To treat a metaverse as an alternate reality misses the fact that it is a form of media and shares many features of any 21c media. It would serve the interests of many people if the inhabitants of such a space lost the ability to recognize this fact. My research today is a step into the ways any metaverse must inevitably shape itself to the needs of our society.
In my outlining of virtual reality I make a distinction between virtual spaces that exist solely for the viewer. Many uses of virtual reality are as passive media which do not include computer mediated interaction with other people. These constructed realities are not the end-state of what people want in virtual reality but merely an anteroom to that experience of fully immersive social space. They want the interactivity of social media in a virtual space.
Any virtuality that is constructed by some interests for use by others sets up a power dynamic that will shape the space. It will be used like any other medium for commercial interests, especially since it will be commercial interests that invested the time and money to construct the space. No matter the sincerity of the intention of creating some utopia it will not happen with such a power dynamic.
Media theory is no longer a new science. One YouTube introduction that I found helpful is on the channel Carefree Wandering titled Niklas Luhmann: A Super Theory of Society. This vid introduces the work of Niklas Luhmann and his theories of media, society and communication. He uses systems theory and a few other thoughts that I am attracted to for understanding how any virtual reality society could form and/or be controlled. It is my core belief that if there were to be a dominant virtual reality that wins out in suppressing interest in other social media, it can have such power over the society that it poses a far greater risk than AI does. AI would just be a minor tool within this constructed reality. So I want to look at Luhmann’s theory and another theory of media that is another good filter for analyzing virtual reality, that of Noam Chomsky.
One of Chomsky’s most popular works was authored by him with Edward Herman called Manufacturing Consent. In this work he asserts that the mass communication media of the U.S. “are effective and powerful ideological institutions that carry out a system supportive propaganda function, by reliance on market forces, internalized assumptions, and self-censorship, and without overt coercion”, by means of the propaganda model of communication. Here is a section drawn from that work:
The mass media serve as a system for communicating messages and symbols to the general populace. It is their function to amuse, entertain, and inform, and to inculcate individuals with the values, beliefs, and codes of behavior that will integrate them into the institutional structures of the larger society. In a world of concentrated wealth and major conflicts of class interest, to fulfill this role requires systematic propaganda.
“In countries where the levers of power are in the hands of a state bureaucracy, the monopolistic control over the media, often supplemented by official censorship, makes it clear that the media serve the ends of a dominant elite. It is much more difficult to see a propaganda system at work where the media are private and formal censorship is absent. This is especially true where the media actively compete, periodically attack and expose corporate and governmental malfeasance, and aggressively portray themselves as spokesmen for free speech and the general community interest. What is not evident (and remains undiscussed in the media) is the limited nature of such critiques, as well as the huge inequality in command of resources, and its effect both on access to a private media system and on its behavior and performance.”
[https://chomsky.info/consent01/]
The propaganda model for the manufacture of public consent describes five editorially distorting filters, which are said to affect reporting of news in mass communications media. These five filters of editorial bias are:
- Size, ownership, and profit orientation: The dominant mass-media are large profit-based operations, and therefore they must cater to the financial interests of the owners such as corporations and controlling investors. The size of a media company is a consequence of the investment capital required for the mass-communications technology required to reach a mass audience of viewers, listeners, and readers.
- The advertising license to do business: Since the majority of the revenue of major media outlets derives from advertising (not from sales or subscriptions), advertisers have acquired a “de facto licensing authority”.[10] Media outlets are not commercially viable without the support of advertisers. News media must therefore cater to the political prejudices and economic desires of their advertisers. This has weakened the working class press, for example, and also helps explain the attrition in the number of newspapers.
- Sourcing mass media news: Herman and Chomsky argue that “the large bureaucracies of the powerful subsidize the mass media, and gain special access [to the news], by their contribution to reducing the media’s costs of acquiring […] and producing, news. The large entities that provide this subsidy become ‘routine’ news sources and have privileged access to the gates. Non-routine sources must struggle for access, and may be ignored by the arbitrary decision of the gatekeepers.” Editorial distortion is aggravated by the news media’s dependence upon private and governmental news sources. If a given newspaper, television station, magazine, etc., incurs disfavor from the sources, it is subtly excluded from access to information. A news organisation loses readers or viewers, and ultimately, advertisers. To minimize such financial danger, news media businesses editorially distort their reporting to favor government and corporate policies to stay in business.[11][clarification needed]
- Flak and the enforcers: “Flak” refers to negative responses to a media statement or program (e.g. letters, complaints, lawsuits, or legislative actions). Flak can be expensive to the media, either due to loss of advertising revenue, or due to the costs of legal defense or defense of the media outlet’s public image. Flak can be organized by powerful, private influence groups (e.g. think tanks). The prospect of eliciting flak can be a deterrent to the reporting of certain kinds of facts or opinions.[11]
- Anti-communism: This filter concerns the spectre of a common enemy which can be used to marginalise dissent: “This ideology helps mobilize the populace against an enemy, and because the concept is fuzzy it can be used against anybody advocating policies that threaten [dominant] interests”.[11] Anti-communism was included as a filter in the original 1988 edition of the book, but Chomsky argues that since the end of the Cold War (1945–91) anticommunism was replaced by the “war on terror” as the major social control mechanism.[12]
Niklas Luhmann’s mass media theory offers a unique perspective on the workings of mass media and their potential for manipulation. This theory explores the contradictory nature of mass media and their influence on society, shedding light on the complex dynamics at play.
Key Insights of Luhmann’s Mass Media Theory
⭐Luhmann’s theory differs from Chomsky’s manipulation theory.
⭐The mass media’s success in manipulating despite being suspected of manipulation.
⭐Different function systems have unique codes for communication.
⭐Operational closure is crucial in social systems.
⭐Luhmann’s social constructivism as a theory of social evolution.
Since Luhmann’s theory is more oriented toward the use of data to perform its function, I find this a more amenable theory.
Here is another WordPress user who has already explored this topic:
I think this may be a fruitful diversion.
Dale Fletter Blog Site 