Not worth my life

Nothing can beat face-to-face interaction. I realized that this past week when catching up with old friends in Scotland. We had e-mailed, instant messaged, and often talked on the phone and on Skype over the past few months, but that all paled desperately in comparison to receiving hugs from those three guys. Second Life is continuing to change the way people interact and view their world, but I'm honestly not getting it. Apparently, I'm not the only one who's confused.

I much prefer this view of reality...
Photo: Gretchen Wieland

It's called "second" life for a reason—real life interaction should come first. I like the idea of politicians and other big names (read: our famous professor) engaging in chats with people who can't physically be around for an activity, but I'm still confused why 3D characters representing people need to be present. I would much rather watch the people on TV, where I can see their real faces and real reactions, not a marionette-like version of reality.

...to a cartoon view of a not-so-real world.
Photo: Gretchen Wieland

Citizen journalism finds yet another niche in Second Life, where anyone can dig up stories, whether newsworthy or not (reminiscent of YouTube). By eliminating the gatekeeper, even real news corporations are taking advantage of quick and easy stories. While in Scotland, I saw an advert (I sound like a local, right?) for Sky News, asking for Second Life reporters. I don't like the idea of random creepers sitting online, groping for sources and ideas like they groped my avatar. This stuff doesn't happen in the real world, so I don't get why it's cool online.

So while some techies see Second Life as the wave of the future, I will stick to seeing people in front of my face. If distance prevents that, I will use real pictures and real webcams. We wonder why people have such a difficult time in social settings—it's because they're stuck perfecting a fake reality in front of a picture. Not me.