But in the interests of a wider 3D internet they may need to commit to a number of improvements both in terms of the ToS and their defined QoS. I will highlight one of these – the Linden Dollar. Many see the L$ as providing the foundation for a flourishing micropayments system in the 3D internet to-be. However, while it is defined as of zero value “inworld” it remains, in effect, “game money”. As such, it is not constrained by national or international fiscal law (which is nice) – and not suitable as a trusted micropayments system.

How this is to be handled going forward I have no idea. I am merely highlighting that “game money” is most unlikely to be a satisfactory or acceptable in a 3D internet environment, which will need to adhere to the rule of SL law and fiscal practice.

PS: Sorry Tish, you’ve heard this ramble before.

Aleister Kronos is not wrong, and yet Second Life is not a dictatorship and is therefore not a game.

Aleister correctly describes the written contract. LL can kick you out of Second Life for any reason or no reason at all, stripping you of your virtual property and very identity, to die sobbing and alone in the (digital) snow.

But they don’t do that. They’ve been pretty hands-off. So much so that I occasionally hear complaints from people who wish LL did more to police griefers and scammers.

And that defines the nature of Second Life.

If LL ever decided to flex its muscles, create rigid terms of service and enforce them rigidly, it would be a different world. And it would become a game.

Mitch Wagner

I would see true(r) virtual citizienship coming along with the future opening out of the closed “dictatorships” of the virtual worlds (for simplicity, let’s say it’s SL). But importantly such opening out also provides a mechanism for localised implementation of different rules of governance. For example, if you visit “IBM City” in this future vWorld you will need to adhere to rules – both implicit and explicit – laid down by IBM. Some of these rules will be in response to RL legal requirements, while others will be IBM’s own – for the protection of their property, citizens and content.

Sadly, by extension, this will mean that I do not see you having the opportunity to bop a G Bush avatar in the nose, since the “vWhiteHouse” will have put sufficient security and governance processes in place to prevent such anti-social [?] behaviour.

Security and Governance must develop in parallel with freedom and citizenship – as they provide the foundations on which such a civilisation can flourish. And a final thought – (I do love rabbiting on about Sec & Gov) – trying to apply Sec & Gov as a late addtional overlay just doesn’t work – they are fundamental to the fabric of effective “systems” – be they IT, business, governmental etc.

This might come as a big disappointment for all the utopianists that are currently in Second Life and would like to create a “new society”.

This is less utopia than a dream that was not been thinked throughly. Does anybody sane dreams about “new society” that is going on solely on the grid? I don’t think so. What we can dream of is “new society” here, in the real world. Sure, that society can be, and will be impacted by our living in the metaverse. Being a netizen with rights that differ form citizen’s rights is not much of a success of human kind. It seems more like Matrix scenario than utopia. One can find herself living “full rights” beautiful and shiny life in the metaverse while being connected from a cell of concentracion camp.
Internet, from text browser to SL client, should be in accordance with our lives off-line. As much as we like to put a line between our first and second lives, some things must remain for both of them. Otherwise we are in serious and dangerous trap. As you pointed, there cannot be different laws for on-line and off-line worlds. Whether I am identified by my ID card issued by country authorities or by profile page invoked by right-click, that is the same me. It doesn’t matter that I do look different and have different name. And that goes for every possible alt one can have.
One of the huge problems with that is issue of jurisdiction. Really, am I, as a citizen of European country that has nothing against gambling, allowed to gamble in Second Life? Probably yes, as long as casino is owned by another European. But then again, are Linden Labs allowed to maintain the server on which everything is happening? You see where am I aiming at. Internet is one. And that is one of the greatest things about it. But countries are many, and there are too many unbalanced law systems. While it seems like solution that countries develop similar laws that is illusion. First, that is not going to happen. Second, that is not a solution. Diversity of customs and laws is something that provides a bit of freedom for many of us. Developed and democratic part of the world enjoys (more or less) the possibility to change the country if finds its laws unappropriate. And we are witnessing that LL is heading towards the same principle in metaverse by giving more administrative rights to sim owners. (Croquet as a system was far than that by allowing different physics on different servers).
We are witnessing the early development of the world (or rather, one more realm of our only world), the world that will impact our society in such a strong measure. And we are participating in that development. There is enormus dose of responibility in each of us. What we do now, in regard of our future society, freedom and wellness will have consequences in centuries to come. Or it will not, in the case we screw it up and everything go to hell.