Isaac Hung
The truth behind the Metaverse

The truth behind the Metaverse

February 7, 2022

On October 28, 2021, Mark Zuckerburg revealed his vision for a new Metaverse: a network of virtual 3D worlds based on virtual reality. This, alongside Facebook’s rebranding to “Meta”, has sparked controversy and many varying opinions on the implications. In this article, I hope to share my personal thoughts concerning these recent developments.

What is the Metaverse?

The term “metaverse” is actually not new vocabulary; the first appearance of the term appeared in the novel Snow Crash in 1992. The idea of the “metaverse” is a single, virtual world which people can interact with. Despite the metaverse being a single world, the concept also permits interoperability, allowing metaverse citizens to use their property interchangeably with different parts of the metaverse.

The “metaverse” is not a new idea. Aside from the novel mentioned above, the book (and film) Ready Player One and its sequel also explored the concept of the “metaverse”. Many online communities, such as Roblox, have also offered similar experiences, for example allowing cosmetics to be universal between Roblox games, and the virtual currency “Robux”. If you’re familiar with any of these, you might have already experienced a “metaverse”.

Privacy

Meta is infamous for not respecting the privacy of its users. The Metaverse would likely contain the same tracking technology Facebook currently uses to track users. The driving factor behind the need to track users originates from the fact that most of Meta’s revenue is generated from targeted advertising, leading them to try to collect as much data as possible in order to deliver better targeted ads. While many users are not severely against this collection of data, a growing number of people believe this user data collection is unacceptable.

Due to the Metaverse’s use of virtual reality, there are also concerns about the collection of biometric data, which is data relating to human characteristics. This form of data collection is often seen as much worse, as companies now have access to not only data on our interests, but also on our physical bodies. This is a concern shared amongst many, with some saying it serves as a form of surveillance, exacerbates discrimination, offends human dignity, and is a large threat to privacy.

Other concerns

Alongside the previously mentioned privacy concerns, people have also expressed concerns about:

  • Addiction
  • Negative effects on health and safety
  • Injuries
  • Effect on socialization

While these are very valid concerns, they will be easier to address with the improvement of technology as they aren’t related to the core concept of the metaverse.

Zuckerburg’s vision

Alongside previously mentioned privacy concerns, Mark Zuckerburg’s intentions with his Metaverse are also worrying. Meta is the first company to invest so much (roughly $10b) in the Metaverse. Zuckerburg likely intends to “own” the Metaverse, to form a monopoly on it. Although this isn’t exactly made clear in Meta’s marketing material, many people believe Meta’s early investment to be out of a desire to control the Metaverse.

Decentralization

What I believe to be the most prevalent issue with Meta’s Metaverse is how centralized it is. The technology is proprietary and closed-source, with no way for users to control (or understand) what happens when they interact with the Metaverse. The Metaverse is also governed by Meta, meaning that the Metaverse can be used as a means to control and exploit its users. By being the sole entity in control of the Metaverse, if it turns out to be a success, Meta would have unlimited access to user data, the ability to control and influence its citizens, a lot of potential for advertising, and a monopoly over the technology involved. From an economic perspective, this monopoly would be horrible for everyone except Meta, leading to lack of choice, lack of innovation, and high prices. One could argue that this result, if achieved, justifies the absurd investment from Meta in this field.

Could there be a “good” metaverse?

Up until this point, my opinion in this article has been mainly negative towards Meta’s vision for a Metaverse. But I don’t actually believe the metaverse is an entirely flawed idea.

What if we just took Meta out of the metaverse?

To me, the main flaw in this vision is how Meta has a complete monopoly over the Metaverse. This is generally bad for pretty much everyone but Meta. A much better alternative, in my opinion, would be an open source metaverse: a project in which anyone can contribute to and develop. This would lead to much less abuse of the technology: much less data collection, tracking and fingerprinting, transparency, greater security, faster innovation and development, easier integration with existing applications and projects, lower costs, and much more.

The metaverse even has an advantage over many other open source projects: it is likely to pique the interest of large companies. Many companies have started to adopt open source, and many more provide funding to useful projects they depend on. A project like the metaverse would likely receive funding from many companies who want a part in the development of the technology.

The concept of the metaverse could definitely work. Metaverse-like platforms like Roblox have been immensely successful, and VR technology is powerful and still improving.

It’s not that the technology isn’t exciting, nor that it is flawed. It’s just a matter of who really should be in control.

Sources