Open access peer-reviewed chapter - ONLINE FIRST

ETHICAL CHALLENGES RELATED TO THE METAVERSE DEVELOPMENT - HYPOTHESIS

Written By

Michal Boni

Submitted: December 22nd, 2022 Reviewed: January 22nd, 2023 Published: March 8th, 2023

DOI: 10.5772/intechopen.1001112

Ethics in Scientific Research - New Perspectives IntechOpen
Ethics in Scientific Research - New Perspectives Edited by Miroslav Radenkovic

From the Edited Volume

Ethics in Scientific Research - New Perspectives [Working Title]

Prof. Miroslav Radenkovic

Chapter metrics overview

2 Chapter Downloads

View Full Metrics

Abstract

Consideration of ethical aspects of metaverse solutions should take into account all crucial points like: accountability, responsibility, transparency, privacy and security, non-discrimination, avoiding biases and asymmetry of information, stability of digital identity, and avoiding any harm addressed to human autonomy (material and immaterial). The essential reference point should be based on HLEG on AI recommendations (in relation to the fundamental rights) for ethical, trustworthy, and secure metaverse. It is crucial that the metaverse has a special legal framework (as some suggested), or functions after the precise review of legal aspects of all metaverse dimensions (as space with humans and avatars in the specific AI IoT) and in addition is based on some self-regulatory solutions, i.e., in Codes of Conduct. In that paper, I have considered the following questions: - how to enter the metaverse space, - how the human position in the metaverse world could look like, - how to develop and maintain the human subjectivity in the metaverse ecosystem, - what kind of society would be generated by the metaverse rules, - how to translate the rules of the metaverse into the ethical principles. Responding to them has showed that there are many works to do, and many detailed analysis and risk assessments are needed - to make the metaverse trustworthy for humans in their all virtual activities.

Keywords

  • ethics
  • transparency
  • human
  • avatar
  • accountability
  • immersive experience

1. Introduction

Historically, it is a unique situation, in which the new formula of the Internet has been established. In many debates, the concept of “Web3” has started to be a challenge and opportunity, opening the fascinating way to empower individuals. The phenomenon of metaverse is based on:

  • the immersive experience coming from the joint use of Virtual and Augmented Reality,

  • possibility to move and live in the virtual spaces accessible via all digital devices, but due to the one virtual identity usage,

  • the new formula of full semantic interoperability making possible to exchange information and interact among various systems and platforms overcoming all kinds of barriers,

  • the special network architecture bringing the enormous power to enable massive groups of users to be in the metaverse space at the same time with high efficiency of all activities [1].

The foregoing experience of increasing significance of the Internet shows that at the very beginning the fascination of the innovative revolution and its drivers was much more powerful and stronger than any awareness of some unintended consequences of new phenomena, especially looking from the societal, human, and ethical point of view. At last, it resulted in a deficit of the adequate principles and norms and the proper regulatory framework. It does not mean, however, that the only way to fix this shortcoming is to have strict legislative rules. Very often, we need only various self-regulatory solutions like codes of conduct [2] or to check the impact of the new innovative technologies using for instance the form of the regulatory sandboxes [3], allowing for experiments.

Taking into account the starting point of the metaverse growth, I consider that it is a challenge to analyze all aspects of the current and future metaverse models using the perspective of human rights and ethical values. It is the main purpose of this paper – to prepare the list of problems, which should be tackled in order to guarantee human-oriented, trustworthy, and ethical metaverse solutions’ development.

The complexity of the metaverse allows to discover new areas of changing services delivered to many targeted or non-targeted groups. Currently, there are several new instruments for much more efficient integrated urban development projects; tools for educators allowing them to show the pupils, i.e., the real dimension of the historical events and processes – to understand better the past, to offer a form of hands-on experience; the new environment for all kinds of trainings more effective thanks to the creation of real experience, although in the virtual space (soldiers’ trainings and HR trainings); new opportunities for the medicine – diagnosis and therapies with sensual and psychological participation of patients, i.e., in the post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) treatment, as well as remote surgeries; and also – new tools and possibilities for using avatars of civil services to make administration much more effective, cheaper, and closer to the society. And, I have to say – it is not the experimental stage, many of the mentioned above solutions and use are really functioning, and many of them are after trials and have the evidence of the effectiveness and efficiency.

What is needed for the metaverse development and high level of guarantees of its effectiveness, robustness, and usefulness?

There are some crucial conditions such as:

  • high quality of connections, which means that the networks of 5G and 6G in the future (infrastructural challenges) are necessary, with broad and common accessibility,

  • high level of interoperability (technical instruments, protocols, and services needed) which provide for possibility for data and concrete solutions (designed in 3D landscapes, rooms, and offices) flow and understandable exchange,

  • probable development of the blockchain models, which can guarantee the decentralized operations that should be more secure and lead to the open decentralized metaverse. In addition, they could support the decentralized identification network based on international norms and standards with a purpose to strengthen and ensure the confidence for avatars moving cross-platforms,

  • clear – and globally as common as possible – rules for data flows (personal and non-personal), as it is recommended in the EU Data Act1 and other regulations and formats of international transfers,2

  • redefined and restructured workplaces and online shopping frameworks with transparent principles for workers (workers’ rights – the platforms’ workers directive3) and consumers (liabilities schemes, adequate rights, and redress mechanisms in cases of breaching the rules and vis-a-vis clients’ dissatisfaction),

  • new environment for the economic activity in the metaverse spaces (digital currency rules, legal functioning of digital assets, and models of transfers between the traditional and virtual economy – with a specific added value),

  • technical conditions and standards for IoT, especially AI IoT, as well as guarantees for cybersecurity (as it is proposed in the Cyber Resilience Act4),

  • much more advanced methods of building digital identities (confirmation and authentication schemes), commonly accessible in the EU (how to make it globally?); this however requires faster works on EU Digital Identity Wallet [4].

The conditions mentioned above are indispensable for the metaverse comprehensive development. The high quality, efficient, secure, and safe metaverse requires advanced and multidimensional solutions, cross-technological and related to the various fields of the European digital regulations.

The essential question is whether we need a special regulatory framework focused on metaverse to respond to all requirements and fulfill all conditions? Or should we review all existing legislations and self-regulations and add to them some amendments to make the metaverse development innovative, secure, and responding to all – even currently unclear – problems.

And what are the unclear problems? The current and potential advantages are discussed in the business environment, in some countries and in the European Union. The building blocks are being developed, but there is a deficit of the complex connection between them.

Let us try to put together such a list of problems, taking especially into account important aspects of the functioning of metaverse solutions.

Advertisement

2. Firstly, how to enter the metaverse space?

The adequate quality of network is required. So, if metaverse is to be a common achievement (a common good in the future), accessible for all, overcoming the digital exclusions and avoiding a growth of the new inequalities, the holistic and comprehensive network development is necessary. In parallel, the shift from current accessibility of digital world (via devices and its screens) to the new one (via headsets, gloves, contact lenses, watches etc.) is in process and progress, generating both unknown opportunities and complications and concerns. All of them are challenging for the accessibility itself.

It is not only the material accessibility of those forms of the immersive hardware but also our – human – adjustment to those devices allowing to use them without the redundant tiring experiences toward our physicality, eyes, hands, legs (possible para-phantomic movements), and of course our brain, psycho, and the mindset. The question is whether we are ready for this kind of sensual experiences, whether we want (as gaming business is working on) to participate in the Internet of Senses via Internet of Things. And what kind of the unintended consequences this experience can bring to our personalities? Can the long-lasting living in the metaverse landscape change our senses and cognitive skills? What will be the impact of this immersive experience on us? Some kind of personal (psychological) impact assessment directly focused on this issue could probably be very useful as part of obligations present in the Codes of Conduct or legislative proposals.

Finally, entering metaverse space should require most secured way of our identification and authentication. There are many certificated schemes in, i.e., banking systems, administrative services, patients’ registers, functioning for users of the Internet (with our IPs), and checking and confirming digital identity. But there is a lack of single and common solution, commonly used in all possible sectors. The concept of the EU Digital Wallet is underdeveloped and far from final conclusion as legally binding solution, and far to be implemented. The important question is whether and how the metaverse identity authentication should be built on decentralized models, as the blockchain is not solved. It does not mean that this deficit can stop the metaverse development, but it would probably make the metaverse activities more complicated and more exposed to cybersecurity attacks.

2.1 Secondly, how the human position in the metaverse world could look like?

On one side, we – as users – will participate in the virtual landscape via our decisions. On the other side, it will mean that we have to give a clear, informed consent to collect and process our personal data. But the continuation of our presence in metaverse space may most likely require the confirmation of agreement for re-use of our data, and in addition, can cause tracking us by algorithms because of many reasons (with no choice scheme…). The safety and security guarantees may lead to use and process our data to protect us, and the active participation in some virtual undertakings may be based on behavioral analysis (gestures, making a faces, visible emotions, heart rates, and gaze directions) and building the profile of our preferences in the intrusive ways, so we may be exposed to emotion-responsive advertising without any restrictions and limits. As it was raised in the brief paper presented by Chatham House [5]: “What is the metaverse?” – “The temptation to put users under even more constant and detailed surveillance will be hard to resist in a metaverse founded on profit-driven motives.” Surely, in the future, the metaverse solutions would become a public good, but as for now, the development is based on commercial purposes. In this case, the conclusion should be clear – the new patterns of safeguards for having aware choice and giving informed consent ought to be incorporated transparently into the management system of metaverse [6].5

To tackle this problem, we should consider whether to use existing possibilities of GDPR or look for new ones.

What is more, the very complicated chain of needed and used data for metaverse should create a new perspective for building the awareness of privacy and personal data problems. But there is a challenge. Do we properly understand the model of web relationship established in the metaverse, some kind of “inter-and cross-data model” functioning in the Internet of Things? In this chain of devices and the chain of inter-humans relations, it is very difficult to indicate the responsibility for data usage and make the adequate distinction between data controller and data processor and ensure the compliance of all GDPR requirements. As a result, we may see the need for a completely new model of data management and rules for data governance (how to collect the data consents and how to manage those collections), as some current regulatory schemes presented in the Data Governance Act and the Data Act currently discussed in the European Parliament may turn out to be insufficient. There are some recommendations to review the GDPR in public debates and to check whether data gathered during unconscious behaviors [7] in the metaverse spaces have references to the existing regulatory framework and could protect us.

2.2 Thirdly, how to develop and maintain the human subjectivity in the metaverse ecosystem?

All those aspects of the metaverse functionalities lead me to the issue of keeping the integrity of humans (physical and psychological) and guarantees for the human subjectivity in the metaverse ecosystem, which are significant for fundamental rights and ethical dimension of this new technology. What does it mean ethical? As it was formulated very precisely in the HLEG document on AI [8], the essential reference point is related to the Fundamental Rights (that means international understanding of our rights, after the World War II), all our freedoms, guarantees for the autonomy and equality in the broad sense (the right not to be discriminated by any cultural, mental, religious views, and biases), living under the rules of accountability and transparency, and full access to the information.

There are two concerns.

The first one is linked to the specific relationship between the human subject and the avatar subject in general, when the avatar is or should be the duplication of human subject.

It would be interesting to know more and publicly discuss the topics and tools of creation of the avatar:

  1. as a full replication of the human, based on all information accessible in the network – all marks and prints (is it fully possible and could it create the autonomous “person”?),

  2. as a deep model based on us as an essential pattern, with us: still present and standing behind the avatar in the real time (if we are sleeping – the avatar is sleeping),

  3. as a created shape adjusted to the functions and played roles, but with our ruling authority.

As it is in the world of games, the solutions can be various and differentiated. The ethical problem is whether this created person, living in the simulated world, will have the characteristic of us as individuals: not only the appearance, human movements, but also views on some problems, awareness of the world’s challenges and responsibility for activities and measures, in some cases also being under the power of the hidden biases. Will the metaverse be named as an alternative (simulated) world, or the part of the new hybrid world, in which we are living? Whether or how to make avatars responsible for some actions? Probably, it would require to grant legal personality to avatars or to have criteria and instruments to distinguish between us as operators of avatars and avatars per se. The solution should be transparent and accountable. The debates about it ought to lead to practical conclusions, indicating also the most proper and effective liability system: who/what is responsible for what.

It is very interesting to observe the discussion about liability system for AI [9].6 At the beginning, there were many suggestions that AI Act requires the complementary solutions of redefined and changed safety and liability directives and that the only way is to harmonize the measures for the whole EU. But, it turned out that rules for high-risk AI systems are not sufficiently applicable to the existed liability models. As a result, the proposal of the new European AI liability regime (Artificial Intelligence Liability Directive) was put forward. Because of many systemic differences between Member States, the suggestion was to use the formula of directive, not regulation, but there are some doubts if it fulfills all expectations. The crucial dimension of looking for the solution is related to the adequate description of eligible damage: property, death or personal injury, and data loss based on fault or defect, with possible analysis of causality in depth. The characteristic of liable persons, types of victim protected, types of damage (material or immaterial), clarification of what victim needs to prove, and period of liability are significant to make the solution not only more clear, but first of all – implementable. In my view, comparison between level of complications of AI liability and the level of the incoming complications of metaverse liability clearly shows that liability models for the metaverse are currently totally unrecognized. So, it is one of the key challenges for metaverse development.

In that sense, the avatars will follow and continue our behaviors and develop our attitudes, as “residua” of us, without the autonomous possibilities (the possibilities to be out of our control), and by being some kind of metaverse twins, still the liability and responsibility framework should be prepared as a special and dedicated one.

The second concern is related to the potential mental and psychological consequences of staying (for short and long term) in the metaverse.

How will our subjectivity look like, when we stay in the metaverse space from time to time, incidentally, playing various roles: as contributors to academic debates and research papers; as participants of consultancy processes in our local environment, building the local democracy; as workers in cooperation with others, organizing the collaboration of avatars and between avatars and people; as making shopping as virtual consumers and talking about the prices of products with the virtual sellers; as talking and playing the games with children, when we would live and work many weeks out of the home territory, but using the home landscape for those family meetings; as going to the virtual church for praying, etc. What kind of impact will it have for our psycho, personality, integrity, preferences, life, and cultural patterns? Is it possible to change our mentality because of the double formats of our life? Some dependency or even addiction threats could become real. Someone could say that these experiences are currently present in our life in different forms, although they are not so common.

But, could we imagine, that somebody decides not only to play some roles in the metaverse but play life fully? What kind of consequences could it bring to the mentality, psychological integrity, and personality of this human? It depends on the similarity to the real life (it would be easier to adjust behaviors to the well-known norms) and on the individual predispositions to learn the rules: identical and different at the same time vis-a-vis the real world.

The problem of conditions for adaptability to the metaverse spaces is increasing and becoming significantly important. One of the possible consequences can be related to the growing phenomenon of the psychological and mental dependency of people becoming fully involved and engaged into metaverse landscapes and communities. Changes of mental conditions of our functioning can lead in the extreme way to addictive behaviors, and to depressions and anxiety, as it is expressed in many psychological research papers: “It can cause or exacerbate mental health conditions, including depression and anxiety. Overuse of digital devices, especially when combined with social media dependency, can increase feelings of isolation” [10]. Psychologically speaking, such a multidimensional dependency and tackling of the threat of this kind of experience, is a real challenge. It means that active participation in the metaverse world should be necessarily supported by educational programs, focused on digital metaverse literacy. This is to avoid the redundancy of negative psychological side effects. And in addition, the accessibility of psychological help and professional interventions ought to be guaranteed for metaverse users in a systemic way.

One problem of the growing metaverse creates very strong concern. It comes from the immersion phenomenon. When in Poland for instance, Meta in cooperation with the governmental institutions established very interesting educational metaverse project: “The daily chart from the Warsaw Uprising,” giving young people the opportunity to really participate in 1 day of the Warsaw Uprising 1944, there were some controversial reactions. On the one side, it was a profound lesson of the national history, educationally needed. On the other side, it is an intense immersive experience, some kind of overstimulation addressed to the young personalities, to the premature psycho, so some teachers were against to use this project. The problem of overstimulation should be reconsidered, and every case should be analyzed with the respect to the age and social group’s sensitivities and possible vulnerabilities.

2.3 Fourthly, what kind of society would be generated by the metaverse rules?

This concern shows the metaverse as a phenomenon related to the societal aspects of the avatars functioning in virtual-real space. Many experts emphasize that in the new generation of the Internet, “Web3”, metaverse opportunities will empower individuals and establish the new model of the social relations – the new society [11].7 There is no illusion that this new world will be better than existing one. Still, in many analyses [12],8 there is a presumption that the metaverse will replicate and amplify all negative aspects of inter human relations functioning in the current internet: the hate speech phenomena and harmful behaviors, also digital violence, the lack of trust and extreme social polarization blocking any possibilities of dialog, the digital bubbles significance, the growth of the conspiracy theories and mindsets based of those views, the disinformation plagues undermining the democracy, and opportunities for common actions, etc.

Today, one of the most important responses to those threats is based on still developed and modernized (also thanks to the use of the AI techniques) ways and tools of moderation of the content, which pursue to find and establish the order among people and people’ behaviors in the Internet society.

Obviously, the meaning of moderation will increase with all principles, which should accompany it [13]9 – but it is the new challenge for the metaverse ecosystem. For now, there are some rules [14] used for the content moderation, coming from regulations like DSA in the European Union, or based on the Code of Conduct – which for US (and companies from more than 10 countries) are the Santa Clara Principles. Those rules, such as transparency, accountability, and non-discrimination, are significant for the high-quality moderation of the content. But, in the metaverse spaces, the moderation should be more multidimensional – with regard not only to the content, but also to all kinds of behaviors of avatars. Additionally, the dilemma between the freedom of expression and general, social obligations not to harm and hurt other people (not only by words!) in the virtual world will appear much more difficult to be solved rationally. And it is a big challenge: how will the rule of anonymity function in Web.3, in all metaverse spaces? If the society of avatars is based on anonymity or works using mixed principles adequate for the virtual/real metaverse landscapes, with references to the legal norms and ethical values present in the current society and the legal order of the societies. But before attempting to respond to this questions, it should be made clear whether the members of the metaverse society are the substitutes of the real persons (avatars as substitutes) or substantially autonomous, close to be autonomous (avatars as substantive shapes)? This is for the future, trustworthy, and ethical-based metaverse crucial, and the rules for moderation of this simulated world should be specific.

We can also put forward a question whether the visible phenomena of extreme individualism and digital narcissism [15]10 will dominate the social dimension of the metaverse and undermine the needed, expected, very creative, and fruitful collaborative mode, which is crucial and positively inspiring for the future metaverse-based society.

2.4 Fifthly, how to translate the rules of the metaverse into the ethical principles?

In my opinion, there are three crucial factors to ensure the ethical functioning of all metaverse opportunities.

First is related to clear and accountable paradigm of data use in all value chains of metaverse models and problems related with it. All responses to these problems should come from the strict and determined implementation of GDPR and incoming legislation on data.

Second relates to the AI components of metaverse measures, and the references to the requirements addressed to the high-risk uses of AI [16], such as risk-based approach, ex ante procedures, ethical impact assessment, transparent and accountable information on the mechanisms of AI work, addressed to the users (to avoid the asymmetry of information) – the rule of explainability, and all those rules (non-discriminatory models) incorporated in parallel and in reasonable way to the services based on the General Purpose Artificial Intelligence [17].

What is more, because algorithms are playing significant role for metaverse solutions, it is important from ethical point of view [18] to develop and maintain them under the accountable rules and to base them on values, as it was raised in the EPRS paper [19] on “Ethical and societal challenges of the approaching technological storm.”

The most relevant values for digital technologies are as follows:

  1. justice and fairness,

  2. privacy,

  3. cybersecurity,

  4. environmental sustainability,

  5. transparency,

  6. accountability,

  7. autonomy,

  8. democracy,

  9. reliability,

  10. trust,

  11. well-being,

  12. inclusiveness.

This comprehensive list allows to check whether the concrete applications are responding to those values. The models of checking (by using the controlling lists addressed to the specific values in the specific areas) was proposed by HLEG on AI [8] and have become very useful to prepare some references for the requirements of ex ante procedures present in the legislative proposal of AI Act [20]. This model can characterize the threats for ethics and values and propose the concrete mitigation measures.

It would be inspiring to follow the work presented by STOA to the European Parliament on “Artificial Intelligence in healthcare” [21], showing the deficits of accountability, threats of misuses, risks of biases, and dangers of harm due to the technical errors. The added value of this paper comes from the strong message, how important are the risks analysis and risks management and methodologies opening the opportunities for the multidimensional view on the possible risks and how to mitigate them. The same way could be used when we discuss how to find the most adequate way to transfer ethical values into metaverse applications.

Advertisement

3. Conclusions

  1. It is not clear, if the metaverse requires the new special legislation, although there are some suggestions from the European Commission that this new phenomenon should have a specific regulatory framework. But, it is obvious that because of very complicated structure of the metaverse (virtual and augmented reality, the value chain of many devices and infrastructures, IoT formats, AI IoT, cross moving data, etc.), the very precise review of legal references important for the secure, trustworthy, and ethical metaverse is necessary. As necessary as, at the same time, common work of all possible partners on the Code of Conduct and self-regulatory solutions for the whole metaverse functioning or for some areas of metaverse.

  2. The market evaluation of the metaverse does not allow us to say that it will be really the most visible example of the Web.3. Obviously, it is very probable, so all aspects of the metaverse as a common good should be analyzed. The question what will become the dominant trend in metaverse development: commercial orientation or common good with hidden links to the commercial rules (as it is now, in Ref. to the social media) remains open. As a consequence, some conditions for the metaverse are essential: the full accessibility (infrastructure, high quality of hardware used by individuals), inclusiveness, guarantees of the new common, secure forms of digital ID for users and functionalities of the ID, workable and accessible in all devices. There are technological and legislative challenges, such as EU Digital Identity Wallet based on blockchain formats.

  3. Psychological readiness of people to participate in the metaverse world, under the immersive conditions without any psychological, mental damage, avoiding the dependency and dangerous addictions or unknown consequences of double formats of existence (in real life and in the virtual spaces), remains the most significant issue. It requires a very special impact assessment concentrated on ethical challenges and guarantees for human autonomy vis-a-vis avatars and the simulated, alternative world, addressed to different kind of groups: minors, vulnerable people, etc. But, also checking many applications with focus on the problems of the overstimulation (how will it impact on our senses and sensitivity), the lack of clarification the differences between the human and avatar subjectivities, the problems of being responsible and liable for some actions (if the concept of giving the avatar the legal subjectivity should be considered or not?).

  4. Review of all GDPR solutions taking into account the sufficiency of those legal tools to really protect humans, humans’ data, and with guarantees for the transparent conditions to give the consent and having the choice – on which rules I can share my data – is indispensable. The awareness of humans about the data (additionally – the digital literacy of metaverse is needed), understanding the surveillance threats (during and after behavioral analysis of us), and the emotion-responded advertisement models in the metaverse, the new methods of data and data consents management – should indicate the new framework for data flows in the metaverse-simulated world.

  5. Rethinking the model of interactions and relations between humans and avatars. The metaverse can create the alternative world with full engagement and profound participation of its both in parallel. Unfortunately, there is a possibility that the metaverse society and various metaverse communities will follow all bad mechanisms functioning in the real life and the current Internet, such as: the hate speech, the deep fake news, harmful and full of violence behaviors, discrimination and the growing biases, and the extreme polarization. Avoiding those threats is possible only if the norms of this new society are based fully on values and ethical standards. And, if the new models of moderation (not only content moderation) of the comprehensive metaverse space and life are established with some restrictions to behave in the inadequate mode. The safeguards for this ought to be developed and supported by the smart translation of the ethical values into technical solutions, through the principle: ethics by design. Can the architecture of metaverse be build by ethics by design? It is a critical question, to which – in my view – the answer has not been yet found.

References

  1. 1. Madiega T, Polona C, Niestadt M. The very well designed description of key aspects of the problems of metaverse was presented in: Metaverse. Opportunities, risks and policy implications. In: With Louise Van de Pol, EPRS, PE 733.557, June 2022. Brussels, Belgium: European Parliamentary Research Service (EPRS); 2022
  2. 2. It is important to make a distinction between the strict regulations and the “soft law” related to the Code of Conducts, various types of self-regulations. In: Regulating disinformation with AI, European Parliamentary Research Service, Brussels, 2019; based on the report by Marsden C, University of Sussex and Mayer T, Vrije Universiteit Brussel; 2019
  3. 3. Madiega T, Van De Pol AL. Concept of the regulatory sandboxes, proposed. In: AI Act, Regulation of the European Parliament and the Council. Laying down harmonised rules on Artificial Intelligence (Artificial Intelligence Act) and amending certain Union legislative acts (COM)2021 206 final/2021/0106/COD, and described briefly: Artificial Intelligence Act and regulatory sandboxes, PE 733.544 – June 2022. Brussels, Belgium: European Parliamentary Research Service (EPRS); 2022. p. 2022
  4. 4. Negreiro M, Niestadt M. EU Digital Identity Wallet, Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulation (EU) No 910/2014 as regards stabilising a framework for a European Digital Identity, COM/2021/ 281 final, and the description. Brussels: The European Digital Identity Framework; 2022
  5. 5. Moynihan H, Buchner M, Wallace J. What is the metaverse? Chatham House: The Royal Institute of International Affairs; 2022. Available from: https://www.chathamhouse.org
  6. 6. Rosenberg L. Regulation of the Metaverse: A Roadmap. NY, USA: Association of Computing Machinery; 2022. DOI: 10.1145/3546607.3546611
  7. 7. Metaverse. Opportunities, risks, and policy implications. 2022. op.cit
  8. 8. High Level Expert Group on Artificial Intelligence. Ethics Guidelines for Trustworthy AI. 2019
  9. 9. Hacker P. AI liability in Europe, done during the 6th European AI Forum. 15th December 2022
  10. 10. Martin GFB. Social and psychological impact musical collective creative processes in virtual environments; The Avatar Orchestra Metaverse in Second Life. oajournals.fupress.net. Firenze University; 2017;XI-XII:75-87, 2017-2018. DOI:10.13128/Music_Tec-23801. Available from: http://www.fupress.com/mt, Firenze University
  11. 11. Floridi L, Cowls J. A unified framework of five principles for AI in society. Harvard Data Science Review. 2019;1(1):1-15. DOI: 10.1162/99608f92.8cd550d1
  12. 12. Pratt MK. Metaverse pros and cons: Top benefits and challenges, TechTarget/CIO, published 08 November 2022. 2022. www.techtarget.com
  13. 13. Castro D. Content moderation in multi-user immersive experiences. In: AR/VR and the Future of Online Speech. ITIF (Information Technology& Innovation Foundation), also about: restricting offensive gestures or virtual signs at a private property. Washington, DC, USA: ITIF; February 28, 2022
  14. 14. as it is implemented now due to the requirements of Digital Services Act in the EU, or as it is used for content moderation, for instance in the US (and companies from 10 countries), by signatories of the Santa Clara Principles, final version from 21st of December 2021. Available from: https://www.eff.org. https://santaclaraprinciples.org/
  15. 15. Agger B. Oversharing. In: Presentation of Self in the Internet Age. New York: Routlege; 2012
  16. 16. The pyramid of AI intelligence risks, in: Regulation of the European Parliament and the Council. Laying down harmonised rules on Artificial Intelligence (Artificial Intelligence Act) and amending certain Union legislative acts (COM)2021 206 final/2021/0106/COD
  17. 17. Engle AC, Renda A. Reconciling the AI Value chain with the EU’s Artificial Intelligence Act, CEPS, In-depth analysis. Brussels: Centre for European Policy Studies (CEPS); 2022
  18. 18. Loke SW. Achieving Ethical Algorithmic Behaviour in the Internet of Things: A Review. USA: Cornell University; 2021. DOI: 10.3390/iot2030021
  19. 19. Ethical and societal challenges of the approaching technological storm. EPRS/STOA, PE 729.543, presentation of 10 values the most relevant for the digital technologies, tab.3. 2022
  20. 20. AI Act, op.cit
  21. 21. Lekadir K, Quaglio G, Garmendia AT, Gallin C. Artificial Intelligence in healthcare. Applications, risks, and ethical and societal impact. EPRS, PE 729.512, June 2022. 2022

Notes

  • Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on harmonized rules on fair access to and use of data (Data Act), COM/2022/68 final.
  • EU-US Data Privacy Framework, proposed in April 2022, the description: Hendrik Mildebrath, EPRS, PE 739.261 – December 2022.
  • Look at proposed: Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on improving working conditions in platform work, (COM)2021 762 Final.
  • Proposal for a regulation on cybersecurity requirements for products with digital elements - Cyber Resilience Act, Cyber_Resilience_Act_UuNORBE3ZXD57gU9ayF71Bcc_89543.prof.
  • See ref. [6].
  • Based on very inspiring presentation of ref. [9].
  • Some ideas were presented in ref. [11].
  • There are positive impacts of metaverse and negative, look at ref. [12].
  • See ref. [13].
  • Digital narcissism as a new phenomenon, described ref. [15].

Written By

Michal Boni

Submitted: December 22nd, 2022 Reviewed: January 22nd, 2023 Published: March 8th, 2023