Thursday 1900 EST
Places & Times
- Meeting Time: Thursdays, 7:00 EDT
- Meeting Place: Berkman Island in SL
- Group Wiki page: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/cyberone/wiki/Thursday_1900_EST
- Bridget Smith (Frappe Lapointe) [email@example.com]
- Brien Walton (Blaise Syaka)
- Esmond Kane (Pere Utu)
- William James (USA Brody)
- Yvette Wohn (Yvette Kumsung)
Assignment: Interview a SL personality
Due Monday (Oct 9) at 10:55 EST (Assignment in Moodle)
Anyone know if this is a group Assignment?
Yes. Sign up for an Interviewee here
Also see Topics and Thesis discussion here
- The integration of Voice in SL can result in varying degrees of discrimination against the residents, and this project will address issues regarding the impact of Voice on the social network.
Ceding development to 3rd party voice tools and developers, cedes control over the content and introduces the risk of censorship and limits on expression. Linden must develop voice in-house with the same participatory, optional limitations used in the existing modes of expression. Linden must NOT impose their Western morality on the implementation of Voice in SL. Voice is a multi-cultural, international and liberating technology which must be implemented within the cultural and moral confines of the home country. This development is best left to 3rd parties in a similar manner to the existing cultural grids. Voice is a boundary shattering introduction to Second Life. Anyone who can speak and use a joystick has as much a right to participate in SL as the texting, literate, educated minority. Linden must not only encourage the rapid, accelerated development of Voice but also the development of translation engines in SL to embrace the developing world and encourage communication across borders and cultures.
Our podcasts are up here
Heed Typers When Voice Comes
Hypothesis: Voice is coming to SL and will bring new capabilities
Problem: Discrimination of typers in type-voice coexsiting environment
- 1.Typers are slower, making it more difficult to fit into conversations
- 2.Voice users may feel annoyed by chat windows, or get used to minimizing the window
- 3.Clash of typing sounds with voice
Why should we think of protecting the rights of typers?
- 1. May not be able to speak (mute, soar throat)
- 2. Situation where you cannot use voice (office)
- 3. Personal reasons (Don't like sound of voice/doesn't suit identity of avatar/want to keep level of privacy/stutter,lisp, accent)
- 4. Multitasking (chat while listening to music, etc.)
- 5. Efficiency in certain situations(Group chats, lectures)
Questions to Ask Ourselves
- 1. Who should be given the right to decide whether the zone is voice, text, or voice-text?
- 2. How can we create awareness?
- 3. Are we calling for technical attention from Linden or social attention from residents?
Solution/Action: "Heed Typers" Campaign?
Presentation Method Ideas:
- 1. Create rooms with streaming audio boxes.
- 2. Create machinima
|Real Name||SL Name||Introduction||For||Against||Conclusion||Machinima|
|Esmond Kane||Pere Utu||Yes|
|Bridget Smith||Frappe Lapointe||Yes|
|William James||USA Brody||Yes|
|Yvette Wohn||Yvette Kumsung||Yes|
Project Deliverables (Tentative)
- Saturday Dec 2 7pm: Text
- Sunday Dec 3 7pm: Audio
- Thursday Dec 8 7pm: Project Draft
- Tuesday Dec 12 7pm: Project Presentation
Please edit your own section only. It'll get reaaal messy if we all edit the main page. Remember, this is about Voice discrimination and SL!
If you have immediate critique to make, use the wiki and preface/close your deletes (/del> or inserts .
Please sign in and mark your signature in brackets after a change (--~~~~) or just use your name e.g. (Esmond)
Freedom of Speech, Swearing, Accents, Pitch, Cultural (Ebonics etc), Disabilities (Stutter, Lisp), SL vs RL (Gender, Voice Fonts), Foreign Languages, Crosstalk ,Latency, Text = Oration style
we are arguing for the choice of the avatar to be able to toggle voice integration
- Scence setting
- Mention of broad possibilities for discussion
- narrow focus
Full Audio available <a href="http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/ezi/files/2006/12/Intro%20Full.mp3">here</a> (3:30 minutes)
New technology and the new media marketplace of the 21st century, have greatly changed the nature of information exchange and the very framework for Human communication. Cave paintings, stone and paper etchings, wax and clay records are now mere nano-scale metal etchings, polarised atoms, insubstantial radio waves, beams of light, electrons, even Quantum signatures on the border of Scientific research. We stand on the precipice of a convergence of all Human communication into a single datastream, the development of an Electronic Human network. (Singularity?) (<a href="http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/ezi/files/2006/12/Intro-1.mp3">Audio: 37 seconds</a>)]
The Older communication frameworks, favoured systems of proxies, designated champions and sporadic polls. The greater populace was excluded from meaningful participation in issues of commonality, the grand Economic, Political, Scientific, Religious debates, the Historical and Educational scholarly imperatives. It simply was not technically or administratively possible to include a large population in expansive dialogue when using the older frameworks. Technology has lowered the barrier to communicate and participate, now the greater populace, the everyday actors, participate in the recording of thought, the dialogue, discussion, the narration, negotiation, the persuasion, compromise and consensus, Human communication in all its facets is no longer the preserve or the arena of an elite minority. (<a href="http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/ezi/files/2006/12/Intro-2.mp3">Audio: 50 Seconds</a>)
Massively Multiplayer Online Realities are one tool in the new communication framework. MMO's are technology showcases which emulate the physical presence and proximity of the participants by simulating each individual and a shared reality on are computer. These communities are vast forums for social networking and experimentation in culture and perception. Politics, Religion, Culture, Society, all the greater issues are emulated and the core principals modified and new concepts tested as the participants "play" with the boundaries of reality and society. (<a href="http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/ezi/files/2006/12/Intro-3.mp3">Audio: 32 Seconds</a>)
In one such MMO, Second Life, despite the effort spent on implementing the âvirtual realityâ, communication is still based on the older framework. The visual aspects of the simulation have been prioritized in the development and dialogue has been relegated to a linear textual chat system seen in older communication systens. In essence, SL avatars are still etching thought onto a virtual clay or wax tablet when they type on a keyboard. The community has learned to adapt to the limits of the system but it cannot last. The introduction of Voice into Second Life will be another paradigm shift in communications technology. (<a href="http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/ezi/files/2006/12/Intro-4.mp3">Audio: 40 Seconds</a>)
The emphasis on text chat in SL has facilitated the growth of the community to date but also impeded wider adoption by the non-technical or non-literate. Voice is a bridging technology and dictates that certain social and technical measures are implemented before it is widely adopted. SL must not discriminate against the members of the community who chose to communicate textually and we must not discriminate against those who choose to use voice. Second Life is not Reality, the participants in the community agree on what form their Reality takes, they opt-in to societal constraints. Similarly they must be able to toggle voice integration on demand and "play" with their voice technology and concpets. We must not encourage divisive tiers in Second Life built around text and voice or insist that the Real Life concerns are echoed in Virtual Reality ... (<a href="http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/ezi/files/2006/12/Intro-5.mp3">Audio: 41 Seconds</a>)
We encourage Linden to implement text to speech synthesis and the reverse. Voice cannot discriminate, it must bridge the divide.
In Speakers Corner in Hyde Park in London. Members of the public can wax lyrical without fear of Legal Repercussions and without any guarantee of a receptive audience. Voice in Second Life must be similarly enshrined as a Free Speech Zone.