The Future of Virtual Social Worlds

The current development of 2^nd Gen social worlds seems to be moving in two very different directions.  Direction 1:  An updated-improved Second Life type experience, where the key is an open platform with the users/residents building most (if not all) of the in-world experience.  These will look a lot like SL, but faster, more robust, tablet-friendly…  They directly link to the existing SL model, with tweeks to enhance popularity, user numbers and also multiple revenue streams.  Key players here would be Sansar (by Linden Labs, the developers of Second Life) and Space.

Direction 2: New platforms driven by the ideal of social interaction in 3D, or the merging of virtual reality into social interaction.  This is less driven by the user creativity, and more driven by social interaction/”hanging out”.  These players would include High Fidelity (Rosedale, the original designer of Second Life) and Facebook (Zuckerberg’s team).  There is a lot more money in model 2, as this is also more complex but is also seen as the “next generation of social media”.

Note how both directions use the only robust, long-term example of social worlds, Second Life, as their model.  But they interpret very different futures—one on virtual world interaction, where much of the driving energy is based on digital landscape interaction; the other on social interaction with other people—or if you would things-places or people.

I would like a reaction paper on the following:

Take a minute to go think back through the Second Life material, and through your own experiences in SL.

IF someone was going to spend a couple of years and millions of USD$, what changes would be most attractive to drawing you in to use the APP—what would make a social virtual world attractive to you, a place for you to spend time, and for what purpose(s)?

You might want to go to YTube and look at the recent demos for these various platforms and see which ones, if any, you find more compelling than SL.  Remember that Facebook is gambling that within 3-5 years you will not be using your phone at all, but will be immersed in a virtual social APP.  When you have this first part done, go and look at the “Microsoft Future Productivity” video demo from 2015 at YTube= https://youtu.be/w-tFdreZB94?t=150 and see where this fits in.  I

should note that everything in the Microsoft video is around at least in beta form.  This will be your world in 2022 (or so)—what do you think of it?  How ready are you for it?

Part 1 [MODULE 7A-Virtual Worlds; MODULE 7AB SL Observations]

The division of virtual worlds into gaming vs. social is somewhat arbitrary, but i will argue that there are three major differences:

1) Second Life and most of the “new build” Social worlds [Space, Sansar and High Fidelity] are user-built.  Almost all items found in-world are constructed by residents, not by the owners of the world.  By contrast Gaming worlds are almost entirely constructed by the owners of the world, with resulting constraints on options to users.  If you want to, think of Second Life as being an expression of the Residents; gaming worlds such as Eve or WOW [World of Warcraft] are an expression of the owners of the world.

2) In-world economic systems in Social virtual worlds are largely user-user driven, with most economic transactions being of one user purchasing something from another user.  The owners of the world get revenue from a combination of land rental fees and micro-transaction fees from the in-world revenue system (think a bank in RL where you have your checking account).  Gaming worlds usually charge a fee to progress in the game or to play it at all (WOW for example).

3) Social virtual worlds do not have goals, and individuals don’t compete with each other to gain/win something—there are no challenges per se.  By contrast Gaming worlds are built on the concept of competition (hence ‘gaming’ worlds) so they tend to be programmatic, sequential and competitive.  They almost invariably have some storyline, which includes paths through which all players share.

What they have in common is the social aspect—all successful Gaming worlds have found that social interaction (and frequently cooperation) are central to the popularity of the APP, and the most durable have very strong social virtual communities which persist over long periods of time.  This can be seen in Pearce’s work on a group of players in the gaming world of Uru (think Myst) that migrated as a group to Second Life when Uru was closed [Pearce, Celia & Tom Boellstorff 2011 Communities of Play: Emergent Cultures in Multiplayer Games].  The fact that this diaspora occurred is an indicator of how strong the social relationships in the supposedly fragile digital world can be.  Again, think back on the emotional impact of the Catfish episode we saw.

Look over the first Module (7A), a general one looking at some of the information on virtual worlds.  Then go through Module 7AB, which is basically a very short summary of the geographical research I did in Second Life several years ago.  Look at this data from the standpoint of a unique, long-term social digital world that has no gaming value or goals.

We will now try to tie together the discussion points on social media to date.  One theme that is rapidly gaining traction (and also supporting data) is that social media has the potential to become an addictive behavior.  This is probably best argued in Nancy Colier’s 2016 The Power of OFF: The Mindful Way to Stay Sane in a Virtual World.  She labels this phenomena Technoholism, and notes that one of the more terrifying aspects of it’s potential is that fact that overuse of the social media is not only socially acceptable, but is condoned and in fact encouraged (especially in the U.S.).  Dialog about the negative negatives of over-dependence on social media, psychological or physiological dependencies do not get discussed.

.  This becomes critical when you look at the following stats from 2015:

“A recent study found that the average person spends approximately 12 hours per day looking at a screen, with digital media being the most ingested form.  The computer occupies more than 5 hours of our day, whit mobile devices coming in second at more than 2 hours per day.  And the numbers are rising quickly: it’s reported that a child born in 2013 will have spent a year of her life in front of a screen by the age of 7.” (Colier 2016: 24-5)

NOW take a look at the following short videos (all just 2-3 minutes each):

• Zurich Insurance video: https://youtu.be/wncZPE7NMVI?t=68

What are they worried about in terms of social media and their industry?  In your view is it over-reaction?

How does this video apply to you personally?

• How Social Media is changing your Brain: https://youtu.be/HffWFd_6bJ0?t=33

This video uses the same arguments and data as Colier does in her book in regards to technology addiction [technoholism].

How compelling are the arguments?

Do you see any evidence of these claims in yourself and your friends?

How does this video tie into the discussion about the attraction of controlling the presentation of self (asynchronous) as seen in Facebook or other social media—in contrast to live interaction or a phone call?

Watch these two related videos about smartphone:: https://youtu.be/W6CBb3yX9Zs?t=30  and https://youtu.be/RpmIkWfH2ks?t=87

How many of these impacts were you aware of prior to the videos?

Do these videos change the way you look at smartphones and social media usage?

We will be going over these questions tomorrow in hangouts so have some thoughts ready to share [Wed. 12:30]

The second point would be the global nature of the phenomena of social media.  If Miller is right, then we must separate the APP from the social use and impacts of the APP, which will vary dramatically from society to society.  Miller’s work on Trinidadian Facebook use is good case in point, as Americans have a very ethnocentric view of the social impacts of APPs.

The long-term impact of social media usage won’t probably be clearly seen for another 5-6 years, but some trends are already accepted.  One is that rather than the assumed growth of globalized social norms and values, the realities appears to be that social norms and values have become more compartmentalized.

Colier notes that accepting alternate viewpoints or interpretations is not as necessary today due to technology:

“Information syndrome, on the other hand, solidifies what we already believe, ensuring our “rightness” and thus making growth less likely or possible.  Accommodation is no longer necessary in the information age.  There is enough information for everyone to be “right” and maintain a barricaded system so that we don’t have to encounter disruption or contradiction… Technology allows us to instantly find the facts that support what we already believe.” (Colier 2016: 35)

It is possible that rather than a unifying force, social media may lead to us becoming more isolated in ever-smaller communities of people who mirror our likes and dislikes—innumerable  digital-only communities.

This is the first to the panel sets to look at one of our major themes, the social impacts of APPs.  In the last week I have had several people mention that they like texting rather than talking (the phone call) as they feel more in control.  This issue of control of image and situation appears to be central factor or motive driving the current use of APPs.  What makes it perplexing is that any number of studies point out that people are actually disclosing a lot more about themselves at a very personal level online at the same time they want more control.

This is a major theme in the BreakUp 2.0 studies: that relationships collapse due to personal information disclosed on social media sites, especially photos that then get misinterpreted (?) by the significant other.  From my POV as a dinosaur the puzzle is why post it at all if it can lead to issues?

The imperative to post every aspect of our lives for public (or more accurately, the select public) consumption seems almost to have become a need that has to be satisfied, with potential consequences not in the equation.  Even more striking is that this is not based on close social proximity, but rather on digital relationships.

When you look through the panels you will likely note the emphasis on 15-18 year-olds, which is a reflection of the literature rather than a critical demographic group.

Think over what changes you would make if talking about your colleagues (undergraduate college students)—would the analysis look the same, or be different?  How?  This is an example of using the critical thinking from the Learning training on these panels.

I really like Schomaker’s discussion of ‘colonizing’ in the context of the avatar (panel 4) as she makes it clear that we construct our digital image—it’s not a passive process.

The second key concept here is that which came up during the last election cycle here in the U.S., that of the perceptual bubble.  The narrowing of POV seems like a rather obvious scenario today, but it’s important to remember that WEB 2.0 was based on global dissemination of information, broaden one’s horizons—not narrow them.  So how did Wikipedia, the Gutenberg Project and Zuckerberg’s vision of Facebook from 10 years ago turn into the perceptual bubble?

At this point we are probably too much still within the situation to be able to adequately analyze it, but these issues are central to the need for more research like what we’re looking at this semester.  It also points out the need to look at older social interaction platforms (which some of you are familiar with), especially online gaming and virtual worlds—both of which have major functions as social platforms.

Work done on clans/factions in World of Warcraft and Eve Online, along with work on communities in Second Life (think of Pleasantville) seem to have suggested the ‘narrowing’ of Web 2.0 into very small discrete communities.

As you look through this and the next (5C Social Behavior) panels try projecting where you see all this going in the next 5-10 years.

Please look through both Module 4A (APP World) and Module 5A (Social Media)in hindsight this will should all be in 1 set of panels.

The first key takeaway actually goes back to the ‘history’ section at the beginning of the semester—the stunningly short time that all this has taken to kick in.

The second key takeaway is the ubiquity of many of these APPs—most notably Facebook.  From Zero to over 1.2 BILLION in less than 15 years.  Compared to any technology it’s a stunning number, especially in such a short period of time.  Even more shocking is that it is the social APPs that dominate—the technology by which we communicate with others and present ourselves to the world.  If there ever was evidence that humans are social animals, this is it.

Another striking example of the accelerated rate of change is that WeChat presentation on Vimeo mentioned in the group post (at https://vimeo.com/201455689).  Not only is it an excellent analysis, but I think for most American users it is always a shock to realize that we are way behind the curve in many of these technologies, especially the social ones.  Try to envision some of the economic and social (especially economic) impacts if WeChat comes to dominate here as in it does in China.  Your jobs-careers may be strikingly different from what you envision today in just a few years if the Chinese are any example, and I should note that the same phenomena can be seen anywhere in East Asia (South Korea, Japan, Singapore…).

You can see the same phenomena when you read your Miller’s Facebook as what was then new (just 10 years ago) is now almost passe.  As we’ll see in the next installment, all of this has enormous implications when you look at individuals and groups (including all of us) are trying to define appropriate social norms and behaviors while constantly running to stay up with technological change.

The complex impacts of hyper-accelerated change is having on people and relationships is both poorly understood and extremely difficult to study.  As a social researcher, by the time I develop the research question and figure out how to collect the data I need, the target has moved off onto another platform or another population.

As we will see later, this may have some bearing on the striking persistence of Second Life as a social virtual world—the fact that change is relatively limited—you can leave for a couple of years and then come back to ‘the same’ may be in part responsible for the continued (limited) popularity of the site.

As you can see, this is an extremely short panel set and I’m thinking that it should be modified to larger related topic—phablets?  I’m open to suggestions, as while I don’t see a huge number of tablets on campus [it seems to either be phones or laptops], when you are out and about, I see a lot of them.  In addition, I frequently see students with laptops on while accessing their phone.  My current guess (very likely inaccurate) is that the sequence is: tablet when little, graduate to smartphone at 7-8 years old, laptop at college—added to phone.

If I’m right, then it helps to explain a phenomena we are noticing more with undergraduates nationally—while students are very effective on a small set of APPs, they have more difficulty than expected when using more complicated computer-based software and with computer/digital logic (moving items from Google Drive to Dropbox for example).

The key with this topic is that of portability—24/7 connectedness.  Keep this material in mind as we move in to the next set of panels dealing with the social impact of Applications and social media, where this portability and persistently-on aspect have been critical.

Studies suggest that there one very powerful motivation to move to new social media platforms is that of group identify—for the group to use the new platform before everyone else finds out about it—to be on top of what’s hot, what’s trending in social APPs.

One of the main complaints about Facebook is its ubiquity—it’s been around forever and everyone uses it.  This suggests that social APP usage has become a significant marker in group acceptance and identity, in the way that clothing, colors or piercing were key markers 10 years ago.  To the concern of phone makers, it is starting to look like the APP is surpassing the type of phone as the key social indicator—what social media you use is becoming more significant than what you use it on [iPhone8, Samsung or HTC…].

Look over this material carefully as it is central to the discussions for the rest of the semester.  There are two key concepts in this set of panels:

• The increasingly arbitrary and artificial distinction between “physical” reality [real world] and “digital” reality [artificial world]. Especially when looked at from a cross-cultural perspective, the distinction becomes more limited to the American world view and value system and much less a concrete, universal distinction.  This is the central theme in panels 2-4 [blurring of realities].

• The not very subtle economic [i.e., for profit] engine that drives most of social media. In most cases people seem blissfully unaware of the market forces that shape their behavior, especially as it relates to “free” social APPs.  Panels 5-7 [economics of digital realities] focus on this issue.

• The last set of panels (8-9) [near future] move this into the next 10 years or so. This is pulled from a number of sources including Singularity.com and Frank Diana’s blog.  As with earlier material, note the very short timeline for major changes and the social implications.  From your own POV, think of how these will impact you in the next 5-10 years—this all links back to the Learning material I sent out yesterday.  The skill sets needed to successfully navigate the next 10-20 years are clear, but the number of job seekers with them is very small.  The near future can be seen as a potential disaster or a potential opportunity.

This consists of the short panel set outlining some general concepts that you need to look at the material in detail.  For more specifics on theoretical approaches I attached the B1 Theory module and B2 Qualitative Methods module used in my classes.

These provide the details for the Dig Realities panels.  The last panels deal with business/costing issues, which are central to understanding many of the moral-ethical decisions made in the tech industry, especially in regards to social media.  These also tie back into the idea of “Free APPs” versus for-profit companies and social media.

Think of this set as a set of potential tools that you want to be aware of, so that you can recall them when you need an overall intellectual model.

First up, the Leamnson results.  If you look at the panels, you will note that it was a good survey size of Fall Day CUH students, at N=73.  There are several key points in the results:

• Social media is the main time drain for CUH students—with no variation between intro and upper-division students. Even more compelling was the ambivalence you have (collectively) towards social media, seeing it as a social requirement but seeing as a major factor of emotional and social stress.  Somewhat unique to the Pacific, it was also frequently noted as a way that relatives micro-manage your affairs long-distance, another major source of stress.  It’s important to place this within the time-disruption findings, that it takes 25-30 minutes to get back on-task after media disruption.  If there is emotional input, that number goes up radically.  So your ability to get quality work done on time is seriously compromised by the dominance of social media.
• Most upsetting to those of us who are academics, CUH students only spend the same amount of out-of-class time on course material as that spent sitting in class. At best there was a 1:1 correlation between in-class/outside-class time—note that this includes readings, assignments, everything.  From my end of that equation I don’t see how students can gain knowledge of the material, but that’s your numbers.
• The ONLY difference in the numbers wasn’t between lower and upper-division courses, but whether they were required or not. Required courses you spend the absolute minimum of your time on—but on elective courses you spend significantly more time.  In the end, you take away a lot more knowledge from the courses you choose to take than from the courses you have to take.

 

LEARNING SKILLS MODULE: Better titled ‘Being Employable’

These are the list of skills you need to have [taken from a number of sources and also from my own background as a consultant].  To put this in context, think of the robot barrista vid I sent out.  If you work at Starbucks that’s not competition you want to see.  Many of the careers you will be in haven’t been invented yet, and many of the careers around now will be gone or seriously morphed within 10 years.  Statistically, you will be changing jobs every 4-6 years, and changing CAREERS every 10-12 years.  So knowing how to learn will keep you employable in the future.

Key Points:

• You have to develop these skills until they become habits—at best, permanent habits that you automatically use on almost all occasions. If you have to consciously think to use these skills then you haven’t trained or used them enough.
• You should have been trained in these from your K-12 education experience, but as far as we can see, it never happened. Much of this appears to be the result of family and other social groups outside of the formal school system dropping the ball on training you, but the Educational system also failed by emphasizing short-term memory skills (no child left behind measures for example).  End result is most of you don’t have these skills in any functional way.
• During the Semester we will go through some strategies to help you build up this skill set, though it’s trickier online vs. sit-down. So we’ll have to see how it goes.  This means that I need feedback from you when you don’t get something, want clarification, alternatives, more detail—whatever.
• The Assessing Thinking bullets are those developed for what is sometimes called active listening, and should be used whenever material [like this class material] is presented to you.
• Being comfortable with the Educational Skills is a major factor in being an attractive job candidate, so practice them.

We will be getting into the techniques of how-to next week

There are two main takeaways from this set of panels:

• Notice the lack of clear relationship between technology and social change;
• The tremendous acceleration in technological change in extremely short periods of times—we move from changes over hundreds of years; down to changes in generations; down to changes in 2-5 years—the norm now.

Remember—when you were in Elementary School, you didn’t have Facebook because it wasn’t built yet.  You might feel like a dinosaur, but you’re not that old—it’s just that the changes are happening so fast.

Feel free to send in other contributions to add to this timeline, especially in regards to social games, since that’s not an area I’m into or familiar with.