Plattner, Georg

Quent, Matthias

English

SSOAR - Social Science Open Access Repository 

How can we shape immersive digital worlds democratically?

Matthias Quent

Georg Plattner

Directory of Open Access Journals

 In this TATuP interview, Georg Plattner talks with Matthias Quent about his research on the metaverse in the Immersive Democ-racy project. In order to shape the emerg-ing virtual reality-enhanced internet of the fu-ture in a way that is conducive to democratic coexistence, we must also try to prevent pos-sible malevolent uses. This presupposes that key actors such as technology developers, civil society, and the state work together to shape immersive realities and draw the right conclusions in order to negotiate viable com-promises in the conflict between opportuni-ties through innovation and social risks for democracy. Last but not least, it is important that there is also room for genuine democratic community in the future digital space.Georg Plattner: What is the background to the Immersive Democracy project? Can you explain how the project came into being, what it is about, and what the whole thing has to do with malevolent creativity?Matthias Quent: I spoke with Meta and suggested that in order to develop the in-ternet of the future with the metaverse, then we also need to look at how the  security of democratic communication and democratic culture can be ensured and take responsibility for this. Follow-ing this, a project was initiated as part of the European Metaverse Research Net-work. The aim is to analyze the internet of the future, discussed under the term metaverse, in order to learn from the mistakes and vulnerabilities of Web 2.0, the social internet, and to prevent them in the future. In other words, how can a metaverse, how can immersive virtual environments be designed to be condu-cive to democracy, or at least not detri-mental to democracy? It is therefore im-portant to also consider aspects such as radicalization and extremism in the dis-cussion.How do you define immersive realities in the project?Immersive virtual realities are basically realities into which you can immerse yourself via an avatar or VR technology, taking internet use beyond a two-dimen-sional experience. This new experience is accompanied by different levels of in-teractivity and is characterized by the possibilities of immersive technologies, by three-dimensionality, but also by as-pects of presence and persistence, so that a kind of parallel world exists, at least for a certain part of life.The metaverse or immersive realities are still dreams of the future. What do you see as the lessons learned from Web 2.0 in the project? What risks do you see for immersive realities or for the internet of the future if we fail to learn from the mis-takes of the past?This has several levels and relates to dif-ferent use cases. In the gaming sector it is different than in the social or indus-trial metaverse. We generally have to dif-ferentiate between problems that already existed or are noticeable in a very sim-ilar way in Web 2.0 and potential new problems. The former are generally ex-pressions of hate speech, radicaliza-tion, instrumentalization, micro-target-ing, everything that can be used by ma-levolent actors. How might this continue in immersive environments? The second is: What specific new aspects come into play, for example, when it comes to a di-rect verbal exchange, rather than via the written medium? What if it is also about AI-supported questions of generating en-vironments or generating interaction, and thus even more about manipulation possi-bilities? Our project focus, also based on our experiences in recent years with po-larization and radicalization in the polit-ical sphere, is particularly on aspects of dealing with radicalization actors, with hate speech, but also on certain mech-anisms that may have implicit effects, such as algorithmic emotionalization or the creation of filter bubbles. In my opin-ion, the latter can become even more of a problem in the metaverse than in Web 2.0. Such filter bubbles, which we know do not currently exist in the form and quan-tity suggested, are much more realistic in the metaverse. We see this in the em-pirical research that we conduct to a lim-ited extent on virtual realities. There, us-ers show a tendency to simply block ava-tars or other people who irritate or disturb them. This is seen as a panacea, but it also leads to the creation of these sepa-INTERVIEWmit/with Matthias Quentvon/by Georg PlattnerHow can we shape immer-sive digital worlds democrati-cally?Wie lassen sich immersive digitale Welten demokratisch gestalten?62INTERVIEWhttps://doi.org/10.14512/tatup.33.2.62 · Zeitschrift für Technikfolgenabschätzung in Theorie und Praxis 33/2 (2024): 62–65© 2024 by the authors; licensee oekom. This Open Access article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY).https://doi.org/10.14512/tatup.33.2.62Published online: 28. 06. 2024 (editorial peer review)Keywords •  metaverse, malevolent creativity, immersive worlds, virtual reality, democracyOPEN   ACCESS Zeitschrift für Technikfolgenabschätzung in Theorie und PraxisJournal for Technology Assessment in Theory and Practice  rate worlds. This not only raises questions about the technological infrastructure but also about the effects this has on person-alities and society. Will this increase sin-gularization even more dramatically than we have already discussed and seen em-pirically? On the other hand, a closer look reveals that much of the radicaliza-tion and polarization taking place in Web 2.0 is also fed by the fact that we are con-stantly confronted with others. It is eas-ier to avoid this in virtual immersive envi-ronments. On the other hand, however, it can be assumed that the impacts and con-sequences of harassment or some form of attack, for example, will be even stronger there, simply because the intensity of the experience, for example, through some form of augmented reality, has a stronger cognitive and emotional impact.Have you already been able to gain expe-rience in your project with the new tech-nologies relating to the metaverse? There are already experiments with virtual re-ality in the gaming sector, for example. Are there cases where malevolent actors have actually used these metaverse-ad-jacent technologies creatively for their own purposes?In the project, we work decentrally with stakeholders and experts from various civil society and academic fields. A study by the Amadeu Antonio Foundation took a very close look at the gaming sector. In the gaming sector, we are already most likely to see something like a metaverse in terms of 3D environments, a high degree of immersiveness, and interaction. There are all sorts of attempts to use this, from custom-programmed worlds such as con-centration camps or places of terrorist at-tacks that are recreated on Roblox to spam in chat. This happens at a low-threshold level and is difficult to measure because it tends to happen organically and is not necessarily integrated into larger cam-paigns. Extremism researcher Julia Eb-ner has looked closely at what happens or can happen in so-called DAOs, that is, digital autonomous organizations. These show a high degree of resilience to re-pression, to banning, or to any form of in-tervention against radicalization. But ac-tually she hasn’t found too many concrete activities at the moment. There are the in-dicators, there is the technology, there are the trends, but due to the relatively low number of users and the high technical requirements, this is still more for early adopters. At the moment, it can still be designed and observed. These are not yet large-scale spaces for radicalization like certain channels on Telegram.I would now like to move on to how we can prevent the mistakes that may have been made on the internet from hap-pening again and how we can preventa-tively counteract malevolent creativity. I would like to focus in particular on three groups of actors: developers, civil society, and the state. What can developers do to make these immersive realities safe?Let’s start with the developers, who should or do have a vested interest in cre-ating safe environments and at the same time, of course, given that they are driven by commercial interests in particular, have a contradictory relationship to this because everything that stimulates, that perhaps also leads to polarization, is po-tentially also a stimulus for these spaces. In my view, developers first need to be aware that there is this risk of misuse and that this risk of instrumentalization is rel-evant because it leads to different conclu-sions. On the one hand, this concerns the design. Especially in the virtual space of the metaverse, many questions arise, starting with “How should avatars be designed? What skin colors can avatars have? Is this discriminatory or is it not discriminatory? What gender identities?” through to “Can extremist symbols  – swastikas or other symbols, which are often also codes such as the white power symbol or other symbols – be used? Are they allowed or are they already tech-nologically prevented and filtered out?” Above all, however, the question is – and this is not so different from Web 2.0  – how responsive is the platform to com-plaints? How reflexive are the commu-nity standards? How do you deal with it when large swastikas are built in Mine-craft worlds, but are designed in such a way that they do not directly contradict the community rules? You can still report them, of course, but it won’t lead to any-thing. Or the decision-making power is returned to the community, which should then decide on bans. But this puts you in a very difficult position in terms of ev-idence or justification. In other words, just in this internal relationship, not even talking about regulation or cooperation with security authorities and all that, in my opinion it is important to have proac-Such filter bubbles, which we know do not currently exist, are much more realistic in the metaverse.Matthias Quentis Professor of Sociology for Social Work at Hochschule Magdeburg-  Stendal in Germany, one of the best-known researchers in the field of right-wing extremism and head of the “Immersive Democracy” project.63INTERVIEWhttps://doi.org/10.14512/tatup.33.2.62  · Zeitschrift für Technikfolgenabschätzung in Theorie und Praxis 33/2 (2024): 62–65ties, this is still a black hole for very, very many people.Do you have any insights into why right-wing extremists in particular are often early adopters of new technologies who are quick to take advantage of the new opportunities?Well, the widespread theory is that they lack the larger channels, that they are denied normal opportunities to partici-pate in the democratic spectrum, in the media, in youth clubs, or other meet-ing places. However, I believe that this is now only half true due to the main-streaming of right-wing extremism in re-cent months and years. In addition, there is the strong manipulative appeal that comes with the technologies, the fact that they can be used manipulatively and thus provide a new basis for potentially totalitarian fantasies. Secondly, this may also have something to do with differ-ent internet cultures. We see, for exam-ple, that the LGBTIQ scene is very ad-ept at using VR spaces for their own pur-poses, such as for meetings in protected spaces. New opportunities are therefore more likely to be taken up by those who find it difficult or impossible to partici-pate elsewhere. However, it must also be said that much of the discourse on VR technologies and the metaverse among the extreme right or conspiracy theorist groups tends to show a negative attitude. So, on the one hand, there are actors who use this experimentally or from their own living environment  – they are just out there, like others are out there, and then they use it for their political agenda. On the other hand, however, they basically declare it to be part of an overarching doomsday and conspiracy explanation, according to which technologies such as the metaverse, neurobiological develop-ments, chips, etc. are actually part of the plan of a global liberalism that aims to abolish and replace humanity and thus make it more exploitable. Maybe this is also one of the reasons why there is a lot of racism and hatred and stuff like that in practice at the moment, but rel-atively few or almost no organized cam -  paigns.easy to integrate with those organizations or communities that are already active in the relevant worlds. Coming in from the outside and saying “We are now doing so-cial work in the metaverse” will proba-bly not work well. You need access to the communities and therefore also to other generations. I see this as the core chal-lenge, plus the fact that civil society must put pressure on developers and compa-nies such referring to scientific evidence, but also on its own civil values, and must exert influence on politics to shape, reg-ulate, and support this in a normatively positive way.This brings us to the third actor, the state. Are there any particular challenges in regulating digital spaces?The regulation of digital spaces is cur-rently undergoing major changes, partic-ularly as a result of European legislation. I think we first have to accept that social media and social spaces are not limited to very, very large platforms. Decentral-ized technologies controlled or supported by blockchain, such as those made possi-ble by the metaverse, will lead to much more happening in much, much smaller, more fragmented spaces. Regulators need to understand this too. Then, a series of new legal questions must be answered. Is a death threat against an avatar a death threat against the person behind it or only against the avatar? How is this to be han-dled legally? There are individual cases and also discussions about this, but in the wider picture, when it also comes to le-gal enforcement by the security authori-tive community management in the sense of a democratic culture that strengthens those who oppose toxic tendencies, who report things, and who, in case of doubt, also kick malevolent channels or actors off the platforms. This requires not only the appropriate community standards but also the corresponding technological pos-sibilities. Much of virtual reality is ulti-mately based on the fact that you can ban people individually: Then you can no lon-ger see someone yourself, but that doesn’t solve the problems.How can civil society help ensure the safety of immersive realities?I believe that civil society faces the great challenge of understanding what is ac-tually happening and what it means that new technologies and implications are coming our way. That’s why it was so im-portant for us in the project to be transdis-ciplinary: to at least also contribute to the qualification of civil society. Everything that is currently being discussed in rela-tion to AI also plays a role in metaverse worlds and immersive environments. At the same time, especially in the area of right-wing extremism, we have the prob-lem that right-wing extremists can ex-ploit these niches better, faster, earlier, and more intensively than civil society actors. This has actually been the case in all phases of the internet; at the moment, you can see this very strongly on TikTok, and it is very obvious that this will also take place in metaverse environments. This is why we need to first of all under-stand the problem. Moreover, it’s not that Much of virtual reality   is ultimately based on the fact   that you can ban  people individually.   Then you can no  longer see   someone yourself, but that does not   solve the problems.64INTERVIEWhttps://doi.org/10.14512/tatup.33.2.62 · Zeitschrift für Technikfolgenabschätzung in Theorie und Praxis 33/2 (2024): 62–65Finally, two major questions: Firstly, where do you see the greatest risks for democracy and democratic society in immersive realities in this new internet? Where is the greatest potential for de-mocracy and democratic resilience in im-mersive realities?In my view, the greatest danger is the loss of community and the possibility of even more intensive emotional manipulation. This means that you actually withdraw from something like society and retreat into small communities where you always choose what you want to talk about and with whom. Anything to the left or right of it or pluralistic does not take place and you can then ultimately escape into a virtual world of harmony that evades the complexity and ambiguity of politi-cal reality. This is no longer democratic, but conformist. I see the greatest oppor-tunity for immersive realities in the fact that they can help better understand how other social groups are doing, that they make it possible to slip into the shoes of others and perhaps also generate solidar-ity. They can also help give previously unreachable groups and actors access to educational content. These are my spon-taneous thoughts on it.Thank you very much.opposed to certain regulations, which in turn can open up spaces for hatred and radicalization. This is a conflict that, in my view, can only be resolved by engaging with various civil society actors, where possible based on empirical evidence, dis-cussing it, and not defining the rules too narrowly. It’s about finding proportionate solutions based on observed, observable, or assumed problems. Now, of course, as a scientist I have to say: To do so, we need much more research in this area. Our proj-ect is a small project, everything we are doing is very manageable. Developments are faster in other countries on other con-tinents, so we need much more knowledge about what is actually happening in order to be able to design regulation in such a way that it does not lead to overblocking or other overreactions but maintains the degrees of freedom that are possible or conceivable and reduces the risks to lib-eral democracy.How meaningful or how critical is it when states or developers are already starting to regulate certain potentially malevo-lent uses of a technology, for example, by filtering content? How can we ensure that this is still conducive to democratic pol-itics and does not turn into what right-wing extremists or conspiracy theorists might call “censorship”?This is a conflict where there is no clear opinion. Particularly with such risk-re-lated approaches to regulating technolo-gies that do not really exist yet, there are things that are discussed primarily from the point of view of economic innovation and less in terms of democratic politics or democratic theory. This is also why it is so complicated that perhaps the great dan-ger does not necessarily lie in the oppor-tunities for abuse, also by extremist actors, which are desired for reasons of pluralism, but rather in a justified openness to eco-nomic competition and innovation that is In my view, the greatest danger is the loss of community and the possibility of even more intensive emotional manipulation.A–ZNachhaltigkeit D i e  g u t e n  S e i t e n  d e r  Z u k u n f tBestellbar im Buchhandel und unter www.oekom.de.Auch als E-Book erhältlich. D wie Digitalkapitalismus Die digitale Revolution hat unser Leben tiefgreifend verändert. Hinter Erfin-dungsgeist und kostenlosen Angeboten lauern Gefahren für Demokratie und Privatsphäre. Felix Sühlmann-Faul informiert über die Herausforderungen und zeigt, wie wir unsere Privatsphäre effizient schützen können.F. Sühlmann-FaulDer goldene Käfig des DigitalkapitalismusNichts kostet mehr als kostenlos300 Seiten, Broschur, vierfarbig mit Grafiken, 28 Euro ISBN 978-3-98726-079-765INTERVIEWhttps://doi.org/10.14512/tatup.33.2.62  · Zeitschrift für Technikfolgenabschätzung in Theorie und Praxis 33/2 (2024): 62–65

https://www.ssoar.info/ssoar/bitstream/document/95003/1/ssoar-tatup-2024-2-plattner_et_al-How_can_we_shape_immersive.pdf

How can we shape immersive digital worlds democratically?

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

SSOAR - Social Science Open Access Repository

Directory of Open Access Journals