The Sim-ulacra

A ‘simulacrum’ is described in the Oxford English Dictionary as “an image or representation of someone or something”, “an unsatisfactory imitation or substitute”. This term of course could be used to describe the world of simulated role-playing gaming which is becoming increasingly popular. Players interact with one and other through the use of avatars which they use to represent themselves in these virtual worlds. These real-time role-playing games are based on absolute fantasy yet to many these worlds feel as real and for some perhaps even more fulfilling than real life. This is hyper-reality at its best – or worst, rather.  Something that feels very real but is in fact a figment of the imagination of someone who has nothing better to do than spend their time wishing for a life more exciting than their own. In these worlds users assign meaning to their virtual lives, they work together and even form friendships with other users. There are of course different types of real time interactive role-playing games, some are rule based worlds in which characters interact with one and other in real time to ultimately complete a set of challenges in order to finish the game. ‘World of Warcraft’ is a perfect example of this, too many passionate and fanatical players this fantasy is as real as life itself. I must admit while my time in the “World of Warcraft” was brief it’s really not for everyone. When there are people dedicating almost all of their spare time and even some of their real-life money toward their social interactions in the gaming word (That’s right! people actually send their really money off in exchange for ‘World of Warcraft’ money which they can spend in the game) it really is an online life; a fitting example of Howard Rheingold’s theory of collaboration within new virtual communities.

Of course there are role-playing games which are entirely social interaction based without any set rules or objectives other than those dreamt up by the user's imagination. ‘Second Life’ is a stellar example of when a game world can become as complex as own lives. Again users navigate their way through a limitless world of fantasy cultures, customs, relationships and drama. Players can take on any representation of themselves they wish to within ‘Second Life’. With the option of assigning their avatar an occupation; they can even go as far as having a child with another user who they’ve built a entirely virtual relationship with. Controversially, in 2010 a South Korean “girl starved to death while her parents raised a virtual child on an online game” (a game similar to ‘Second Life’). This could be seen as a very sad representation of ‘the third order’ of Baudrillard’s ‘Hierarchy of Simulation’ in that “it masks the absence of a basic reality”, it is pure hyperrealism. Perhaps the strangest phenomenon of ‘Second Life’ is in the way it reflects our consumerist society. This hasn’t gone unnoticed in the corporate world, with real life retailer Adidas among other real world businesses opening stores in ‘Second Life’ so that users can spend on accessorising within the virtual world. While this style of gaming is enjoying popularity and is clearly very addictive for some, it is more than more than likely a form of escapism for many people. It is not something that we will all need; after all it is hard to believe anybody would have a need for a second life if they feel fulfilled with their first.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b72CvvMuD6Q
http://www.3pointd.com/20060914/virtual-adidas-store-sells-second-life-shoes/  
http://onlineres.swin.edu.au.ezproxy.lib.swin.edu.au/1738063.pdf

Wikileaks

While the founder of Wikileaks Julian Assange considers himself to be an internet activist, many have compared he and his organisation to the likes of the terrorist organisation of Al Queda.

Since Wikleaks was first launched in 2006, Assange has managed to ruffle the feathers of the US government with the release of US documents. Some of the information Wikleaks has released include information regarding the US army protocol in the Guantanamo Bay detention camp, documents from the Church of Scientology and content from Sarah Palin’s personal yahoo account just to name a few. With considerable damage done to the reputation of the US government with the release of classified footage of US military killing civilians and news workers in Iraq for example, the US government consider Wikileaks to be a “foreign terrorist organization”; even taking Assange before a US court in an effort to shut Wikileaks down. From Assange’s point of view “This transparency creates a better society for all people”. Written in one of Wikileaks’ mission statements its said that they believe that “freedom of speech and freedom of information are paths toward improving the world we live in”. Also worth noting is that Wikileaks do not believe in altering any of the information that they hack into, they simply gather information that they so important to them with no other objective than to make the practices of governments and other organisations they have investigates transparent to the public. As a not for profit organisation in this approach they can be seen as a sort of modern day Robin Hood to many in ‘outing’ the current dishonest and misleading nature of societies hierarchies. However, this also means that they have no regard to the privacy of information and in accessing classified government documentation, they are in fact engaging in illegal activity. It is for this reason that not only government and the institutions they have exposed have reacted negatively to Wikileaks as an organisation but also the global e-commerce business PayPal have distanced themself from the rogue organisation. In 2010 PayPal froze the Wikileaks account in a breach of their acceptable use policy which states that their payment service “cannot be used for any activities that encourage, promote, facilitate or instruct others to engage in illegal activity.”

Although, he shows no regard for information privacy Assange’s objective of sharing information with an online community for the supposed betterment of society does fit in with Jenkin’s views of a participatory culture. One in which the people are empowered by information sharing in an online environment. Assange is certainly an activist and a very dangerous one at that. With so much controversy regarding Wikileaks, their legacy may continue on for as long as they can legally do so. Governments and institutions are likely to be far more careful with classified information they are withholding, especially with social media making it so easy for damaging information to spread like wildfire across the globe, leaving reputations in tatters.

http://antiwar.com/blog/2010/04/05/wikileaks-releases-video-of-us-choppers-slaying-reporters-civilians/

http://www.ifla.org/publications/what-is-the-effect-of-wikileaks-for-freedom-of-information

http://www.aolnews.com/2010/07/26/just-who-is-julian-assange-the-man-behind-wikileaks/

http://www.irpp.org/po/archive/feb11/kinsman.pdf

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/12/paypal-wikileaks/