Picture this as the endless horizon of digital opportunity. Here, we may peel it all off and stoop low, get naked, and play at the roots of a new social order. Are we really leaving the problems of the real world behind, or just duplicating its inequities inside a glossy, new, digital utopia? Whether or not to declare one’s vaccine status in the metaverse is a perfect example of how our digital lives are more and more connected to our complex lived experiences. This new reality is extremely unnerving and makes you question access, freedom, and the very nature of identity.
Vax Badges: Virtual Scarlet Letters?
Picture this— you log into your favorite metaverse platform, fully equipped to take a tour of an energetic clean tech virtual city. To gain access to a virtual concert venue, you first have to confirm your vaccine status. It’s the same for registering to attend a virtual conference—confirmation needed up front. A green check mark now magically appears next to your avatar, a digital badge of honor… or, more accurately, a digital scarlet letter.
This isn’t a dystopian nightmare, it’s an easily conceivable outcome. And as Brian Volck reminds us, vaccines not only protect an individual, there’s a profound community benefit, herd immunity. Taking this new idea and applying it to the metaverse opens a dangerous door.
Think about the implications. Are we constructing a two-tiered future metaverse society? In this dystopia, the vaccinated people have smooth access to everything in the metaverse, while the unvaccinated are relegated to the digital margins. Are we protecting the public health by undermining individual autonomy? The x-ray scheduling experience that Matthew Crawford outlines above is an experience that is just maddening. Yet it feels like every new technology adds friction rather than addressing the problems.
Digital Identity's Evolving Visual Language
As a graphic novelist, I—like many other world builders—am especially fascinated by the visual language of the metaverse. How will vaccine status be represented? Will it be a discrete icon or marker, a magical, glowing aura, or something more pedestrian? The aesthetic decisions will have a huge impact on the way people process and understand this vital information. They’ll influence how we socialize in digital realms too.
We don’t have to look far to witness the way visual cues dictate our digital actions. A blue checkmark on Twitter signifies legitimacy. A portrait emoji specifically crafted to ensure people wouldn’t take inappropriate profiles seriously. Now, picture adding vaccine status to that visual equation. Or does it risk becoming just another layer of this contingently performative identity, an indicator of our values and networks? And what about the potential for discrimination?
Consider this: if places fail because people fail to consider their needs, as Matt Miller argues, shouldn't we consider all people when building a metaverse?
Blockchain's Promise: A Decentralized Solution?
Today’s centralized and opaque approach to vaccine verification relies on third-party apps and databases. This is deeply troubling both from a privacy and data security perspective. What if there was a smarter option.
Blockchain technology offers a potential solution. With a shared decentralized, tamper-proof ledger, we would all be able to verify someone’s vaccine status securely and in a privacy-preserving way. Think of it as a digital passport that you control, rather than entrusting your personal information to a centralized authority.
This approach dovetails well with a more pronounced trend toward empowering people to have more control over their digital identities. It gives people the ability to control their personal information and decide when they share it, and who they share it with. More than that, it avoids the potential unfairness created by a centralized system. This protects against a single point of failure from disrupting the privacy of millions.
Even with blockchain, the ethical issues still exist. Should vaccine verification be required on platforms, or should it be purely up to the platforms to decide? How do we ensure the technology isn’t used to codify racial bias into our justice system? These are complicated and multifaceted issues that deserve measured discussion and honest, open debate.
Without these intentional and inclusive steps, the metaverse will not achieve its potential to be a transformative space. It encourages us to reconsider who we are, collaborate with strange actors, and express our artistry with fresh vigor. We should not let up on our guard. Let’s not allow this to simply recreate the inequities and separations of the physical world. If so, we must fight for a different kind of vision for the metaverse—one that is equitable, inclusive and respects personal autonomy. If we’re not intentional, we risk building an alternate reality that mirrors the same inequities and divides we wish to leave behind. Here’s to making it better next time! As the author from our AI issue Tyler Austin Harper cautioned, let’s not promise the metaverse just yet before it disappoints our hopes to smithereens. Let’s not make the digital world more about consumption — as Marko Jukic warned — than creation.
