Second Life – Business, ODR, Language and Peace

Coincidentally, two emails I received today pointed me to Second Life’s potential as a platform for serious simulations. One directed me to an article on The Register titled IBM’s ‘Secret Island’.

IBM has decided to use the capabilities already developed by Linden Labs for its Second Life gaming environment to build a separate, experimental area within it. Participants – from IBM research and development departments around the world – can contribute whatever they feel is important to create a productive environment in which to conduct and manage “business”.

The story goes on to mention just how sophisticated this experimental sim within Second Life already is – with tools that create other objects in the sim on demand, to a portal to an external business system. Two aspects of this world are of particular interest – one, the possibilities for dispute resolution within a sim and two, the mention of the language translator system, that can add a whole new dimension to avatar interaction in sims. As I mentioned in The Future of ODR:

Second Life has a complex business model, a currency pegged to the US Dollar, vibrant commerce and industry within the game, sophisticated intellectual property rights that govern inventions within the game-world of Second Life, and entire livelihoods that take place in a totally virtual domain. To anyone who hasn’t played the game, the complexity of the virtual world is less than that of the physical world. In reality, the complexity is far greater – since independent from the laws of gravity, physics and to an extent, morality, religion and social norms, the imagination reigns free within Second Life – giving rise to social and commercial transactions that are sometimes far more complex than those in the real world.

Given the complexity of relationships in a sim, the endeavour to create business models inside them need to grapple with new markers of trust, reputation, quality and service. As the article mentions “the experiment is, however, already throwing up areas for serious consideration, not least the complexities that might arise with managing the licensing of the IP behind useful gadgets and add-ons. Less obvious and tangible issues will revolve around the development of etiquette and behavioral rules.”

The availability of a language translator is fascinating development in itself – and is the first that I’ve heard of for Second Life. Coupled with some of my earlier posts on how ICT can revolutionise the way we communicate with each other, the potential of a language translator tool, especially if it is in real time like some translation tools that already are, is that it allows for at least rudimentary conversations to take place between people who would otherwise not have spoken with each other at all. This opens up another world of possibilities – as the technology invariably improves, we may finally be able to envision a time when meeting in Second Life becomes second nature.

Finally, a note on Second Life and peacebuilding, continuing what I wrote here. A blog post today on the Official Linden Blog has generated a lot of debate on how Linden Labs should (or should not) overtly support and address peace. My own submission to the forum highlighted the need to look at SL’s potential in the future as a rich, interactive platform that could bring together groups to exchange ideas even when they cannot (or cannot be seen to) meet in real life.

As pointed out in this interesting research study, MMORPG’s such as Second Life have several interesting characteristics:

Neutral Ground: Individuals are free to come and go as they please. In online games, players are not obligated to play; joins and quits are not significant events.

Leveler: An individual’s rank and status in society are not significant. As in the culture of early video game arcades, “It didn’t matter what you drove to the arcade. If you sucked at Asteroids, you just sucked.” Players on online games use a separate avatar unrelated to their real life person, and social status is rarely invoked.

Conversation is Main Activity: In third places, conversation is the main activity that the individuals participate in. While debatable as the main activity in online games, players would not disagree that conversation plays a crucial role. Often, conversation drifts to real world discussion such as personal life, politics, culture, etc.

Accessibility & Accommodation: Third places are easy to access and accommodating to individuals. Online games allow players to log on and off at will and there are always players online. Activity occurs throughout all hours of the day.

The Regulars: Regulars are those who give the place its character, and attract new individuals. Guild members, who form a clan to play the online game together, and squatters, who stay within an area of the game, are the regulars of the online world.

A Low Profile: Third places are characteristically homely and without pretension. The population of online games follow a parabolic curve; after the onset of players following the release, the regulars remain while many move on to higher profile games.

The Mood is Playful: The general mood of a third place is playful and witty. Players in online games crack jokes during heated battles, perform goofy actions with their avatars, and mock each others’ appearances. Rarely are players overly serious about game matters.

A Home Away from Home: Rootedness, feelings of possession, spiritual regeneration, feelings of being at ease, and warmth. Online games possess a homely atmosphere where players notice others’ absenses and makes the overall feel of the game “warm”.

While I don’t agree with all of these points, and certainly don’t believe that the aspects of MMORPG’s as noted above aren’t mutable and dynamic, they are nevertheless interesting markers as to why SL, and competitors such as Active Worlds offer some fascinating possibilities of supporting peace negotiations and cross-cultural conflict transformation in the future.

Conversation with Colin Rule, Director of Online Dispute Resolution for eBay and PayPal

Had a great conversation today over Skype with Colin Rule – with whom I’ve shared many (crazy) ideas and thoughts on peacebuilding, ODR, technology, the social impact of violent games, culture and trust – just to name a few topics.It’s fascinating how conversations on the same day with two very different people engaged in equally fascinating, but different fields of practice and study (Ross Dawson on social networking, Colin on ODR) resonated with so many inter-connections between ideas, tools and technologies.

For instance, Ross’s mention of “reputation systems” and eBay was picked up by Colin – who said that the trust architecture that eBay had engineered to help it’s e-commerce transactions would evolve into a foundation to measure, build and strengthen trust in other online relationships as well.Part of problem with speaking with Colin, as I think we both realised, was that we have so much of interesting ground to cover that an unscripted conversation between us invariably ends up somewhere very different to what we planned to speak about.

As I note at the end of the podcast, I hope that this first podcast leads the way to several other podcasts that between us, explore new developments in ODR, trust in online domains, the impact of Web 2.0 on ODR and the use of mobiles in ODR.For this podcast, we explored the terrains of culture and technology in South Asia, and how in my opinion, the onset of easier communications between communities is changing the socio-political, cultural and economic fabric of our societies in subtle, but irreversible ways.

We also talked about the difference of emphasis between ODR systems – eBay for instance concentrating on the resolution of disputes, whereas the One Text system that InfoShare helped design and develop in Sri Lanka for peace negotiations concentrating on conflict transformation. We spoke extensively about mobile technologies – how they are revolutionising communications, information sharing, content creation and ODR.I made the point that the ways through which I’m pushing the boundaries of ODR since 2004, when I attended my first ODR conference, into peacebuilding and conflict transformation, is hugely beneficial to mainstream ODR applications and theory as well (and not just a fringe activity).I also gave a short debrief of Strong Angel III – and how it was tremendously useful in bringing together the developers who design humanitarian systems and those who work on the ground to fashion ways that the tools and technologies could be made better.

Our podcast is available here.

Wikis, Webs and Networks: Creating Connections for Conflict-Prone Settings

Read the full report here.

Reading through this report, I found it to be a useful contribution, albeit from a very US-centric perspective, to the necessary evolution of tools and technologies better able to support and strengthen vital communications in peacebuilding and humanitarian disasters. In this sense, it’s linked to some of the discussions that were part of Strong Angel III, and also addresses some of the challenges of civilian – military collaboration.

In a collaboratively drawn up set of guidelines, NGO’s at Strong Angel III presented a set of 8 design considerations / recommendations for humanitarian aid systems that resonate with the core messages in this report – that solutions need to be durable, adaptive, locally owned, culturally sensitive, open standards based, participatory, inclusive and foster trust and collaboration at all levels and all stages of peacebuilding / humanitarian aid.

In an aptly titled blog post, From MySpace to MyPCR pre-figures some of the prescient comments made in Wikis, Webs and Networks: Creating Connections for Conflict-Prone Settings and echoes some of the ideas that I’ve explored through this blog as well. What is abundantly clear is that there is a growing interest in the use of ICT not just for development, but also for peacebuilding, conflict transformation and humanitarian aid (esp. in the long term). This evolving global policy needs direction lest it splinters into information and knowledge silos that defines so much of the ICT4D field today. From events such as Strong Angel III, to organisations such as the ICT4Peace Foundation that have spearheaded ICT4Peace at the UN level, from the social networking of humanitarian and peacebuilding communities of practice to online resources such as the excellent PCR Project blog, there is a wide spectrum of ways through which a global commune of those interesting in fleshing out ICT4Peace can communicate with each other in discussions rooted in ideas generated by the reports such as the one highlighted here.

It is, I submit, a discussion that will change the face of humanitarianism and peacebuilding as we know it, within 10 years.

The following is a description from the website:

Collapsed and fragile states are now a focal point of foreign policy, and over the past five years they have increasingly dominated the attention and resources of the U.S. government. Despite the importance of international interventions in conflict-prone settings, the record of success is mixed, and international actors struggle to establish minimum security and reconstruct state institutions. Persistent lack of success stems in part from problems of communication and connectivity between the diverse actors involved. More specifically, expertise gained from one international intervention does not adequately inform the next, and the wide array of international players do not have an effective means of communicating with one another.

Recent technological innovations have fundamentally altered the information landscape just as developments in social network theory have changed how people connect and socialize. Taken together, these advancements have the potential to transform work in conflict-prone settings; however, they have not yet been fully incorporated into policy and practice. Wikis, Webs and Networks: Creating Connections for Conflict-Prone Settings recommends ways to improve connectivity between the various actors working in conflict-prone settings. The ultimate goal of enhanced connectivity is to enable local populations to prevent and mitigate conflict, and help rebuild their country. This report is intended for civilians as well as the military, the public and private sectors, and Americans as well as international and national actors. Four Principles, proven true in a variety of settings and industries, form the basis of this report. If embraced, they have the potential to improve operations in conflict-prone settings. They are:

I. Connectivity Increases Effectiveness

Connectivity is the capacity for individuals and organizations to interface. Connectivity allows for, but does not guarantee, frequent and meaningful interactions, which can help diverse actors develop a common operating language, plan and conduct joint exercises, and integrate operations during crises.

II. Free Revealing Makes

Sense Openly sharing new ideas, innovations, and information is better suited to fast-paced, chaotic environments than is the traditional practice of closely managing information flows through established hierarchies.

III. Community Generates Content

Relying on the community to generate, share, and interpret content makes the best use of resources and minimizes constraints in conflict settings. These settings demand flexibility and adaptability on many levels. User-driven content, in which all individuals contribute information, share concepts, and evaluate resources, is the practical choice for environments with conflicting and unreliable data.

IV. Lead Users Drive the Market
By identifying and promoting the practices of lead users (those at the top end of the bell-curve), the effectiveness of the entire international community can be enhanced.

Three Strategic Guidelines stem from these Principles and provide a framework for enhancing connectivity in conflict-prone settings across the globe. These guidelines are not tied to any one tool or feature, but recommend ways for institutions to adjust and update policies, invest in appropriate communications infrastructure, and encourage cultural shifts.

1. Design Architecture of Participation

• Expertise is not tied to individuals.
• Contribution should be based on knowledge, not status or rank.
• The participatory structure of networks is necessary to succeed in conflict-prone settings.

2. Strengthen Social and Knowledge Networks

• Communication is largely a social, not a technical, problem.
• Incentives will encourage individuals to join communities.
• Contributions will increase when individuals identify with the larger mission goals.

3. Use All Available Means of Communication

• Basic, commercially available means of communication are the most widely used.
• Advanced technologies need to interface with common, low-tech tools.
• Flexible tools that span no-tech to future-tech have the most value.

CSIS recommends four implementation steps to make the above guidelines operational. These implementation points are low cost, easy to apply, and catalytic for the longer process of transformation.

Create a consortium of implementing partners, universities, donors, and businesses to develop, promote, and implement the Principles and Strategic Guidelines.

Sponsor pilot projects to test the effectiveness and operations of technology in the field. Open call centers with information, directory, and security hotlines. Distribute hand held, durable, and cost-efficient communication tools to peacekeepers and local peacebuilders.

Build on successful websites and incorporate additional features. Market the websites across a range of communities.

Conduct extensive outreach to promote the Principles and raise awareness of the tools. Target entry points to the four main communities; publicize and promote communities of practice.

New Zealand studies video game violence

The Royal Society of New Zealand is funding a new study on video game violence that will allow gamers to speak for themselves. The goal of the study is to learn the reasons why gamers “choose, interact with, and enjoy videogames that include violence,” and the RSNZ has set aside $140,000 from its Marsden Fund for the purpose.

The money will go to Dr. Gareth Schott, a psychologist at the University of Waikato. Schott plans to open two gaming clubs for older teens in which he will observe xboxis juvenilis in its native habitat. In addition to watching the teens interact with each other and with the games, Schott hopes to ask players about the role that violent games play in their own lives and mental makeups. Do the powerful or the powerless want to play violent characters? Why would anyone want to bash hobos with lead pipes in a virtual world? You get the idea.

Schott has a long history of research on games. Recent projects of his have included work on girl gamers, fan-culture in gaming, and educational roles for video games. Schott left the UK and took a 3-year position in New Zealand in 2004 to help establish a “games studies” curriculum at Waikato, which he hopes can become a respected discipline.

Read the full story on ArsTechnica here.

Conversation with Ross Dawson, Chairman of the Future Exploration Network, on Social Networking & New Media

I had a great conversation over Skype today with Ross Dawson, Chairman of the Future Exploration Network, on New Media and Social Networking and how it could influence the socio-political dynamics of countries and regions embroiled in violent conflict.

We talked for nearly an hour and covered a number of interesting ideas and issues related to the definition, development and future of social networks. Ross’s Future of the Media Report, which I’ve read and used extensively in discussions on new media in Sri Lanka, was the foundation for our conversation.

Ross first pointed out the need to differentiate between new media and social media / social networking, which I found a useful way to seperate the technology from the content. He spoke of “reputation systems” that would build on models such as eBay’s buyer / seller comments and ratings systems that would allow social networks and their constituent authors establish themselves as respected voices and opinion makers in the blogosphere and social networks.

In response to several questions I asked him on how social networks can help in peacebuilding and strengthening democracy, Ross responded by saying that technology should not be looked upon as a panacea, but also stressed that social networks and new media afforded new ways of communications that could transcend state censorship and help engender reconciliation. I then asked him, given my experience of Moju, how best one could weed out the extremist hate speech and create social networks that were progressive. His response gives much food for thought.

I appreciated Ross’s interest in looking at the ways through which diaspora networks operate. The ways through which the diaspora create national and international social communications networks is of central importance to the establishment of frameworks that get them engaged in the socio-political dynamics of peacebuilding in a country such as Sri Lanka.

Ross, in passing, mentioned the importance of scenario planning to encourage those sceptical of social networking (such as many mainstream print journalists today, and many older NGOs and CSOs) to more fully grasp the tremendous potential for networking, collaboration, communication and advocacy made possible by new media. He also mentioned the importance of using case studies to appeal to journalists unused to the revolution made possible by technology – in response to a question I asked of him of the difficulty sometimes faced when trying to explain the possibilities of new media to journalists in Sri Lanka (not a single Editor of a mainstream newspaper in Sri Lanka runs a blog, and very few journalists have their own blog).

Though we couldn’t flesh it out in detail, Ross mentioned something quite interesting during our conversation – his belief that face-to-face communication is far more important that web / internet mediated communication. I, along with friends such as Colin Rule, are deeply interested in this topic and will possibly discuss it at the up-coming Cyberweek 2006. My own experience with F2F meetings is that they are, on occasion, highly undesirable. In such instances, conversations mediated through the web (thru IM, email, VoIP etc) can play a useful role in setting up the necessary frameworks of mutual trust, reciprocity, understanding and compromise in order to set the stage for a progressive real world face to face meeting between antagonists. I’d also encourage people to read The Honesty Virus – which is a fascinating look into how, sometimes, we are more honest online than we are in the real world. Furthermore, as I’ve written in The future of Online Dispute Resolution, we need to look at how virtual F2F solutions can augment real world F2F processes, and how online F2F mechanisms can complement efforts in the real world to establish idependently verfiable indicators of trust that appeal to all the antagonists who wish to meet to discuss their differences.

Speaking about the exponential growth of mobile phones in Asia, Ross appreciated initiatives such as the Grameen Phone system in Bangladesh and the ubiquity of mobile devices in countries such as South Korea and Japan and indicators of the potential of mobile phones to strengthen democracy, engender economic development (Cellphones for civic engagement) and help communities move out of poverty.

Ross mentioned towards the end of our conversation that the single most useful aspect of social networking and new media was that it gave (marginalised) communities and individuals the ability to write themselves into the social, political and cultural fabric – to let them “feel they have a voice”.

You can listen to the full recording of our conversation here.

Also see:
Can technology create world peace?

Podcasts on current situation in Sri Lanka

Voices of Reconciliation Radio , which will be officially launched later this year, already has a number of podcasts on the current situation in Sri Lanka that you can listen to online and download to your PC and portable music player.

Some of the podcasts already online are:

Interview with Jeevan Thiagarajah
A conversation with Prof. Kevin Clements
Chained Hands
Journalists Protest Murder
What chance for peace in Sri Lanka?

Check back for updates !

Civil-Military Discussions at Strong Angel III

At Strong Angel III, humanitarian relief and development experts from international nongovernmental organizations (INGOs) and the United Nations met with active-duty military officers and government contractors from the U.S. military and international militaries, including representatives from the Office of the U.S. Secretary of Defense and ACT-NATO. Participants held two “gloves-off” civil-military meetings over the course of the week. These meetings were unplanned by the Strong Angel Executive Committee, and were extremely successful in opening dialogue across civ-mil boundaries.

Read the full report here.

Podcasts for peace

UNESCO recent call for video podcast proposals (thanks for the heads-up Lisa) is a growing recognition within the organisation of the points I made in a post here:

Because of the growing number of users, especially youth, who have access to mobile devices that can play video, it would have also been useful to have these movies in a digital format compatible with devices such as Apple’s iPod. This involves a deeper understanding of PSB in our digital age, where the emphasis on not so much on broadcasting, but on media & content production. While the DVD may be fit to broadcast, media consumption patterns bring to sharp relief that many consume media on the web and on portable devices – a DVD alone isn’t enough to capture the diverse opportunities for media dissemination that ICT engenders (which is one reason I prefer to use the term Public Service Media instead of Public Service Broadcasting).

New Media in general and podcasting in particular are technologies that are increasingly prevalent in all corners of the globe. While many communities still suffer from parochial regulatory barriers and associated high costs of Internet and web access, the years ahead will undoubtably result in more pervasive forms of content creation, archival and dissemination.

Projects such as UNESCO’s video podcasts offer an opportunity to tap into the explosive growth of new media in recent years with content designed to engage a generation that is well versed with new technologies and are potentially the social change agents of tomorrow. It is to this same segment that Voices of Reconciliation Radio, to be officially launched later this year, addresses its content and features the voices of.

The recognition that pod-casting offers a way to communicate with the youth and a new generation of peacebuilders is growing. USIP, for instance, has adopted podcasts and new media in a big way to deliver its content on peacebuilding. Other organisations, such as UNICEF, are following.

Will the transition to new media to complement the power of traditional TV and radio raise public consciousness on peace, reconciliation and democracy? Or will the cacopohony of new media, epitomised by the choice available in the iTunes Store, drown out more important voices?

I don’t know – but I’ve already encouraged a few of those I know who are interested in peace and media to submit proposals for the UNESCO proposal – in the hope that through the production of new forms of content, we will be able to create a stronger consciousness amongst the leaders of tomorrow on the multi-faceted and complex challenges of bringing peace to our troubled world.

Cyberweek 2006

I’m excited about Cyberweek 2006 that promises to be much larger than any Cyberweek held before, almost guaranteeing an even more interesting and intense exchange of ideas and debate on issues related to ICT4Peace, ODR, Technology in Humanitarian Aid and culture in technology. Cyberweek consists of many different kinds of activities and opportunities, from Skypecasts (Colin Rule and I are planning a Skype call that we intend to record and publish online on what promises to be a great discussion on technology and neutrality) to meetings in virtual worlds to Podcasts to discussion forums and more.

I’ve led some fascinating discussion in previous Cyberweeks, including International Applications of ODR and/or Use of Mobile Technology in Conflict Transformation and Information Technology and Disaster Relief and Mitigation.

Cyberweek is a free. You can register here.

Is technology neutral – Redux

Colin has posted on his blog a response to my earlier post that tried to flesh out the the complexity of neutrality in technology.

It is, as ever, compelling reading. We have agreed to conduct a Skype conversation, record it and post it somewhere on the web during Cyberweek 2006 to stimulate even more debate around this important topic. I hope our conversation may even lead to a Skypecast that engages with other around the world who may have ideas to share with us regarding this topic.

I think that technology adopts the biases of the individual or individuals who use it to achieve a particular end. If a programmer wants to build an online dispute resolution process that disadvantages everyone from a European country, they can do so using technology. That online dispute resolution process, then, is no longer neutral. But the technology that was used to make the process is, at essence, neutral. For example, the process could have been made to advantage everyone from European countries just as easily. That agnosticism as to the advantage demonstrates the fundamental neutrality (or more accurately, impartiality, as I discuss below) of the underlying technology.

There are several interesting points here. Just as much Colin states that the technology adopts the biases of those who use it, technology is also the result of the bias of those who create it. Any technology, including ICT, is the result of a need, which is in turn predicated upon the perception of the need based on the socio-political, economic, cultural, religious, geographical context of those who designed it (inter alia). As with objectivity in journalism, I do not believe the search for neutrality in technology yields substantive insight into the perceptions that govern its genesis, use and adoption. This shifting perception of neutrality, never constant, never fixed, is rooted in time, place and context. Colin agrees with me on this:

The concept of neutrality is an unachievable ideal, synonymous with absolute purity from bias of any kind. Of course almost nothing attains that standard. Using the term “impartiality” instead of “neutrality” is much more accurate, in my opinion, as that standard (not having clear bias toward one side or the other) is usually more realistic and achievable.

However, we differ on the introduction of applied technology – Colin’s example of the introduction of the internet to rural populations is a case in point. While it is blasphemous these days to question the introduction of the internet to peoples around the world who have not hirtherto accessed or harnessed its potential, the introduction of such technologies inevitably disrupts and subverts existing social, political and economic dynamics. My point is simple – technology fails to be neutral if its introduction to a region or place takes place without due diligence on understand, as much as possible, the ripple effects of its introduction – and this is especially pertinent when introducing technology to help medium to long term disaster / humanitarian aid efforts and the introduction of ICT to aid in peacebuilding.

Again, Colin agrees with me on this point:

But the effect is a result of humans, who are the variable in the equation, not the underlying technology itself.

But where we again diverge is on our understanding that technology itself is a human creation, and subject therefore to our inevitable bias. The question really is, should technology be neutral? Can we make a case that in some instance, it should not, and be biased towards peacebuilding? Or does this take away, however noble the goal, from the inviolability of the need for neutrality in the technology used for ODR / peacebuilding? How would, for instance, an ICT eco-system designed to support insider partial negotiation look like to an outsider? Even if it were perceived to be biased towards one party, can we state with confidence that re-adjusting it to maintain a neutral/ impartial stance would move forward the process of negotiations?

Or are these questions, as Colin says, just too bloody academic? I don’t have an answer to this, save to say that as both a practitioner who grapples daily with the perception of bias in the suggestion, design and application of technology, I’ve come to realise the highly subjective nature of neutrality, the need to maintain, within the context I operate, an impartial approach, and the need to look deeply at issues of trust in the online world we create for processes that I hope will bring lasting and just peace to not just my own country, but to other regions facing violent conflict.