Inara Pey: Living in a Modemworld
Second Life, virtual worlds and virtual realities
I covered Rod Humble’s first year at Linden Lab last month – counting his time from the announcement of his appointment as CEO.
However, he didn’t “officially” log-in to Second Life as Rodvik Linden until the 11th January 2011 (although from his comments, he was busy exploring with an alt prior to that date).
To this end, just a quick note to say, “Happy Rezday, Rodvik! May you enjoy many more!”
Rod Humble once again demonstrates an adept hand and tongue when dealing with the media – this time the e-zine The Mark. It’s a fascinating piece that further demonstrates Rodvik not only grasps Second Life as a platform, he understands the importance of virtual identity. Take this extract:
The Mark: Do you think people existing in virtual worlds get closer to, or further away from, their true selves?
Rod Humble: I don’t have a clear answer on that, but I do have an opinion. There have been a series of high-profile people, from the head of Facebook to the Pope, talking about how social media should be about centering the individual – that it is all about your real life and ensuring that you don’t become a fractured person. I respectfully disagree with that.
I think that one of the healthiest things that technology can do is actually help us develop the different dimensions of ourselves that we portray in different situations. For example, the “me” at church is very different from the “me” who plays an online shooter game. The “me” talking to you now is very different from the one who will be at my parent-teacher-association meeting later tonight. We’ve always had that. I actually like the idea of enabling people to say, “In this community, I’m a completely different person, and I can hold views that aren’t going to seep into this other part of my life.” It’s a slightly heretical position, but that’s the one I take.
It may be a heretical position among his peers, but Rodvik hits the nail squarely on the head. No one in the world is ever “one” individual per se. Yes we may constantly present the same physical face to the world (although for those that wish to make use of cosmetic surgery, even that isn’t a given) – but the individual we present to different social aspects of our lives vary enormously. I am simply not the same person when among my family as I am when in the office environment of a major publishing house.
Of course, the “identity purists” will argue that this is not a matter of identity but rather of behaviour and personality; that while I may behave differently according to circumstances, my identity remains constant, as demonstrated by my having the same name on my office ID (when I have one!) as I do on my driving license. And in terms of ID cards and driving licenses they’d be right.
But they’d also be missing the point entirely. Identity is not distinct from either behaviour or personality. Rather it is intimately bound up with both, and that who were are and how we present ourselves to the world goes far beyond the a photo on a piece of paper or laminated card.
Facebook and, it now seems, Google Plus, would rather narrow the definition of identity to the two-dimensional aspects of name and photo, coupled with a verifiable address, as that better suits their marketing engines and their ability to generate revenues. I say “it seems” where Google Plus is concerned, because that situation is an unholy mess right now as regards “identity”, and it’s unclear how Google’s own tools may or may not be hooked-into Plus to reap data for their own use.
In taking this approach, the likes of Facebook are trying to enforce a form of conformity on their terms while remaining blind to the potential offered by virtual identities simply because the virtual does fit with the corporate modus operandi or world-view.
The fact is, “Inara Pey” is as much me as the person I present to business or to family and friends. In some ways she’s more “me” than the “real me” I am myself. Through her, I can integrate and publicly express facets of my personality that “real world” society would still deeply frown upon. I can, for example, mix my interests with fetish, D/s, etc., with my interests in business, psychology, politics, history, sport, etc., without (for the most part) being judged solely on the one aspect (fetish / D/s) some have determined to be “objectionable”.
She’s also a part of my psyche in other ways: she is an outlet for my writing on a variety of subjects; she represents me through Twitter and the like. In fact, I find it impossible – even discomfiting – to enter other virtual worlds without her, and so she existed in Blue Mars (as was) and exists in InWorldz, OSGrid, New World Grid, and Avination.
She only really differs in looks (although I’ve tried to mod her shape to be reasonably reflective of the “meat me”): I’m Caucasian in real life, whereas she is dark-skinnned. But even this is perhaps a subconscious reflection of elements of my “real” personality.
I say this because one side of my family’s history goes back to New Zealand, which has generated a deep interest in all things Maori in my in adult life. At the same time, I’ve been fortunate to spend a fair amount of time as an adult in Sri Lanka, and have developed a deep love for that country and its people. The fascination with both New Zealand’s Maori and the Sri Lanka people (Sinhalese and Tamil) seems to have influenced how Inara herself looks.
This genuinely wasn’t a conscious act on my part when I decided to give her a virtual make-over last year. However, the look evolved somewhat subconsciously over a period of several months, and has left me feeling that her appearance is a result of these various inner voices and aspects of who I am coming together to give her form. so to me, physical and virtual self, are deeply intertwined emotionally and psychologically; and I doubt I’m alone in feeling this.
And while she may not have a credit card or a driver’s license or a passport, it’s about time that big business caught on to the fact that she can still be a consumer (and again, that’s really what a lot of the kerfuffle about “real identities” is about: the ability to connect producer with consumer). This is because advertising, promotions, and the like that are directed at her still reach me. Certainly, they do screw with FB’s (and the likes) abilities to carry out wider data-gathering and limit their ability to gain “real” influence (in their eyes) over people – but the fact is, *if* I end up purchasing something, getting involved in something (either directly, or through my digital persona, and accept the receipt of on-going communications, etc., from a service, company or group – does it really matter if it came about through contact with my digital self rather than the “real” (in their eyes) me?
Blimey, and I haven’t even started on privacy concerns and handing over my “real” identity over to the suits and shirts of FB et al is akin to handing them power over me…
But to return to the interview with Rodvik: as well as identity, he dives into the many creative facets of Second Life and the myriad ways in which it brings people together and how they interact once brought together. As such, it not only shows (again) that he gets the value of Second Life on just about all levels, it provides interesting thought for consideration, both by those of us involved in this frontier – and, dare I say, by those who would seek to limit our ability to explore it by forcing us to restrict ourselves to their interpretation of what can be classified as a “real identity”. Not that I can see it causing them to re-think their position, sadly.
If I were to take issue with Rodvik, it would in his answer to a question concerning the future of virtual worlds and how people come together, when he replies:
“Good question. I think that something big is going to happen when it comes to online associations, which are going to run headlong into conflict – probably with some totalitarian country somewhere. It’s a broader thing than just Second Life.”
My take on this – while it is slightly out-of-context to the question asked, which set commercial aspects of virtual interaction to one side – is on the one hand he is more than likely right right in his assessment vis “totalitarian countries”. However, on the other, for those of us already living on the edge of the “new digital divide”, the conflict is clearly already here, with the totalitarian drive is coming out of “big business”. How that is resolved may actually render anything else moot for us.
I would, however, end this piece on a lighter note, and wag a teasing finger. My 40th birthday is rushing towards me fast enough as it is, Rodvik, so did you really have to go and push me into my “mid-40s” in the interview?! That’s two dances you owe me! 😉
Rod Humble discusses virtual goods and virtual worlds in a brief Bloomberg interview. What are most interesting to note are the comments towards the end of the piece, regarding Linden Lab’s current profitability:
Emily Chang: The Tech IPO bandwagon is filling up. Is that something that you guys would consider or [are] considering?
Rod Humble: We’re not looking for any further investment right now. We’re profitable, we’ve got [a] very good cash balance… So from our perspective, if we were to be able to deliver a large and measurable long-term return on new investment, then we’d certainly look at it. We’ve got a long runway of features that I want to put in place with our current very healthy cash and profitable business first, though.
Should this story be picked up, it is these words that are probably going to be the focus of attention – particularly among those who seem anxious to sink the Second Life boat, who will probably interpret Humble’s words as, “We’re not really attractive enough for IPO, and we’ve got to blow money to get there, ‘cos we have to make ourselves attractive somehow.”
Personally, I see his statement in a more positive light: LL are reasonably cash stable and are profitable, something I’ve commented on previously. Furthermore, there is a continuing upswing in sign-ups (still running at around 16K per day), which appears to be translating into a rise in user concurrency, which would indicate that new users are actually sticking around for longer and potentially getting more involved. Both of which are healthy signs.
What is key about Humble’s words, however, is the sheer pragmatism they carry, even in such a relatively lightweight interview. He recognises that while Second Life indeed “has legs”, and can, on current form, continue pretty much as is as a private company generating sufficient profits to demonstrate (presumably) a return reasonable enough to keep the original investors happy, it also has the potential to go much further in time. Thus, while IPO is definitely not on the cards right now, this may not be the case in the future, should things develop in that direction.
This is pragmatic on two counts. Firstly, it is allowing the company a degree of freedom in tackling the issues it currently faces – technical and otherwise – and solidifying its position without any ulterior needs or requirements overshadowing things. Given the company has undergone significant pain when ulterior motives have been the driving force behind matters in the past (e.g. the drive to convert SL into some form of “real world” business and applications platform), this is a wise move. Secondly, as Emily Chang states – the technology IPO bandwagon is fast filling up, but if we’re all absolutely honest, we’ve no idea where it is going. As such, not leaping onto it with everyone else is also something of a potentially wise move; especially if the wheels do come off the wagon, as LL get to avoid the resultant crash. However, if the bandwagon proves it can roll and roll, then LL could ideally be well-placed to pick-up on all those investors who might otherwise be kicking themselves from not being “in” on things from the start.
Taking this perspective and being willing to acknowledge both sides of the coin, so to speak, again demonstrates to me that Rod Humble is very much the right man in the right place at Linden Lab – and he’s hopefully carrying the board with him on this.
“Privacy is extremely important for anyone putting themselves out there, expressing themselves, or expressing a side of themselves through an avatar. People don’t want other people to connect the dots from their avatar to their real life person – or even, for that matter, to an alt. One of the ethical obligations we have is to protect people’s privacy
“People come to Second Life because they want a story, they want to be in a story….and we have an ethical obligation to protect that.
“I’m not so sure that the conventional wisdom makes any sense. Yes, it might be technically easy to track people and all that. But in the long-term I’m optimistic that we’ll see the pendulum swing back in the other direction towards more privacy.”
Thus speaks Rod Humble in what is quite possibly the best interview held with him since he took office at Linden Lab, and Kudos to Dusan Writer for bringing it to us.
It’s an uplifting piece on many levels. The comments about privacy, for example, are particularly relevant given both the degree to which Linden Lab seems determined to shovel users of Second Life towards Facebook and the manner in which data is being scraped and potentially used by the likes of RedZone.
For me, the interview is encouraging, as I’ve been advocating the need for Linden Lab to take what I term a more holistic view of Second Life, and to stop looking at it in terms of how it can be “compartmentalised”: focusing on individual technical issues, trying to tap into audiences, etc., and start looking at it as a complete, unified entity. In fact, I’ve already had concerns that Rod Humble is sliding into this very trap.
But no, he does seem to get it: he recognises the fact that the magic of Second Life is about the ability to create – physically and metaphorically (he talks about us being able to create “personas” in SL and imbue them with specific identities) – and he really does demonstrate he’s thought about these ideas, and is not simply peddling words.
Similarly, he recognises that Second Life can increase its relevancy in terms of real world interactions by providing n-world and supportive tools that work with the platform to empower people to interact with one another through Second Life (rather than telling them to bugger off elsewhere).
This is marvellously encouraging. Of course, there is a degree of hyperbole that strays dangerously close to Rosedale Country; after making very valid points about the relevancy in having multiple personas in life (which we all do), and these personas / identities being an integral part of our being (a marked difference from Zuckerberg over at FB, who views multiple identities as demonstrating a “lack of integrity”), Rod does unfortunately slip into Pipspeak:
“I don’t want to get all geeky about it, but I sort of see this day coming when there’s a formalization of identity that happens. We haven’t had the tools before to formalize our broken up bits of identity…We can increasingly go deep on each element of identity and they become more valuable and I can’t help thinking that if we formalize the structures around those identities and have the tools to do that it might actually change us – it might change the person.”
Shades of Transhumanism lurking there – but not enough to shake one’s feeling that here, finally, Linden lab have struck gold. Rod Humble not only gets Second Life technically, he gets it visually, socially, personally, and metaphorically. In short, he appears to understand it holistically.
Lets hope that understanding translates itself into policies and action that allow us all to look back in 12 months or so, and we”ll all be “talking about all the new kinds of content and creations and categories of creation…and say ‘Wow, it’s amazing, look how far we’ve come in having ways to make stuff‘.” And that we’re all secure and confident in the levels of privacy and security Second Life affords us.
Rod Humble (Rodvik Linden), the new CEO at Linden Lab attended a short “meet and greet” event with members of the “Second Life Press Corps” on Friday.
The meeting itself appears to have been a bit of a curate’s egg: on the one hand, it *is* good that Rodvik is taking the time to meet and greet. On the other…but the time the greetings were all done, there wasn’t really much time for the actual meeting this time around – although a fair few of those attending did get some points across to Rodvik – which I’m sure he’s taken note of and some of what he said vis-a-vis in-world creativity within SL was encouraging.
The really sad thing here is that once again, this smacks of LL operating by stealth. The meeting was very small, with a selected audience who (one cynically suspects) were selected as much for their positive attitude towards LL as for any “journalistic credentials”. Certainly, Rodvik cannot hope to meet with everyone, and really large audiences can make for difficult meetings – but one cannot help but be disappointed that no-one at LL has made mention of the fact that these meetings are happening (assuming this was not a one-off), or indicated that larger audiences may be possible in the future. To be sure, LL are in a rock and a hard place: Town Halls, etc., are hard to organise and small meetings smack of talking to the anointed: but at the moment excitement around Rodvik’s appointment is running high and favourable – and as such, it would be good to see LL engender more goodwill among residents by holding somewhat larger, more open meetings that allow for a wider opportunity for people to see / hear / chat with Rodvik Linden.
Again, these needn’t take up great swathes of his time – but putting aside a couple of hours each week for a two or three-week period and scheduling meetings at times that suit international meetings (as was done with this first one) isn’t really beyond the realm of the doable.
Anyway, here’s the transcript of the meeting, and my thanks to Chestnut Rea for posting it.
On a side note…Rod’s avatar is a fabulous (photo?) rendering of himself, and one of the freshest approaches to a Linden Avatar I’ve yet seen.
We’re once again in that weird state of suspension: the old year is now behind us, the New Year is opening up in front of us, and we’re all getting back to “the usual” routines.
Some twelve months ago, this was a time of Great Optimism within Linden Lab; or at least within Mark Kingdon’s “pod”, as he enthusiastically posted not only about the next year in virtual worlds, but the next ten years. As I reported in my review of 2010, when it came to the 12 months directly in front of him, not all M hoped for came to pass. Indeed, there was much he didn’t – nay, couldn’t – predict.
This year, by contrast, those within LL remain resolutely silent. In around a week’s time, this is liable to change, given that Rod Humble “officially” starts-up as the new CEO around the 17th (next Monday) – so doubtless we’ll be hearing something around then.
In the meantime, the lack of news from LL is weighing on us all; although some are feeling it a lot more than others. Tateru Nino is theorising that there is more to the silence than meets the eye – speculating that the silence is that which comes before what she calls the “Big Surprise Announcement” and hinting that it may not be A Good Thing. Ciaran Laval is taking it more lightly, pointing out that if there is one thing LL should do in 2011, it’s to listen to its greatest resource: those of us who use their blessed platform. Elsewhere, others seem to be caught-up the idea that the General Discussion forum should go; recently saw a completely useless thread on this very topic started by one of the forum’s regular naysayers & borderline trolls; but others such a Que Niangao – altogether more respectable – have hinted something my be in the offing where the forums are concerned. Where the information comes from, however, is anyone’s guess.
For my part, I’m actually not at all surprised by the silence; there is a new CEO; the company went through a wave of cutbacks mid-year, and the losses are still accruing: Jack Linden went just before Christmas, as did Joe Linden (Joe Miller), and it appears Wallace Linden (Mark Wallace) has gone after a heady time as the Conversation Manager that is equalled only by Katt’s tenure as the Communication Manager…
Ergo, it is unsurprising that little has been said, either blog-wise or, it seems, through the few remaining Office Hours meetings. For one thing, who knows whether the “restructuring” has reached a point of being “restructured”, and for another, people are liable to have one eye cocked pensively on the door to the board room and the other cocked pensively at the door to the new CEO’s office, waiting to see which way the wind is blowing.
The majority response to Rod Humble’s appointment has been positive: whether this remains so has yet to be seen. There are certainly a lot of people who are going to be disappointed – especially those calling for the scraping of Viewer 2.x; sorry, kids, ain’t gonna happen. Equally, those that believe Rod, with the best will in the world, will have a free hand in matters are also going to be disappointed; he’ll no more be able to push and pull LL as freely as Mark Kingdon did during his tenure. There will be requirements from the Board he’ll be expected to oversee, just as things like the Adult Content Changes came from the Board, and not did not spring solely from Mark Kingdon’s forehead.
Doubtless, there is a Big Announcement coming next week – but I doubt it’ll be as earth-shattering as Tateru implies. I also hope that 2011 will bring about a resurgence in LL’s ability to listen to its users as Ciaran states they should. Certainly, Rod Humble is perhaps more user-savvy than the likes of Rosedale, Kapor, Kingdon et al – but whether that is enough to really make a difference is going to be something that only time will reveal.
Inara Pey: Living in a Modemworld 