes already?!  Thanks, Google, you’re the best.

Not so fast.  Remember when Mom told you if it sounds too good to be true, it probably is?  Well, it is.  All of this comes with a price: privacy.

“Don’t be Evil” is the corporate motto of Google.  John Battelle sums it up nicely in his book The Search by saying, “Don’t be Evil is a wonderful sentiment for describing the ethical boundaries of internal company dealings, but when your business is understood to be a global arbiter of human knowledge and commerce, sticking to such a principled stand can become extremely…tricky.”

What does “Don’t be Evil” really mean?  Play fair? Have morals? Google fails on both accounts.

1. Play fair.

Google currently controls about 59.3% of the search market, and about half of all online advertising revenue online.  It’s biggest competitor, Yahoo, owns only a measly 16.9% of the market.  According to The Wall Street Journal’s Market Watch,

Microsoft made an ultimately unsuccessful bid to acquire Yahoo earlier this year in an effort to build a formidable opponent for Google in the online search market. Yahoo opted instead to sign a search advertising partnership with Google.

If you think that this sounds fishy, you’re not alone.  Some are calling their practices anti-competitive.

The New York Times published an article called Relax, Bill Gates; It’s Google’s Turn as the Villain.  In this article, Brian Lent, the president of Medio Systems, is quoted,

Google is the new evil empire, because they’re in such a powerful position in terms of control. They have potential monopolistic control over access to information…I like and respect the Google guys, but let’s just say that their ultimate aim seems to me to be, ‘One Google under Google, for which it stands.’

Reid Hoffman, the founder of two Internet ventures, including LinkedIn, agrees,

Google is doing more damage to innovation in the Valley right now than Microsoft ever did….It’s largely that they’re hiring up so many talented people, and the fact they’re working on so many different things. It’s harder for start-ups to do interesting stuff right now.

According to Wikipeida, anti-competitive practices are practices that prevent and/or reduce competition in a market. These practices can lead to a monopoly.  Google seems pretty darn close to me.

2.  Have morals.

Think your emails are private?  What about your searches, or clickstreams?  Do you believe Google provides us with a comprehensive, unbiased, and free access search?  Think again.

Did you know that Google can review your personal information whenever it wants to?  John Battelle reiterates Google’s company policy:

We may share [private] information…[if] we conclude that we are required by law or have a good faith belief that access, preservation or disclosure of such information is reasonably necessary to protect the rights, property or safety of Google, its users or the public.

REASONABLY NECESSARY?  Who determines this?  Mr. Lent had certainly had it right, “One Google under Google, for which it stands.”  How far will Google take this?  Who do they think they are?  And, why are we so trusting of them?

A portion of Google’s mission statement states:

Google’s mission is to organize the world’s information and make it universally accessible and useful.”  And proudly boasts that after using Google you will understand “why others say, ‘Google is the closest thing the Web has to an ultimate answer machine.’

China would not agree with this.

In fall 2002, due to strict government regulations, the Chinese government filtered out Google among other search engines.  After two weeks, Google was restored back to Chinese citizens – but, when one would click on a link that posed problems with Chinese government, they were redirected to a government approved site.  Soon after, Google announced,”…in order to create the best possible search experience for our mainland China users we will not include site whose content is not accessible.”  I agree with John Battelle when he points out that,

Clearly Google was taking out all evidence of the banned site because that’s what the Chinese government wanted it to do…by working with China to omit certain sites, Google had seemingly become an accessory to evil.

Exactly.  This was a precedent set by Google.  Who else will be given the authority to tell Google what should and should not be on their search?  Who else will be blocked?  How far will this go?

Google is [currently the major] one of many ways to search the database of intentions that John Battelle talks about in his book, The Search.  The Database of Intentions is the aggregate results of every search, and paths taken from there.  It represents “a placeholder for the intentions of humankind – a massive database of desires, needs, wants, and likes” for all to know, or discover.  Pretty intense.  This has already had a huge impact on today’s society, and there is still more to come.

Who Else Wants to Easily Find What You Want at the Price You Want?

As noted in his book The Long Tail, Chris Anderson’s three forces of the Long Tail include democratizing the tools of production, cutting costs of consumption by democratizing distribution, and connecting supply and demand — or, more simply, as the start of the chapter states, “make it, get it out there, and help me find it.” By reducing the costs of reaching niches, our culture is able to move away from the head of the demand curve (the hits) and towards the tail (the niches).  We’ve been given more options, more variety!  Anderson says, “For the first time in history, hits and niches are on equal economic footing…popularity no longer has a monopoly on profitability.”  Sounds good to me.

I really enjoyed this book, and started googling “long tail” and other combinations online just to read more about it.  I came across an article that interested me particularly because I love the performing arts world, as well as the movie-making industry.  In this article, major movie-makers from Hollywood admit that shooting digitally changes acting, directing, and the editing process drastically.  Now that we are in the digital age, it seems to me that film is being used less and less.

Digital video cameras are a Long Tail toolmaker, and aid in democratizing production (the first force of the Long Tail as I mentioned above). Now that we are in the digital age, it seems to me that film is being used less and less.  The everyday use of the digital still-camera is an example of this.  Who really carries around a non-digital camera when digital cameras provide us with so much more and at a reasonable price? The accessibility and overall costs (not only of initial purchase, but also including costs of function, maintenance, and printing) associated with the two make digital cameras a winner.  What is the repercussion of this?  I, personally, take many more photos than I ever have.  Additionally, after uploading them to my computer, I spend lots of time adjusting the saturation, sharpness, brightness, and red eye.  I’ve been given more power over my photos, and in turn, they are better for it.

I think the same is true for the movie-making industry in this case.  If not now, then over time we will see a better quality of movie surface due to this change.  Actors have less pressure on them to “get it right the first time” and are given more opportunities to repeat a scene.  Directors have more power than ever: a good and bad thing.  But, after reading the comments on this article, I think Mike Walsh is on to something when comparing the transition of silent movies to talkies with the article’s mention of a director over-working the star actor unnecessarily:

…Right now we are dealing with unintended fallout from digital “filming”, such as overly long takes or murky colors. The upside is that the cost savings, while unimportant in big budget movies, are important in smaller, character driven productions. Just as the painter’s choice of medium (ie watercolors vs. oils) change the kind of painting they create, eventually a consensus will be reached on how the new systems are used.

Well put.

PODCASTS

Additionally, I’ve been asked to blog about my experience with podcasts and I just have to say that I can’t believe I didn’t get into these sooner.  I’ve had iTunes for at least 3 or more years now, and each time I would accidentally click on the ‘podcast’ option, I would quickly exit out and not return.  I was missing out on a lot!  And it’s FREE (? which still confuses me a bit!)

I listened to a handful of podcasts, but found The Economist’s Democracy in America segment, “John McWhorter on Hip-Hop Politics” posted June 12, 2008 (can I link to podcasts?) to be particularly interesting.  McWhorter believes that hip-hop doesn’t make anyone do anything. From acting on a violent theme that it endorses to going to the polls to vote, hip-hop has proven to not be an effective medium. He goes on to praise Barack Obama’s campaign strategies of reaching out to the young vote in ways that have never been done.  Other things come into play when it comes to getting people to vote, mainly, effort (such as the Get Out the Vote campaign).

Reading Response: “We the Media” by Dan Gillmor

After reading, We the Media by Dan Gillmor, I have been asked:  What is the most important point, and why?

Gillmor makes two major points.  First, the Internet has given us the ability to exchange information and converse openly, freely, and very easily, which in turn, has and will continue to forever change traditional public relations, journalism, politics, and Big Media as we know it.  We the Media.  Anyone can be a reporter, photographer, critic, and the like.  Additionally, Gillmor stresses that it is vital that we fully embrace this change and allow ourselves to be part of it, not to ignore it, in order to succeed.

Up until very recently, traditional media was all we had.  Whether we received it via TV, radio, newspapers, or books, we were only consumers of news.  Today, with Internet websites like OhMyNews and Kuro5hin, participatory journalism has blossomed.  And, rightfully so!  Two heads are better than one. And, collectively, the audience knows more than the experienced member of the press.  Gillmor outlines this very well, and goes on to mention that participatory journalism is also helpful in unique niches, which I agree.  Gillmor says, “My main focus in this book is on what happens when people at the edges participate in the news-gathering and dissemination processes…The news is what we make of it, in more ways than one.”

In order to succeed in PR, journalism, politics, and business in the 21st century, we must understand and participate in this conversation.  We must recognize its value and importance and follow suit.  In Chapter 6, Dan Gillmor goes on to discuss traditional media’s opportunity, in which he criticizes the choice some organizations make to not include reporters’ or editors’ email addresses at the end of stories, and The Washington Post’s webchats as not enough interactivity with the audience.   I think he’s gone a bit too far and I have to disagree.

Depending on the organization, providing an email address at the end of an article is not always necessary.  Any person with a valid question or comment can discover contact information, whether it be on the “Contact Us” link, or choose to call the main number, or use the generic email address provided.  I believe that perhaps by making it “too” accessible, the writer/editor would be bombarded with bogus emails cluttering their inbox, making it a waste of time – already short on time with numerous deadlines.  I believe The Washington Post’s attempt at community discussions and conversations via their webchat is a good idea.  Additionally, they have links to blogs, past and current discussions, and podcasts.  Instead, I wish Dan Gillmor provided constructive criticism on what exactly the site is lacking – because to me, it seems well done.  Realistically, what more could they have done to increase interactivity in this case?

We the Media was informative and interesting.  With the exception of a few comments, I agree with Dan Gillmor and enjoyed his book.