| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="FirstPaper" |
|---|
|
|
<
< | Commodifying Authenticity in the Metaverse |
>
> | Surveillance and the Metaverse |
| | Ingrid Li |
|
<
< | In Adam McKay? ’s bluntly allegorical Don’t Look Up, a band of underdog astronomers attempt to compel America’s uber-powerful to prevent an incoming comet from obliterating earth. The film ends cataclysmically for virtually everyone except the elite few—some pandering politicians and tech billionaires who Irish exit in a rocketship (SpaceX? ?), too myopically self interested for planet earth to have ever had a real shot at survival. |
>
> | In this day and age of technological pervasiveness, surveillance capitalism has become particularly relevant. In a podcast interview with Shoshana Zuboff, the author of The Age of Surveillance Capitalism, Zuboff defines surveillance capitalism as a new economic system that “unilaterally claims private human experience as a source of raw material.” |
| | |
|
<
< | Don’t Look Up explores the tug-of-war between authenticity and dehumanization—and data collection is eroding the foothold of the former. Namely, big-tech mogul Peter Isherwell (a fictional “frankensteining” of Elon Musk and Mark Zuckerberg and the like), intimidates Leo DiCaprio? ’s uncomfortably sweaty antihero by reducing him to a data point: |
>
> | Zuboff’s observation is not surprising in a world where Target uses its marketing analytics to predict teenage pregnancies and smartphones listen to private conversations to serve targeted advertisements. |
| | |
|
<
< | “Did you know that [my company] has over 40 million data points on you and every decision you’ve made since 1994, Doctor…I know what you are. I know who you are. My algorithms have determined eight fundamental consumer profile types. You are a Lifestyle Idealist. You think you are motivated by beliefs…but you just run towards pleasure and away from pain.” |
>
> | In light of Zuboff’s new economy, the “metaverse” movement seems to be an opportunity for technological surveillance to become even more extractive. Facebook, which has renamed itself as “Meta”, announced its plan in 2021 to create a 3D universe that is sophisticated enough to rival the world that we live in now. |
| | |
|
<
< | The nature of Isherwell’s threat is not surprising in light of recent “milestones”: Cambridge Analytica played deus ex machina in the 2016 presidential elections; a leaked study on Instagram sparked public outrage not for confirming that the app triggers self-loathing—we already knew that—but something much more sinister: that the trigger itself is a fine-tuned algorithm; and we all remember the buzz around Target when it surprised teenage girls (and their parents) with coupons for diapers and baby cribs. |
>
> | Leveraging Meta’s acquisition of Oculus in 2014, Meta plans for the first generation of the metaverse to be accessed through virtual reality headsets and hand sensors. In fact, Meta is set to launch its first physical retail space, the “Meta Store”, this very month—customers can try out and purchase these products for themselves. |
| | |
|
<
< | It is in this context that surveillance capitalism becomes particularly relevant. In an interview with Shoshana Zuboff, the author of The Age of Surveillance Capitalism, Zuboff defines surveillance capitalism as a new economic system that “unilaterally claims private human experience as a source of raw material.” And as the tech behemoth evolves, we are left to wonder whether any authentic and human experience is left sacred to just ourselves. |
>
> | The concept sounds cool, and a lot of industry titans are jumping on the bandwagon: JPMorgan recently became the first bank to set up a metaverse office, and Nike’s been designing digital versions of its shoes and apparel. And a growing number of investment firms have been purchasing digital land in various metaverses, one example being the $2.4 million dollar deal for a plot of prime real estate in Decentraland, another metaverse platform. |
| | |
|
<
< | And whatever remnants of authenticity we have could very well be swept away by the “metaverse” movement. Facebook, which has opportunistically renamed itself as “Meta”, defines the metaverse as “an embodied internet where you’re in the experience, not just looking at it.” In his video keynote, Zuckerberg announces Meta’s grand plan to create a 3D world that is sophisticated enough to rival (and in some ways outdo) the world that we live in now. |
>
> | But all this novelty has a price: in the metaverse, we are wired in and fully traceable. In an interview with Kavya Pearlman, founder of the XR Safety Initiative, the infrastructure that supports the metaverse, such as virtual reality headgear and software, will actively collect data on the ways in which users respond to their digital world. For example, Oculus’ Project Cambria is developing technology to track eye focus and facial movement, so that even our most subtle reactions are captured and converted into raw data. |
| | |
|
<
< | So how exactly will the metaverse work? Thanks to Meta’s acquisition of Oculus in 2014 (courtesy of Meta’s “copy, acquire and kill” mantra), the first generation of the metaverse will be accessed through virtual reality headsets and hand sensors. Meta’s website features a picture of a woman in her living room with two curvy hand remotes and (what seems to be) a giant Wii strapped across her face—she looks like she could be surfing in the Maldives or fighting in a street brawl. |
>
> | As revolutionary and ominous as the Metaverse sounds, the question remains: will enough people buy into the Metaverse? |
| | |
|
<
< | The concept sounds cool, and a lot of industry titans are jumping on the bandwagon: JPMorgan recently became the first bank to set up a metaverse office, and Nike’s been designing digital versions of its shoes and apparel. And pockets of our society have already transitioned into this digital frontier, particularly in gaming: when asked at the dinner table about his day, my brother answered casually, “not much, just pillaged a couple of villages with my friends.” |
>
> | The promise of a great, virtual equalizer seems attractive at first glance. In an interview with Marc Andreessen, an early Facebook investor, Andreessen outlines the concept of Reality Privilege: |
| | |
|
<
< | But the price of such an immersive experience is the nature of immersion itself: our physical and digital identities become a single being. In the metaverse, we are wired in and fully traceable, and we lose our rights over even our faintest thoughts: namely, Oculus’ Project Cambria is developing technology to track eye focus and facial movement. And sometimes we volunteer our vulnerabilities: according to an early metaverse user, it is not uncommon to find avatars crying openly in this brave, new digital world. |
>
> | “A small percent of people live in a real-world environment that is rich, even overflowing, with glorious substance…[e]veryone else, the vast majority of humanity, lacks Reality Privilege — their online world is, or will be, immeasurably richer and more fulfilling than…in the quote-unquote real world.” |
| | |
|
<
< | The promise of a great, virtual equalizer is intuitively attractive. In an interview with Marc Andreessen, an early Facebook investor and board member since 2008, Andreessen outlines the concept of Reality Privilege: |
>
> | According to Andreessen, the metaverse is an attractive alternative way of experiencing life for nearly everyone except for the elite few. |
| | |
|
<
< | “A small percent of people live in a real-world environment that is rich, even overflowing, with glorious substance, beautiful settings, plentiful stimulation, and many fascinating people to talk to, and to work with, and to date…[e]veryone else, the vast majority of humanity, lacks Reality Privilege — their online world is, or will be, immeasurably richer and more fulfilling than most of the physical and social environment around them in the quote-unquote real world.” |
>
> | However, if we were to look into the trajectory of previous attempted “metaverses,” it would seem that enthusiasm for digital world platforms is niche and short-lived. Most notable among this slew of metaverses is Second Life, which was launched in 2003 with a nearly identical value proposal as that of Meta’s: users were to create a visual representation of themselves, explore and create their new, digital world, and participate in activities that parallel what people would do in real life. |
| | |
|
<
< | So according to Andreessen, playing pretend can be slippery when you dislike yourself. And so off we go, living as wildly as our imaginations (and VR software) allow. |
>
> | In the article Hey, Facebook, I Made a Metaverse 27 Years Ago, Ethan Zuckerman observes the rise and anticlimactic taper of Second Life: while Second Life’s launch was initially greeted zealously by some metaverse enthusiasts, the company struggled to grow its user base beyond 1 million monthly users. Zuckerman also notes the niche nature of the user base, with a significant portion of the users logging onto Second Life for very specific activities and venues. It seems like the metaverse trend could not catch on. |
| | |
|
<
< | Amidst all of this hype we forget that we are ultimately just occupants in Zuckerberg’s virtual tenancy. And as much as Zuckerberg’s inner child craves praise, Meta needs to turn a profit. |
>
> | One could make the argument that Zuckerberg’s Metaverse is distinguishable from Second Life on the basis of its advanced technology. |
| | |
|
<
< | As mentioned before, commodifying human behavior is old news, but what’s so scary about the metaverse is the extent to which Zuckerberg is trying to mimic authenticity: in the metaverse, we can gaze romantically into the eyes of each other’s avatars, test the firmness of an apple at a virtual Whole Foods, and watch our tears saturate the ground as we weep in our Oculus headsets. We might even will ourselves into believing that all of it is truly authentic. |
>
> | Zuckerman disagrees: |
| | |
|
<
< | But look on the bright side: the full throttle of the metaverse is still far away, five to ten years according to Mark. And we can all learn from the infamous steak dinner scene in The Matrix, when Cypher betrays his comrades for a privileged life in a pretend world: |
>
> | “[Zuckerberg’s] metaverse looks pretty much like we imagined one would look like in 1994…you could do this in Second Life 10 years ago, and in somewhat angular vectors in VRML 20 years ago…even with a bajillion dollars to invest in a video to relaunch and rename his company, Zuckerberg’s team is showing just how difficult it is to create a visually believable virtual world.” |
| | |
|
<
< | “I know this steak doesn’t exist. I know that when I put it in my mouth, the Matrix is telling my brain that it is juicy and delicious. [But] [a]fter nine years, you know what I realize?” |
>
> | There are also some other logistical hurdles for the metaverse technology: the VR headset is uncomfortable and clunky, and using the headset for more than just a couple of hours is visually exhausting. |
| | |
|
<
< | Eats the steak, drinks the kool-aid. |
>
> | In an interview with Philip Rosedale, the inventor of Second Life, Rosedale is also skeptical as to the technological readiness of Zuckerberg’s Metaverse, predicting it to be at least 10 years before Zuckerberg’s team could create a meaningfully realistic metaverse compatible with VR headsets. |
| | |
|
<
< | “Ignorance is bliss.” |
>
> | However, even surpassing the technological threshold, Rosedale mentions a more fundamental obstacle: building trust. According to Rosedale, a virtual world needs to be done in a way so that users can build a genuine trust between each other. |
| | |
|
>
> | We could take Rosedale’s idea one step further and argue that users have to trust the platform itself in order for the Metaverse to work. This goes beyond just how advanced the technology is—rather, the issue is more existential. Zuckerberg has to convince us that our lives in the Metaverse are real, not just a virtual tenancy. And such a task seems formidable, if not impossible. |
| | |
|
<
< |
There's only sizzle here, no steak. Almost all your words are spent on not the subject. We get movie dialogue and magazine-writing descriptions, arch and vaguely knowing, along with (linkless) references to magazine interviews about authors rather than the works of the author's themselves. (If you can't be bothered to read 700 pages of Shoshana Zuboff, you might at least point your readers to her own New York Times capsule versions.)
But there's nothing like an idea of your own underneath the scrim. The "metaverse" and "reality privilege" is all technical nonsense, as Ethan Zuckerman and I and lots of others have pointed out. No, we are not ten years away from simulated reality neurologically indistinguishable from real. Absolute crap said by Marc Andreessen promotuing his investments doesn't cease to be crap because he said it. You report this solemnly (or as solemnly as your arch magazine writing style will permit. But we can't get to meaningful insights by syllogism on false premises.
So what are we left with? Surveillance capitalism is bad and politically dangerous, and if the parasite with the mind of God could directly attach to the human neural system with going through the eyes and ears attached behaviorally to the smartassphone interface that would be even worse. Yes, I agree, that's how I taught the asubject. Improving this draft means going further, not in the decoration but in the substance.
|
>
> | However, despite lessons that could have been gleaned from previously failed metaverses, Zuckerberg and many other tech enthusiasts press forward in building the digital frontier. Even Rosedale announced earlier this year that he would be returning to Second Life as an advisor to help the company transition into the metaverse. |
| |
\ No newline at end of file |
|
>
> | It is unclear as to whether the metaverse movement will make significant strides this time around, but in the event that it does, it will come at the expense of our privacy and authenticity. |