Permits? Maybe that should be "invites".

I don't take much of an interest in Second Life. Years ago I found that MUDs and MOOs weren't where I wanted to spend my free time, and since then I haven't felt much of an attraction for their offspring that offer even more immersive experiences. When I do follow issues related to Second Life, I generally do so from an educational perspective, and that gives me more to follow than I really want, since the possible educational uses of Second Life are a popular topic on many of the education-related blogs I read. From these blogs I get the impression that, similar to the MUDs of long ago, it's populated primarily by academics. A recent article on the British Economist web site (an article that examines some of the same issues as this column) suggests I'm heavily mistaken:

Or consider Second Life, the booming virtual world. It is regularly feted as a flourishing platform for virtual commerce, yet a large portion of its economic activity relates to sex. Exactly how much is unknown, but an employee of Linden Labs, the company behind Second Life, once ventured that 30% of transactions related to sex or gambling. Edward Castronova of Indiana University estimates that sex is “a substantial portion, perhaps even the majority” of economic transactions in Second Life. (Users must first buy genitalia for their avatars, who otherwise resemble Barbie and Ken dolls when unclothed.)

The growing popularity of social-networking sites is not entirely unrelated to sex, either. Such sites are often used to find and attract potential mates. Porn sites may have reached a climax, but sex remains as potent online as ever.

This article earned quite a number of witty responses on Digg, among them:

No time for porn, gotta read digg.

and

I shall take it upon myself to tip the scales in favor of porn! Who's with me?!

In addition to these, however, there's also someone who remarks that the chart in the Economist article that suggests that social networking sites are overtaking porn sites in popularity only takes paying porn sites into consideration. This writer suggests that if we take free porn into account, the scales will still heavily tip in favor of porn. But that, perhaps inadvertently, raises some interesting questions about just where the free porn sites, with their sort-of Web 2.0 elements, should get classified. Should we view them as porn, because of their content, or as social networking sites, because of their interactive elements? It's an interesting question, though I think the answer is rather self-evident, and yes, it tips the scales back in the direction of porn still reigning supreme.

Go to: The plain brown paper envelope column.