Basically, he says that it fails because of a lack of authenticity.
While this may be true for some people, I think it’s the exact opposite for many. I think that the “cloak of anonymity” can often help people become more authentic because they know that they are protected from judgment and ridicule of the person they’re talking to.
Sure, some people use that “cloak” to misrepresent themselves…but you’ll have that anywhere. I think that just as many, if not more people use the buffer of Second Life to talk to people they’d never be able to talk to about opinions they may not otherwise share. I think Second Life gives people the opportunity to connect with people that they may not be able to in any other way…be it due to lack of confidence or lack of physical proximity.
I greatly respect Chris.
I think he’s very intelligent and listening to him I know he’s going to do great things. While I’m a few years older than him, I know I can learn a lot from him.
But, I think he’s a bit off track here because he seems to be dismissing something, a new communications tool, for a reason that I think can go either way.
One thing he does say that I completely agree with is that “big brands being in SL doesn’t validate the space.” Very true. The people, the connections, the communities and the friendships that are formed validate the space. No matter how many brands enter SL, it comes back to the Cluetrain way of thinking that markets are conversations. SL is just another way to foster those conversations.
powered by performancing firefox