By Mark Jamison and Matthew Glavish

In the first part of this series, we explored four major themes of the metaverse’s dark side: antisocial behavior, pornographic content, gambling, and information security. We also pinpointed three major reasons these problems exist in the metaverse. First, being online lowers people’s inhibitions. Second, studies suggest effective, large-scale content moderation may be impossible. Third, age-verification measures are easy to circumvent. As with the physical world, there is no silver-bullet solution to any of these problems; however, there are multiple avenues which may help address them.

Competition Between Metaverse Platforms

In the real world, people choose where to live or do business based in part on what they perceive to be the culture of an area (i.e., how people interact or what the community guidelines are). This holds just as true in the metaverse—and probably even more so as switching metaverse platforms should be simpler than moving physical locations. Users compare metaverse spaces through experiences, online reviews and scores, and the market values of associated cryptocurrencies, digital land, and non-fungible tokens (NFTs). As more platforms continue to emerge, these digital spaces will evolve as they compete for users’ patronage and attention by experimenting with different user experiences. Platforms will find it in their interests to cater to users’ preferences around privacy, safety, and well-established community guidelines.

Competition Among Metaverse Hardware Suppliers

Competition among the producers of virtual reality (VR) and augmented reality headsets can address the problem of information security. Some privacy advocates are currently skeptical of data protection in the metaverse. These advocates’ concerns are based in part on Meta’s historical problems with data privacy and security and the fact that anyone who uses an Oculus must have a Facebook account (and connect it to the Oculus). But the Oculus competitor High Tech Computer Corporation is already addressing this issue by developing a privacy-oriented headset. This headset restricts the types of information provided to metaverse spaces. As Apple and Google enter the metaverse hardware race and Hewlett-Packard, Microsoft, and Valve develop a headset together, competition will further diversify the VR headset market and address part of the metaverse’s dark side.

The Role of Decentralized Autonomous Organizations (DAOs)

Some metaverse platforms, such as Decentraland, are run as DAOs. These DAOs “determine how the world behaves: for example, what kinds of wearable items are allowed (or disallowed) . . . moderation of content, LAND policy and auctions, among other [responsibilities].”

Organizations like these can combat the metaverse’s problems by allowing the users of a community to self-regulate through democratic institutions. Neither Roblox nor VRChat (two platforms that see a large portion of the unethical behavior currently taking place in the metaverse) are governed by DAOs.

Looking at the Decentraland DAO’s enacted proposals, for example, shows that the DAO has implemented a variety of different rules and regulations. Examples include banning grotesque names, electing members of the Curation Committee (which regulates what wearables are permitted on the server), and even issuing six-month chat and voice bans on specific players. Even though this DAO is nascent, as it becomes more established, it could further confront the societal problems plaguing the metaverse, perhaps by providing incentives in the form of tokens, NFTs, or economic rights.

Targeted Government Intervention

There are specific areas where traditional governments could play a role, such as the criminalization of certain behaviors. For example, the dating application Bumble successfully lobbied Texas to criminalize “cyber flashing” (i.e., the act of sending unsolicited lewd photos). Cyber flashers in Texas now have to pay a fine of $500 for each violation. But there are problems with using government intervention to solve the dark side of the metaverse.

First, on a practical level and using the Texas law as an example, if someone from Texas cyber flashes someone in Argentina, was a Texan law violated? Granted that the metaverse, and the online world generally, transcends national borders, laws like Texas’ could be futile even if well-intentioned. Second, lawmakers still struggle to understand our current tech ecosystem, let alone one that is in its early stages, such as the metaverse. It may be practically impossible for traditional laws to keep up.

What Should Be Done?

Metaverse developers should consider developing an industry standards body. Effective standards could stimulate demand and enhance marketing. And an industry approach would be more likely to remain relevant to future and emerging technologies than would government regulations.

The post The Dark Side of the Metaverse, Part II: Potential Solutions appeared first on American Enterprise Institute – AEI.