Media Characteristics of Second Life
Second Life is an online virtual community that allows users
to simulate a real-life environment.
Users are able to ‘build’ locations, customize appearance, and
communicate via voice and text within the tool.
On its surface, Second Life seeks to achieve a higher level
of social presence compared to other online communication tools. The customizable avatars, the ability to ‘see’
one another throughout the tool, and interact using your avatars seems to
attempt to simulate face-to-face interaction throughout the virtual tool.
One area where I don’t see Second Life effectively
simulating ‘real life’ interaction is given the consideration of media richness
theory. The avatars in Second Life do
not seem to do much to replace nonverbal cues such as gestures. While you can ‘see’ the avatar you are
communicating with, the fact that it isn’t real seeming leaves out a large part
of the human element.
While Second Life does not seem to effectively solve the
problems addressed by media richness theory, it does relate closely to the
social information processing theory. By
using the avatars, almost ‘virtual humans’ in the tool, I can easily see where
a relationship formed in Second Life could over time develop many of the same
qualities of a face-to-face relationship.
Because users have full control over their appearance, it is also possible
to present oneself in a manner that is differently from how the user would
appear in ‘real life’. This could help
facilitate relationships that may not otherwise have formed offline.
It’s easy to see how a relationship formed in Second Life
could become hyperpersonal. Because both
individuals can present themselves however they choose, their companion could
easily become the ‘perfect partner’.
Second Life even has a website dedicated to virtual ‘romance spots’.
(Linden Research, 2014)
While the anonymity created by having a virtual persona in
Second Life could easily lead individuals to present themselves untruthfully,
this same level of anonymity could actually lead others to be more open and
forthcoming. Because it isn’t required
to reveal your true identity, a user can be completely open and honest without
fear of their real life being affected.
In this way, Second Life creates a level of privacy that can’t easily be
duplicated by other social media tools.
Comparison with Other Web 2.0 Technologies
Second Life is extremely unique. While it does share some similarities with
other Web 2.0 technologies, I feel that the differences by far exceed the
similarities.
Second Life vs. Facebook
Facebook as a social media tool revolves around personal
sharing. Users share personal images,
videos, thoughts and ideas with a network of people who they are generally
closely associated with in real life.
Facebook has a high level of media richness on behalf of all of the different
methods of sharing it provides.
Interactions on Facebook can easily impact a user’s real life.
This is starkly different from sharing on Second Life. Users on Second Life can form relationships
with others who they have no real-life connection, create whatever persona they
want, and generally interact without consideration for how things they share
would be perceived by their real-life acquaintances.
Second Life vs. Twitter
Twitter is largely used for one-way sharing. Users can post thoughts, ideas, articles,
pictures and videos to be shared with their followers. Limited communication can take place back and
forth, but for the most part everything is completely public.
Twitter is fast, easy, and efficient. There’s no extra software to download, no
virtual world to log into, and no avatar to create. With Second Life, the investment is higher,
the privacy is greater, and the ability to disconnect from the real-world is
much greater. While there are
similarities between the tools in that they can be used for communication, I
feel that the differences are so significant that for most use cases they would
not be interchangeable.
Second Life vs. Snapchat
Of the three Web 2.0 technologies compared, I feel that
Snapchat actually has the closest resemblance to Second Life. That’s not to say that they’re “the same” or
could easily be interchangeable, but I think they both aim to appeal to a
similar type of user.
While there are loopholes such as screen captures, Snapchat
aims to appeal to those who are concerned with privacy. Individuals are encouraged to share ‘self-destructing’
photos, with the aim that what they share will disappear and therefore not have
a large impact in their other real-life relationships. This sense of privacy, like with Second Life,
can easily encourage users to be more open and forthcoming and share things
that they might otherwise be afraid to share.
In spite of the similarities, however, it would still be
difficult to use the tools interchangeably.
Second Life again requires much more commitment to set up and use, and
provides greater means for a deeper level of sharing.
Pros and Cons
For individuals who are shy or have challenges with personal
sharing, I can see the Second Life environment very appealing. For a member of a virtual team who may be
less compelled to ‘open up’ and share using other technologies or even face-to-face,
the environment could encourage higher levels of participation and sharing.
While in some ways this encourages a higher level of
openness, it’s important however to remember also that it can also lead to
deception. Users are able to present themselves
as their ideal view of themselves, and if a virtual relationship ever extends
into real life, this could lead to confusion or even disappointment.
I think Second Life could have a place in virtual teams and
relationships, but should be used in conjunction with other Web 2.0
technologies, and not in place of. A
balance of the ideas of social information processing needs to be weighed
against the importance of media richness and ‘real life sharing’.
