Part1: Several Available Strategies to Deal With Privacy Threats in Metaverse
In the last article, we attempted to identify three kinds of privacy threats in the metaverse, from which we find that metaverse privacy protection is undoubtedly a critical and profound research hotspot. Then, we will naturally think which are the best strategies available that will allow us to deal with the threats to privacy raised by the occurrence of the metaverse. These medium series contain three articles that provide some recommendations and strategies for tackling the problems of privacy issues in metaverse from the perspective of general mind, policy-makers, providers and users, respectively. We expect to help users understand the issues of privacy at stake and avoid the potential losses of private assets while participating in the metaverse.
At first sight there seem to be three possible approaches to the metaverse privacy issues: (1) a neo-Luddite approach [1], (2) a technophilic approach, and (3) an “Aristotelian” approach [2].
1) Neo-Luddism is a philosophy opposing many forms of modern technology. The neo-Luddite approach would mean abandoning the new and innovative metaverse technologies so as to preserve privacy and maintain autonomy to the largest possible degree. If we try and live off the grid, this would avoid many of the problems sketched above. This would necessitate people refusing to participate in metaverse at a minimum. A properly neo-Luddite approach would necessitate people using modern Internet technologies less.
However, on closer analysis, this strategy seems neither desirable nor practical. It is clear that the digital revolution has brought with it many benefits, in terms of entertainment, socializing, and the capacity to research. One problem with this approach is, of course, that new technologies, including both VR and blockchain, are of immense usefulness and value. People enjoy being able to access information and entertainment quickly and easily: everyone from governments to researchers to children are able to access more information than ever before for whatever ends they deem worthwhile to pursue.
There is no reason to suppose that metaverse would not achieve similar levels of popularity. There are also huge economic benefits arising from these new technologies — the video game market is now larger than Hollywood [3] (Global videogame revenue is expected to surge 20% to $179.7 billion in 2020 [4]). Another problem with this approach is that it would require a top-down prohibition on the development of technologies already firmly embedded within society. Thus the neo-Luddite approach, although attractive because it most conclusively avoids issues with autonomy and privacy, is probably too impractical to be a serious option and maybe even ethically undesirable.
2) The technophilic approach would do the opposite, meaning that it would endorse adopting metaverse technologies irrespective of the costs to privacy or autonomy. It would probably mean giving up on privacy to a large extent as well as accepting the negative effects on autonomy, while profiting from all the advantages of the new Internet technologies.
This approach currently appears more prevalent — new technologies have often been adopted prior to consideration of privacy. There already exist prototypical metaverse, such as World of Warcraft and Second Life, although this has been losing members [5] — there is little reason to think that new metaverse will not emerge before societies have prepared legislation for them. The privacy debate has begun in earnest, though the threats to autonomy are less frequently discussed. These threats are subtler and less immediate — they will emerge incrementally. Living in a world without privacy and autonomy is not only undesirable but causing this state is immoral. Autonomy and privacy are extremely valuable as essential aspects of human life, so technologies that undermine them need to be approached with great care.
3) The “Aristotelian” approach would be to find the middle addressing both concerns of the neo-Luddite as well as the technophilic approach to avoid both the weaknesses and profit from the strong points of both strategies.
This is the option we prefer. Since, neither extreme option appears desirable, we will adopt something of an Aristotelian strategy, and attempt to locate an appropriate mean, i.e. outline an approach to these difficulties that is proportional. Accordingly, in the future two mediums, we are going to provide some concrete and feasible privacy-protection recommendations for policy-makers, providers of services, and users.
Zecrey official website: Zecrey
Welcome to join our communities and follow us on twitter:
Medium：https://medium.com/@zecrey
Twitter: https://twitter.com/zecreyprotocol
Telegram: https://t.me/zecrey
Discord: https://discord.com/invite/U98ghQsJE5
References
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo-Luddism
[2] Nussbaum M C. Non-relative virtues: an Aristotelian approach[J]. Midwest studies in philosophy, 1988, 13: 32–53.
[3] https://raiseyourskillz.com/gaming-industry-vs-other-entertainment-industries-2021/
[4] https://www.marketwatch.com/story/videogames-are-a-bigger-industry-than-sports-and-movies-combined-thanks-to-the-pandemic-11608654990
[5] Newitz, A. (2014). Is Second Life About to Become a Ghost World? io9. Retrieved June 26, 2014, from http://io9.com/is-second-life-about-to-become-a-ghost-world-1594324051
