"What we see now is like a dim image in a mirror. Then we shall see face to face."

Is Second Life a culture industry? Second Life is made by programmers and then the users are almost free to do with it what they please. The key words here is "almost". There is still control over what people are able to do (depending on various factors including geographical area, coding, moral and ethical issues, et. cetera. . .) however there is a freedom from anything in real life that is tiresome or boring or not what the user wants to interact with. One may argue for example, that is it easier to evade advertising when on Second Life. Let's think about this for a second though.

You are using Second Life through a computer, which you had to learn how to operate. You encounter people on SL and engage with them in various ways based on different cultures and beliefs and values that have been adapted to each geographical area. For example, some places have strict role playing rules and the conversational engagement techniques are laid out in order to support the culture that area holds. Here we come at a fork in the road

Who ultimately controls the culture being produced? Is it the avatars, the people who created the rules for the areas, or is it the programmers who set up the boundaries, limits and by definition the possibilities of Second Life? Is it a constant exchange between avatar and producer? Is the producer the same kind of producer Adorno talks about? Do these producers of Second Life permit a culture that is built from the users? That is, is Second Life a grounds up approach?

I am always swaying back and forth on this topic. At the moment, I lead towards the producers of Second Life being the controllers of culture. They are the creators of the code, the limits and the extensions of what is ultimately possible. Yes there is agency, but it is a pseudo agency enabled by our understanding of computers, the Internet, avatars, chat dialogue (or in some views trilogue; computer, person and user). For now, the agency is a myth magnified by the vibrant culture that Second Life projects. Yes, it is dynamic, detailed and involving. But at what extent? Where is the line drawn between our creation and our creation a subsequent creation of the creation the producers original coding and structure. A quote from a relative movie springs to mind. It's taken out of context slightly, but it still works:

"I feel confined, only free to expand myself within boundaries."

I have met another SecondLife photographer and had a discussion about the look she is going for in her photos. She describes it as instantly recognizable as a SecondLife avatar. This means leaving some of the rough polygons, odd shadows and lighting effects in the photos. If you alter the picture too much, it becomes similar to a human made in a 3d Modeling program. Or even to lifelike. Her objective with her pictures is to keep the avatar recognizable as a SecondLife avatar. Otherwise, what is the point? That has to be a sure sign of a culture industry within SecondLife. But who ultimately benefits? Is that the point?