that’s probably because the only people who want to see video games regulated are the people who don’t play them. as the demographic for video gamers grows (as it has, by leaps and bounds, in the last 30 years) to include more and more “mainstream” people, and as the original video game generation comes into an age to begin to take political offices, i suspect the will to regulate will fall off even further.

I think at that point we’ll need to consider the virtual world a semi-real place, with fixed laws based on some real-world locale. (“The laws of the state of Washington will apply at all times in MSN-Reality.”) The alternative is to pretend that sexual harassment, for example, doesn’t happen if it takes place in a virtual world, and that hardly seems reasonable. (The other possibility is the virtual world as its own sovereign territory, with its own laws, police and courts, but I can’t see that happening.)

Interestingly we had a very interesting discussion about this kind of issue at a convention I was at – in 1993. So “little attention” does not necessarily mean “no attention.”

so. now that we have practical, easily-accessible, widespread, cheap, virtual reality, what do we do? posner wants us to think about shaping its evolution. one thing seems fairly certain: if there is an ideal evolutionary path here, it is probably not going to be produced by the free market. preferences are very much in play, perhaps not as much as in the case of hallucinatory drugs, but not far from it. not that the potential for preference manipulation has yet been realized; today’s game designers are not evil people. but the potential is there.

in any case, it would be good to have a wide-angle debate about the ethics of making these places.

Also, you use the term “video online world.” The term “virtual online world” is a better, and more commonly used, term for what you seem to be discussing.

Another complement to “The Matrix” is John Carpenter’s “They Live.” A pessimistic scenario, where illusion is part of the physical reality and fully exploited to turn down people. His portrait seems to me right on the spot: commercial application will be the most prominent. And it only takes a pair of glasses, to learn to distinguish!

so far as social controls are concerned, experience suggests that the political system will be most interested in trying to impose social controls on virtual sexual content, and somewhat less interested in social controls on violent content, but neither is likely to be successful. for current experience with legal controls over violent video game content, see Video Software Dealers Assn v. Maleng, No. C03-1245L (W.D. Wash. July 15, 2004). The court ruled that the statute prohibiting the distribution of such games to minors was unconstitutional because it was not narrowly tailored to achieve the legislative goal of curbing hostile and antisocial behavior of youths and fostering respect for law enforcement officers. The court also found that legislative finding that the statute would protect youth from psychological desensitization and the development of aggressive feelings and behaviors was not supported by the current state of research on exposure to violent video games. The statute was also found to be unconstitutionally vague.