Nalates Urriah has an interesting post on the debate over how the media should cover sexual content in Second Life, largely based around an interview I gave to Vice about Twitch banning SL, entitled (of course), "Second Life Is Banned From Twitch Because Cocks Can Happen at Any Moment". I didn't bother mentioning the Vice article when it ran last Monday, partly because I'm fairly weary of beating that topic (heh heh he said "beating"), and partly because it's difficult to have a calm conversation around it. As Nalates notes:
Politicians know they can stampede a significant number of people and achieve their goals. So, I never know if someone skilled at emotional manipulation is believing what they say because they are in it or if they are just working the crowd. I do know, either way, it can draw out the haters.
"Haters" seems a bit harsh (as does the Saul Alinsky reference), because I do understand why the topic makes some of SL's most passionate defenders so defensive. But seeing as I've basically been in that role since 2003, I'll just offer my own perspective:
When you're paid as a contractor by Second Life's corporate owner (as I was from 2003-2006), or you still indirectly benefit from Second Life (as I still do, through consulting, advertising, and other revenue) it's difficult to angrily refute or dismiss criticism of Second Life's negatives without seeming like a deceptive shill. And people outside the SL community will simply dismiss your defense out of hand. And therefore, it's better to state your biases up front -- and also. be first to acknowledge that these criticisms have a kernel of truth. That transparency tends to disarm critics, and opens them up to hearing another perspective. Because in my view, skeptics are only willing to reconsider their opinion, when you prove yourself willing to openly discuss the topic in good faith.
Just my own take. Other people, as Nalates' post suggests, may have a different perspective.
Please share this post: