Yesterday, friends came over to dinner and I introduced their daughter to MOOs. To quote the Wikipedia definition, “MOO is short for MUD object oriented and is a type of MUD text-based virtual reality system”. I am a big fan of MOOs, and it was the geek term that I used most often to glaze over the faces of my interlocutors before I started talking about blogs.

A lot has been written about MOOs. My Tiny Life, by Julian Dibbell, Hamlet on the Holodeck: The Future of Narrative in Cyberspace, by Janet H. Murray, and Life on the Screen: Identity in the Age of the Internet,
by Sherry Turkle each provide an interesting glimpse into MOOs. A friend of mine, Prof. David Jacobson teaches a college course on Social Relations in Cyberspace that goes into MOOs, as do many other professors, and has had many articles published in scholarly journals about the topic.

For years, people in such classes have talked about whether or not the Internet will end up having as significant effect on society as the printing press had. This is a topic I hope to explore in a coming post. Another topic that gets kicked around a lot in the first couple of classes is ‘Is the Internet, beneficial, detrimental, or neutral for human society?’ In one discussion about this, I proposed that the canonical answer is split into two parts: “I’m a geek, I understand and love the Internet, so it must be beneficial” and, “I really don’t understand how to use the Internet, so it must be detrimental.”

Typically, I usually end up suggesting that the Internet, like any technology, ultimately only amplifies human nature. In the hands of ‘bad people’ it is detrimental. In the hands of ‘good people’ it is beneficial. Ultimately, your view of the benefits or detriments of the Internet or any sort of technology reflects your view of human nature.

However, there are some interesting questions that have been coming up in my mind. First, does the underlying structure of a technology have an effect on the beneficial or detrimental aspects of the technology. For example, television is very one to many, broadcast oriented. Does this, by its nature, promote a more authoritarian society, and is this a good or bad thing? The Internet, particularly with blogs with comments and MOOs is very many to many. Does this, by its nature, promote a more egalitarian and emergent society, and is this a good or bad thing?

As a final question, if we believe that technology is what we make of it, how do those of us seeking to do what is right and good use technology for the betterment of society, particularly in light of the danger of falling into the agenda based partisanship, as Sigmund, Carl and Alfred warn about.

To reference Sigmund, Carl and Alfred, I may not be Peter Jennings. I may not be Bill O’Reilly. I am more interested in the egalitarian, emergent media, which has a greater potential to promote dialog (whether or not that potential is often achieved). But then again, I’m probably no Habermas either.

Comments?