Jump to content

World Economic Forum organizing to do something about the Metaverse.


You are about to reply to a thread that has been inactive for 775 days.

Please take a moment to consider if this thread is worth bumping.

Recommended Posts

The World Economic Forum is setting up a "defining and building the metaverse" group.

The World Economic Forum is the group that puts on Davos, where CEOs and heads of state get together and chat about running the world.

Rosedale is quoted:

“The most important meaning of 'metaverse' is the mission to make the internet a live experience with other people always there, as opposed to the largely individual experience it is today. Making this work in a way that is positive and humanistic is a huge and existential challenge. We must establish ground rules that create an inclusive public commons, recognizing that such live, always-on spaces are vital public spaces that must be supported and regulated as town squares and parks are today. If surveillance-based, behavioural targeting advertising is extended from the web into 3D spaces where you cannot tell who or what the ads are listening to you and recording your movements, civilization is likely to fail. We must, as a first defence, collectively agree to protect privacy and ban many types of advertising business models.”

  • Like 2
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, animats said:

The World Economic Forum is setting up a ”defining and building the metaverse” group.

The World Economic Forum is the group that puts on Davos, where CEOs and heads of state get together and chat about running the world.

Rosedale is quoted:

“The most important meaning of 'metaverse' is the mission to make the internet a live experience with other people always there, as opposed to the largely individual experience it is today. Making this work in a way that is positive and humanistic is a huge and existential challenge. We must establish ground rules that create an inclusive public commons, recognizing that such live, always-on spaces are vital public spaces that must be supported and regulated as town squares and parks are today. If surveillance-based, behavioural targeting advertising is extended from the web into 3D spaces where you cannot tell who or what the ads are listening to you and recording your movements, civilization is likely to fail. We must, as a first defence, collectively agree to protect privacy and ban many types of advertising business models.”

I agree 100% with the last two phrases, however I strongly disagree with the idea of regulating metaverses like you would regulate public spaces in a town... This would ruin all the fantasy aspects of SL, for example (and would pretty much mean banning all ”adult” activities in it) !

Privacy is privacy, period. What happens in adult sims shall not be ”regulated” as long as it happens between consenting adults and following the rules set by the sim owner/manager. As such, a privately ran sim or a private parcel in a main land sim, should be considered the same as the sim/parcel owner's RL home: they invite whoever they want and do whatever they want in it, and what happens in their home (as long as it is legal) is certainly not the government's business !

Edited by Henri Beauchamp
  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Charlotte Bartlett said:

I wonder why High Fidelity... but not Linden Research Inc... 

This refers to the fact that Linden Research does not appear in the list of partners for the metaverse group.

Perhaps because Linden Research owners view their core business as enabling  "publishers of video games and virtual worlds to create in-world economies and monetize user interaction."

  • Like 2
  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

their webpages are very simple, no history of group information, who founded it. why is meta first on partner list. few partners seem questionable as to their specific agendas. would suggest they "do something about" their website, its full noob, fluff nothing sincerely meaningful stood out to my cpu.

Edited by Paulsian
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Paulsian said:

their webpages are very simple, no history of group information

The World Economic Forum is a high-level meeting. Their 2022 meeting just ended. Attendees last year included Narendra Modi, Prime Minister of India; Emmanuel Macron, President of France; Angela Merkel, Federal Chancellor of Germany; Ursula von der Leyen, President of the European Commission; and Xi Jinping, President of the People’s Republic of China. This year, they had Olaf Scholz, the current Federal Chancellor of Germany, in person, Ukraine's President Volodymyr Zelenskyy via video, etc.

Plus a few hundred CEOs of major companies.

The history of the meetings includes deals that prevented at least one war, and the first meeting of the leaders of East and West Germany about reunification.

It's significant that "the metaverse" has come up at that level.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, animats said:

The World Economic Forum is a high-level meeting. Their 2022 meeting just ended. Attendees last year included Narendra Modi, Prime Minister of India; Emmanuel Macron, President of France; Angela Merkel, Federal Chancellor of Germany; Ursula von der Leyen, President of the European Commission; and Xi Jinping, President of the People’s Republic of China. This year, they had Olaf Scholz, the current Federal Chancellor of Germany, in person, Ukraine's President Volodymyr Zelenskyy via video, etc.

Plus a few hundred CEOs of major companies.

The history of the meetings includes deals that prevented at least one war, and the first meeting of the leaders of East and West Germany about reunification.

It's significant that "the metaverse" has come up at that level.

I need to take another look at their website tomorrow, didnt see who started the metaverse group and how the partnering works. I think Im starting to understand the WEF had talks about metaverse at 2022 meeting which birthed the WEF website regarding metaverse with information others can use to not be original and likely trying to sell AI governance services...

seems like a stunt. not getting the importance of it reflected via their metaverse talks webpage  (they dont even have a link to their own website, the WEF icon is not a hyperlink and is one of the few references to WEF?

if its for world betterment great, but not feeling it.

Edited by Paulsian
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, diamond Marchant said:

Perhaps because Linden Research owners view their core business as enabling  "publishers of video games and virtual worlds to create in-world economies and monetize user interaction."

Really does feel that all this exists just to be a case study for Tilia. 

SL exists because it facilitates and expands upon every aspect of the human experience, the good and the bad. This isn't by design, this is by an absence of involvement. Management washed their hands of what happens in SL and left us to it, and that worked.

Human interaction is driven by irrational conflict and competition, and as much as we might not like that, its absence has killed every single competitor we have ever had. Every major social platform thrives on engagement, not with advertisers along for the ride, but with other humans permitted the freedom to be just as human as they dare. Games get over this hump by providing the conflict and granting you, the hero, a central role in resolving it .. with more conflict.

We have seen the "civil town hall model" fail repeatedly and yet, the same people keep pushing the same idea with bigger and bigger budgets (to wrest / retain control over existing platforms, which is itself a form of motivated conflict).

Rosedale learned nothing from the complete failure of HiFi, and the worry is LL have learned nothing from the failure of Sansar. Both can be cited laying the blame at the feet of VR technology and not on their own decisions to craft sterile worlds. VRChat alone proves them wrong.

  • Like 7
  • Thanks 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, animats said:

The World Economic Forum is setting up a "defining and building the metaverse" group.

The World Economic Forum is the group that puts on Davos, where CEOs and heads of state get together and chat about running the world.

Rosedale is quoted:

“The most important meaning of 'metaverse' is the mission to make the internet a live experience with other people always there, as opposed to the largely individual experience it is today. Making this work in a way that is positive and humanistic is a huge and existential challenge. We must establish ground rules that create an inclusive public commons, recognizing that such live, always-on spaces are vital public spaces that must be supported and regulated as town squares and parks are today. If surveillance-based, behavioural targeting advertising is extended from the web into 3D spaces where you cannot tell who or what the ads are listening to you and recording your movements, civilization is likely to fail. We must, as a first defence, collectively agree to protect privacy and ban many types of advertising business models.”

Man proposes, God disposes.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Paulsian said:

FA4F07A1-4EB6-4E4E-9460-BD607E613AFC.png

F8D4FFC5-2A3D-45F5-8BB8-886897648975.png

77C11DCF-481D-48DB-8BEE-4E1A89658FDC.png

You have to wonder how this was put together. What's the Atlantic Council doing on there? I follow them fairly closely and have colleagues who work there and I've never heard them opine on "the Metaverse". As for ICRC, don't they have enough to do in the real world, e.g. Ukraine? Etc. I think somebody is just decorating their Christmas tree here.

  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Regulate" means "Remove ideas/concepts/views I don't like" these days.

Highly against this and kinda sadden Rosedale would even suggest regulating virtual worlds.

Also lol at LEGO's statement: “The next version of the internet must be designed with children’s wellbeing in mind” Ah yes, the classic "think of the children". Children are not the only people on the internet. It is a parent's job to regulate a child's internet usage, not web zone operators. We are not day care providers.

 

To me, this sounds like corporate giants see "the next internet" and want to grab control of it before it becomes "big" like the internet is today so they can steer it how they want it, not how the people want it. This means ads, bans on NSFW content, bans on content that is objectionable, bans on ideas that they don't like, stomping out competition, etc.

Online spaces belong to the people, not corporate giants. If they want to make their own fantasy dictator world where they rule with an iron fist and stomp out ideas they disagree with, they can do so on their own platforms. However the moment they begin trying to tell what people can and cannot do with their own spaces is where I put my foot down.

Actually no, I put my foot down now. The second we allow corporate giants to tell people how to do stuff is the moment we give away the ability for any new start up alternatives to stuff. Just look at YouTube for example. No one likes YouTube, no one wanted downvotes removed(except corporate giants who got sad because everyone thought their film was dog excrement), no one wanted google+ integration, and unless you are a multi million subscriber good luck with dealing with DMCA abuse. But what are we to do? It's the go to place for videos. We could create our own but no one will see it or use it and it'll just fade into obscurity.

This has nothing about making "the next internet" safe, it is all about control and corporations wanting to be the government of the world. 

Edited by Chaser Zaks
RM swearing, got a bit heated because I'm tired of this stuff
  • Like 10
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, diamond Marchant said:

This refers to the fact that Linden Research does not appear in the list of partners for the metaverse group.

LL is not on the list, nor is Roblox, VRChat, the Opensim foundation (I suppose that at least shouldn't be a surprise), IMVU or Epic. Unity and Unigine aren't on the list either. There is a very obvious current reason why the latter is excluded but I doubt that's the real reason. High Fidelity is on the list though, and even Decentraland! As far as I can see, Somnium Space is the only one listed that actually runs a reasonably viable virtual reality service.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, Chaser Zaks said:

"Regulate" means "Remove ideas/concepts/views I don't like" these days.

Highly against this and kinda sadden Rosedale would even suggest regulating virtual worlds.

Also lol at LEGO's statement: “The next version of the internet must be designed with children’s wellbeing in mind” Ah yes, the classic "think of the children". Children are not the only people on the internet. It is a parent's job to regulate a child's internet usage, not web zone operators. We are not day care providers.

 

To me, this sounds like corporate giants see "the next internet" and want to grab control of it before it becomes "big" like the internet is today so they can steer it how they want it, not how the people want it. This means ads, bans on NSFW content, bans on content that is objectionable, bans on ideas that they don't like, stomping out competition, etc.

Online spaces belong to the people, not corporate giants. If they want to make their own fantasy dictator world where they rule with an iron fist and stomp out ideas they disagree with, they can do so on their own platforms. However the moment they begin trying to tell what people can and cannot do with their own spaces is where I put my foot down.

Actually no, I put my foot down now. The second we allow corporate giants to tell people how to do stuff is the moment we give away the ability for any new start up alternatives to stuff. Just look at YouTube for example. No one likes YouTube, no one wanted downvotes removed(except corporate giants who got sad because everyone thought their film was dog excrement), no one wanted google+ integration, and unless you are a multi million subscriber good luck with dealing with DMCA abuse. But what are we to do? It's the go to place for videos. We could create our own but no one will see it or use it and it'll just fade into obscurity.

This has nothing about making "the next internet" safe, it is all about control and corporations wanting to be the government of the world. 

I'm all for regulating the Metaverse by having the organic rule of law of real life apply online, particularly so that virtuality in its various forms, from violent online and offline video games to aggressive social media to violent movies do not go on producing school shooters. 

Like it or not, the corporate giants have to save us from other people, especially people who think "anything goes" because they are online. The big platforms are already the government of the world and that's all the more reason to have real-life government step in, which is the will of the people, after all.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Charlotte Bartlett said:

I wonder why High Fidelity... but not Linden Research Inc... 

I wonder if they were even asked or had a chance to say "no". I could see where High Fidelity and others have products that are across platforms. While SL itself may not replicate, there's Tilia which already provides currency for several worlds.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Henri Beauchamp said:

I agree 100% with the last two phrases, however I strongly disagree with the idea of regulating metaverses like you would regulate public spaces in a town... This would ruin all the fantasy aspects of SL, for example (and would pretty much mean banning all ”adult” activities in it) !

Privacy is privacy, period. What happens in adult sims shall not be ”regulated” as long as it happens between consenting adults and following the rules set by the sim owner/manager. As such, a privately ran sim or a private parcel in a main land sim, should be considered the same as the sim/parcel owner's RL home: they invite whoever they want and do whatever they want in it, and what happens in their home (as long as it is legal) is certainly not the government's business !

I suspect they don't consider the "private home" aspect of virtual reality at all. They think of the future metaverse as a kind of 3D internet that is all about public experiences and public "sites". From a commercial point of view this makes sense since it's the part that is easiest to monetize, at least when the business model is the "social media" kind where the user is the product, not the customer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, ChinRey said:

I suspect they don't consider the "private home" aspect of virtual reality at all. They think of the future metaverse as a kind of 3D internet that is all about public experiences and public "sites". From a commercial point of view this makes sense since it's the part that is easiest to monetize, at least when the business model is the "social media" kind where the user is the product, not the customer.

I wonder if they have considered the monetization possible by using RL IP..branded products, house designs, appliances, clothing just like the RL counterparts which people could try and then go get the RL version.  I could see people wanting those in their SL houses. "Look, I have a Frigidaire, and it's frost-free!"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Love Zhaoying said:

using RL IP..branded products, house designs, appliances, clothing just like the RL counterparts which people could try and then go get the RL version.  I could see people wanting those in their SL houses. "Look, I have a Frigidaire, and it's frost-free!"

This was an early "sell" of Second Life to major RL corporations. Some of them tried, e.g. Nike, L'Oreal. They created SL versions of their branded products and linked them to sites where you could order the RL versions.

The problem was, the "little guy" creators of SL were MUCH better at making virtual products than the folks the corporations hired to do it. We all wanted shoes from Stiletto Moodys and Bax Coen, not Nike or The Wild Pair. The "big guys" found that they would have to develop superior products and fight all over again in the virtual world for "name recognition".

Another example: I would much prefer my SL refrigerator that eats anyone who tries to open it over a frost-free Frigidaire digital clone. When creating products, it's important to consider the environment in which they will be used.

Edited by Lindal Kidd
  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Love Zhaoying said:

I wonder if they have considered the monetization possible by using RL IP..branded products, house designs, appliances, clothing just like the RL counterparts which people could try and then go get the RL version.  I could see people wanting those in their SL houses. "Look, I have a Frigidaire, and it's frost-free!"

This is a bit of a double edged sword. Big brands will stomp all over creators making similar content because unlike the real world, they can wipe you out with an email. There will also be pressure on LL to reign in user expression and control how their brands appear. Did you pose nude in front of our brand? Oh no you didn't .

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

heres the talk, philip rosedale is on stage and was one of the speakers. wowow I like his statement at 10:00 mark. Something like "Second Life stands out overall as a postivie experience" indeed it does. I think tollerence and conditioning has something to do with ability to rebound from negatives more efficiently. They seemed to have been shocked at the idea of having a yacht in metaverse, Philip is humble could bragged but didnt I thought that was classy.

instead of www would it zyx.secondlife.com persay? I mean in the distant future. 

23:00 Meta have they not learned this type of interest based tracking and ad pushing is how ai technology is radicalizing and traumatizing individuals. If I want to purchase a virtual shotgun prop for a zombie build, I don't want ai deciding what future ads they will push and the sly ways of doing it. The want to sell glances. We fed him this ad and he looked at it, we'll feed him more and more and more. To build to scale well need to push ads... if thats the case save your company money and focus on your other platforms that appear to be failing. If they have to do ads to get funding to "build to scale" would recommend general ads maybe for metaverse products? something non creepy that would be compatible within all markets. I don't want to be a virtual ad target. Barf.

 

Edited by Paulsian
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Prokofy Neva said:

I'm all for regulating the Metaverse by having the organic rule of law of real life apply online, particularly so that virtuality in its various forms, from violent online and offline video games to aggressive social media to violent movies do not go on producing school shooters.

I agree some regulation is needed, and that there should be less violence everywhere. But if "video games to aggressive social media to violent movies" produced school shooters, why do we not see all these school shooters in Europe where they are equally exposed to the same media violence?

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are about to reply to a thread that has been inactive for 775 days.

Please take a moment to consider if this thread is worth bumping.

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...