I’m not an expert on this subject, but I’m fascinated to watch how Second Life is developing and making a niche in politics. This is an internet-based virtual world
where “residents” can interact with each other and buy virtual property and services from each other.
It is something that Sweden has joined, as well as French presidential candidates, and could be joined by the European Union too.
With the social media savvy Swedish EU Communications Commissioner Margot Wallstrom writing an excellent blog, I can see why she is keen that her department explores this option.
However, there is a chance that it can badly backfire, it can be sabotaged by political vandals, as John Edwards recently discovered. This is what happened according to Edwards’ supporters:
“A group of republican Second Life users, some sporting “Bush ’08” tags, vandalized the John Edwards Second Life HQ. They plastered the area with Marxist/Lenninist posters and slogans, a feces spewing obsenity, and a photoshopped picture of John in blackface, all the while harrassing visitors with right-wing nonsense and obsenity-laden abuse of Democrats in general and John in particular.”
So what do you know about Second Life, is it good for politics? What are its advantages and disadvantages? Should the Conservative Party sign up to it? Or would this just invite trouble?
Second Life is much less popular than the media would have us believe. Although total users run into millions, which is always quoted, returning users are a couple of hundred thousand at most.
Barely a week’s readership for you Ellee.
It sounds a bit like the Sims to me Ellee ( which I loved) but I cannot see what it has to do with politics at all. Perhaps I have misunderstood
I have just browsed all my usual haunts and I can`t find any discussion of the big political stories except on Con Home which is a bit of a young wonkathon.
I am beggining to think , in a funny way what we need is more mainstream boring political stuff and less furious rootling around for a new angle .otheriwise the blogasphere itself is going to become just a trivia exchange.
It’s a whole new world with all sorts of political activity going on. As it happens I blogged about it recently here
I have enough trouble running my “first life” so who are all these people with the time to get involved in this virtual life?! I think it’s quite dangerous for one’s concept of the world, actually.
You’ll find me there as Jayne Fellini. (I thought I’d try a woman on my second go there). I only explore, and certainly never spend money, which the SL people want us to.
It sounds like most of the users of Second life have yet to get a first one.
This is the sort of level where cyberspace becomes dangerous.
As someone with an addictive personality and a number of addictions already, I will ensure I avoid this Second life.
I’d stay well clear of it
Asked the same question on There’s another more dangerous aspect to this: extreme right and racist propaganda are banned and condemnable by justice in my country (in most European countries) however… these same people are setting up HQs now in Second Life (see Front National in France)… where almost anything goes.
Ellee – I posted some of the figures about SecondLife yesterday which show that now the “mainstream” believes it is a viable place to reach a trendy new audience, there is actually a total active population of a small English town at any one time.
It seems to me that we have little understanding about Second Life, I don’t understand why so many political leaders are choosing to sign up to it when it can be so easily sabotaged. Where are the advantages?
The answer is I suppose to reach fresh audiences.
But since they are being reached in a non-real environment, hoe can you be sure you will engage them on real issues.
I would hate to see elections fought on issues affecting Second Life.