Just When You Think Second Life Couldn't Be Any Dumber

Been expecting something to appear here, but are you saying that it's a bad idea for politicians in general to have supporters put stuff on SL?

What I wasn't clear about is whether or not these were Republicans or not. I know of one unannounced person (and still don't know if he will run or not since his polling is very low) whose supporters (a few, not blanket) have a distinct disdain for Edwards.

and to add, it could be anyone, not just candidates. Since folks can trash what they want on the site, they will.

Edwards in general thinks YT and social networks are good for democracy as seen here on WNYC radio yesterday.

You are mistaken Oliver

What could be dumber is Fox News' Dick Morris breathlessly reporting that Hillary Clinton's campaign staff trashed Edwards SL "headquarters"

I declare Lib4's above comment today's Internet winner.

If Oliver won't say it, I will. It's dumb for politicians and their supporters to put energy and funding into second life. It has no value beyond the bragging rights of claiming that you're a cyber-hipster. That will earn you a little PR bump in some quarters.

But SL has the downside of announcing that you're a cyber-sucker for jumping on overhyped fads to chase a small number of geeks. Considering that there are so many target-rich online opportunities available, why encourage supporters to stake out territory in an insecure and hackable realm of goofy mischief?

Well, as was pointed out earlier, Edwards' presence on the site was created by a staffer who happens to be in SL, not necessarily endorsed or asked for by Edwards. Once Edwards foudn out it was there, he probably thought it was pretty cool and said leave it up.

But Oliver can now say "I told you so."

You called it once again, OW. Your superpowers of prognostication rule the day once more.

I am waiting for it to be attacked with floating penises and for Amanda Marcotte to come wading in and call out SL for all the misogyny.

I'm fairly certain that your usage is incorrect. "Couldn't be" should be followed by "it is". "Couldn't get", however, could be followed by "it does".