But the generation that’s growing up on the internet is a lot less hesitant to reveal things about themselves online – address, phone number, photo, anything. They realize that opening up more online means meeting more people and having more & closer friends.

That isn’t my current experience. When I talk to my son’s friends (college age), they want to go online and play games but not to reveal their real life identities. They’ve been burned in too many troll wars and have a keen sense of restricting access while having close friends in close proximity. When I talk to my daughter’s and her friends, they are intensely social within their own group and don’t care much for the Internet or games.

They are both addicted to texting. They don’t open up online. The connect in real life and exchange numbers. If anyone steps out of line, they block.

Well, I have mixed feelings about that. It depends on how it looks, and what type of game/setting it’s in. I know some arcade machines experimented with the idea in the 1980s and it didn’t seem to go anywhere. On a socially oriented online game, I think it might go over well, though the “photo-realistic above the neck, cartoony below” and the fact that your body animates and your face doesn’t might be jarring. People might end up having photos for a half-dozen different moods and options to switch them, just like livejournal posts have the set of different avatars.

I don’t think it’s go over at all in a game like WoW, it’d clash too badly with the look & style of the rest of what was on your screen.

After voice though, connecting up people’s photos and/or live video is one of the “next frontiers” that online game / virtual world apps need to move into. As usual, Myspace, YouTube, etc. point the way to things we could add to the usual orc-slaying and guild-joining.

I remember when I met Jake Song back in 2000, he told me that video chat was big in the Internet Cafes in Korea, and he wanted to do something socially oriented with voice and video chat as his next project. Last I’d heard, NCSoft wasn’t interested at the time, so he left to start another new company. Haven’t heard how that turned out for him.

There are a lot of people that will want to avoid being seen on webcam. It’s a lot easier to pretend you’re beautiful on voice chat (or at least pretend you’re not ugly.) But the generation that’s growing up on the internet is a lot less hesitant to reveal things about themselves online – address, phone number, photo, anything. They realize that opening up more online means meeting more people and having more & closer friends.

But I haven’t called anyone an idiot.

“Captives trust captors to act as captors. Captors trust captives to act as captives.

And when they won’t, what then? Trust isn’t about accepting conditions. It is about not having an incentive to check. Thus, “trust but verify” is a political paradox.

Marketing is a dress worn to a dance. Trust is a fart between the sheets. Branding is selling the fart to the dancer as a sign of a “meaningful relationship.”

Heresy? No. It is selling water by the river.

The trap of the brand is to assume someone else wants it or that marketing can make them want it. Sad old sobriquet: you can’t cheat an honest man.

I can’t even disagree because that’s just plain ol’ deluded idiocy. Branding and marketing are not about “cheating” people. Refer to Peter F. Drucker‘s comments on the purpose and basic functions of business, on why marketing is about creating mutually beneficial relationships.

The foundation is proximity, real or virtual. A captive may not trust the captor.

Captives trust captors to act as captors. Captors trust captives to act as captives. Both proximity and time generate varying degrees of trust. Parents trust children to be safe when children remain in close proximity indefinitely. Marital and nonmarital partners trust each other to remain faithful when not separated by long distances over extended periods.

Here we agree.

“Using is branding. Making is marketing.”

Here we disagree. Your argument presumes exchange. It might happen. It might not. Expression may not be a bargain. It may not be a deal. It may just be there.

The trap of the brand is to assume someone else wants it or that marketing can make them want it. Sad old sobriquet: you can’t cheat an honest man.

“The foundation of all relationships is trust…”

No. The foundation is proximity, real or virtual. A captive may not trust the captor. A captive may as the captor may make predictions and control outcomes by controlling stimuli. The relationship is not a given. I don’t assume others won’t need their numbers. Some will be quite comfortable with them nor do I assume that they are “rotting cabbages” (See Free for All – The Prisoner).

The real difference is how much freedom for how much governance.

Maybe that’s the issue, Morgan. You assume I want to argue.

You leave me no other choice but to assume you are (ineffectively) arguing a point when your response begins with “I don’t buy it” and follows with a comment that sounds an awful lot like “you’re naive.” Sounds like you’re trying to prove something.

My avatar may be a means by which I express myself, but is not me.

So what? I never said otherwise.

My avatar can’t do all of that. So it’s just a toy, like a synth, a guitar or any other digital golem.

Well, I’m finally beginning to understand your analogy; although, you’re wrong that an avatar is a toy. (You’re especially wrong that a guitar is a toy, but let’s not stray too far.) Virtual worlds are interpersonal platforms whose primary function is to connect people so they can communicate. Just like telephony. Just like instant messaging. Just like meetings and events.

Your avatar in a virtual world is much like your voice on a telephone, your screen name attached to an IM, and your message at a meeting or event. Your avatar is a tool, like a hammer or anvil, used to engage other users on the virtual platform. The quality of your avatar thus plays a significant role in how effectively you can engage other users.

Not moi.

Again, the idea of “you” [self] is perceptual. You’ve your own opinion on who you are, but so do other people. Most people want to avoid being defined by anyone and everyone. They work to ensure their self-identity is properly communicated through a variety of means, such as clothing, philanthropy, and even uniquely identifiable avatars.

The foundation of all relationships is trust, which can be cultivated by exposing your “self” to the risk of peer definition. Providing your photo on a business card, or even your likeness as a 3D avatar, can add credibility. You might not see a need for life-like avatars in your life, but don’t presume that other people won’t find such a need in their lives.

You are branding. I am using. Different points of view with different sets of values. You are marketing. I am making.

Using is branding. Making is marketing. The only real differences are the level of execution and the scale of distribution.

I am not my avatar. It’s that simple. My avatar may be a means by which I express myself, but is not me. No legal Golems.

The rest of your rant: I am not a Hermit at all. I am a happy husband, good employee, choir tenor and a helluva good guitar player and singer. My avatar can’t do all of that. So it’s just a toy, like a synth, a guitar or any other digital golem. Not moi.

You are branding. I am using. Different points of view with different sets of values. You are marketing. I am making. Neither more valuable but different. The analogies are to values, not markets.

len