Recently, I met with an avatar in Second Life who had previously organized and participated in activist activities to bring to light issues surrounding the representations of rape and abuse in Second Life. The user provided me with an article that I found intriguing along with relaying some of their own experiences as a protester in the virtual space.
Together, we discussed the nature of anonymity in the virtual space and how it can lead users to be more vocal towards each other. This avatar had received calls of violence against them for having participated in these events. This resonated with my experiences of abuse within and outside of Second Life which is part of why I chose to write on it for my blog.
During my experiences in the virtual space, I was stalked, attacked, caged, threatened (both in Second Life but also against my real world person), and received other various vitriol towards me. The veil of anonymity empowered these users to say and do these hateful things because they were able detach the avatar from the person on the other side in some cases. In others, it was clear that they most likely would have said or acted this way in person.
It is with this in mind that I considered the article provided to me. I realize in most cases, the area being protested against involved consensual adults. The avatar I met with even indicated that the owner found no issue with the protesters and welcomed them to protest as it drew attention to his sim. It is rare that Linden Labs would be involved, though it has been known to happen, especially in the case of the outright banning of age-play in Second Life. So it really does fall to the users to shape the world that is available in this space. If someone does not speak out against abuse in either space, the voices here will be one-sided and not represent a balanced discourse on the subject.
Additionally, it’s often the case that the vocal minority actually represents a larger group than is identified. Many users may not feel compelled to speak out due to a variety of factors such as fear or writing it off as not affecting the actual world’s social norms. It is on this last point that I disagree. I feel that the only way can ensure a balanced conversation is to enable those with something to say to speak and be heard. In The Radio: An Apparatus of Communication, Brecht talks about the benefit of societal media to allow the masses to finally outspeak the powerful few. In this case, I feel we can extend this argument to virtual spaces as much as social media. I say that demonstration in virtual spaces has its place as much as it does in the actual world, though each serves different purposes.
In the actual world, the idea is to not only draw attention to an issue but to actively effect some sort of change of an event or societal norm. In the virtual space, where there are often governing bodies such as developers and corporations delineating what is allowed or not allowed, virtual activism is representational more so than effectual. It provides a balance to the space between opposing parties and enabling users to experience both sides of the discussion. With user-generated content representing the overwhelming majority of content available on the platform, the necessity for balance is key to make sure that those with the power, the vocal minority, are not the only ones being heard and seen. Whether either side is right or wrong, there needs to be equal access of information. Virtual spaces and social media represent the new media of the populace and it is on their platforms that future debates on topics like women’s rights will take place. If virtual activism did not exist, the media of the people would be skewed and biased towards a particular side, leading to a skewed representation of information. Brecht had it right and we need to be sure that balance is maintained across all forms of communication.
Live Life Virtually 