Hey everyone. This week I'm doing the presentation on Julian Dibbell's article entitled "A Rape in Cyberspace." I'll just post a short summary of the article in case you didn't have the chance to read it, and then some questions that we can discuss in class on Tuesday.
In the article, Dibbell recounts a "cyberrape" which occurred in an online multi-user dimension (MUD) known as LambdaMOO (short for MUD, object-oriented) and its effects on this virtual community. In this virtual realm, users participate in a text-based database which allows them to interact with the environment and each other, giving the users "the vivid impression of moving through a physical space" (201). Unfortunately, one day a user by the name of Mr. Bungle decided to use this venue in a way that defied the societal norms of the online community and caused harm both to the virtual and real-life versions of some of the users. In short, Mr. Bungle used a sub-program called a "voodoo doll" which enabled him to depict some other users in the room performing various sexual acts, making it appear as though they were acting of their own accord. The victims and many other players of the game were outraged and hurt by the actions Mr. Bungle committed, and made this clear by posting in the public mailing list. One victim said that the acts of Mr. Bungle were a breach of civility, and another admitted later that while she wrote in the forum, posttraumatic tears were streaming down her face. This all lead to a debate over whether or not Mr. Bungle should be "toaded" or permanently removed from the MOO, as well as how and whether or not the community should be governed. In an online meeting that took place in LambdaMOO, an end to the debate was never really reached, but one of the technicians (or "wizards") of the game took it upon himself to toad Mr. Bungle shortly after the conversation ended. This event also lead to the establishment of a balloting system which allows users to vote on petitions in the realm, the results of which are binding to the wizards.
One of the main points that arises in the article is the continuously blurring line between virtual and reality. Dibbell suggests that "Since rape can occur without any physical pain or damage... then it must be classed as a crime against the mind - more intimately and deeply hurtful... than cross burnings, wolf whistles, and virtual rape, but undeniably located on the same conceptual continuum" (212). Is physical rape different to/more hurtful than emotional or virtual rape? Since the victims of the cyberrape experienced emotional pain in real life, should Mr. Bungle's user be punished in real life as well? After Mr. Bungle was removed, he was easily able to make a new account and return under the username of Dr. Jest, which Dibbell argues "only underlined the truism... that his punishment, ultimately, had been no more or less symbolic than his crime" (211). Is this a reasonable point to argue in favour of Mr. Bungle/Dr. Jest?
This also raises the more philosophical idea of the virtual body as an extension of the physical body. Dibbell proposes that "perhaps the body in question is not the physical one at all, but its psychic double, the bodylike self-representation we carry around in our heads" (203). To repeat the question of a LambdaMOO user, "Where does the body end and the mind begin?" (208).
Another point raised in the article surrounds the debate between online censorship versus freedom of expression. The new system of voting and balloting introduced to LambdaMOO as a result of the cyberrape event gave the users access to an @boot command which allows them to eject misbehavers from the room. Do you think that the wizard was right in his decision to "toad" Mr. Bungle, although the users had not reached a definite conclusion to the debate? Should users be able to censor each other at will? Is the internet meant to be a realm of complete freedom of speech, or should certain restrictions be applied in the case of harmful/hateful speech?
I have one final question just out of my own interest to see what you guys think. Can you envision a possible future where people interact solely in the virtual world, or do you think that physical interaction is a necessary component to human society?
Looking forward to discussing these and other ideas on Tuesday.
Heya!
ReplyDeleteI read this article when I was studying Anthropology of Media and discovered it through the book Coming of Age in Second Life by Tom Beollstorff. From memory, he used the article as an example of how people are attached to their characters on the computers and to show that we still have presence in the virtual world.
My lecturer used the example of telephones. When you talk on the phone your body stays where it was, but where is it exactly that the conversation takes place? And if someone was listening in on that phone call you would still say that you have been "violated" but not physically.