The annual meeting in Davos 2022 discussed how the World Economic Forum will govern the metaverse.
The World Economic Forum (WEF), a globalist, pro-“transhumanist” organization, stated this week that it will draft governance standards for the Metaverse, a virtual reality platform linked to the internet and run by Meta (formerly Facebook).
The World Economic Forum, which collectively predicts and endorses the merging of man and machine, launched its new initiative “Defining and Building the Metaverse” during its annual meeting in Davos 2022, which it describes as “the world’s foremost multi-stakeholder initiative to develop and share actionable strategies for creating and governing the metaverse.”
The WEF’s Cathy Li describes the metaverse, which was presented last year by Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg, as a form of virtual environment that is expected to become “so commonplace” that it would “become an extension of reality itself.”
The Metaverse, according to Zuckerberg, will be incorporated into daily professional, social, and leisure activities. It will allow for the presence of three-dimensional holograms of coworkers during meetings, as well as entire sensory immersion in a party halfway around the world through virtual reality headgear.
Subscribe to GreatGameIndia
Activities carried out “in” the Metaverse could be watched by the platform’s administrators, thus jeopardizing the privacy of all Metaverse users. The WEF’s vision of a future without privacy would be complemented by the integration of all aspects of one’s life with the Metaverse.
The Metaverse’s integration of such commonplace activities into the World Wide Web raises the question of whether any speech given while “plugged in” to the Metaverse can be restricted by its administrators. Such enormous regulatory power would be comparable to that of a worldwide government, which is the World Economic Forum’s stated goal.
On Wednesday, Meta president of global affairs and former British Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg confirmed the WEF’s leadership role, saying the organization “will play a leadership role” in “inform[ing] best practices and governance principles.”
The WEF’s effort will also “focus” on “economic and societal value creation” in the metaverse, which has its own parallel economy of virtual products and services, according to the WEF. If the World Economic Forum’s objective of abolishing private property is accomplished, such an economy could become more important.
The WEF is so important in constructing such governance and economic frameworks that it views all of its Metaverse initiative members to be playing “a vital role” in “defining and building the metaverse.”
Several observers have suggested that the WEF has a totalitarian leaning, citing the group’s support for strong COVID-19 social controls, such as track-and-trace apps that help “isolate infected persons from the uninfected,” as an example. The World Economic Forum is “steeped in authoritarianism and Marxist ideology,” according to Australian Liberal senator Alex Antic.
The World Economic Forum’s stated vision for Metaverse rule is a little hazy and ill-defined. The organization’s governance role, according to the group, strives to create “safe and inclusive metaverse ecosystems” that strike a balance between “regulation and innovation.”
The WEF has touched on the “dilemma of distributed governance,” or the idea to grant “users, rather than executives,” economic and governance powers within virtual worlds, in response to the question of who will rule the Metaverse.
“While the theory is appealing, distributed governance does not provide an obvious recourse apparatus for when governance challenges get out of hand,” wrote the World Economic Forum’s Cathy Li, dismissing the notion of such decentralized control.
Li used a Twitter thread by former Reddit CEO Yishan Wong to explain what she meant by “governance challenges,” stating that internet censorship has nothing to do with politics or topics and everything to do with “behavior” and civility.
He used the censorship of the Wuhan COVID-19 lab leak theory as an example, claiming that it was censored because of “massive amounts of horrible behavior, spam-level posting, and abuse that spilled over into the real world,” and because scientists on Twitter did not discuss it in a “rational, evidence-based manner.”
He went on to say that “ideas” “can be dangerous,” and that allowing “debate” of “bad ideas” is “naive.” If WEF governance policies for the Metaverse match this idea, which has been used to justify the censorship of tech giants like Twitter in recent years, then speech rights in everyday activities may be severely restricted.