Human Rights in the Metaverse

The Metaverse will present some fundamental challenges to human rights. The more extensive the Metaverse becomes, the greater the impact on human rights will be – for better or worse.

A Human Rights Approach

The Metaverse has the potential to become a phenomenon that will impact our human rights in transformational ways comparable to the smartphone. Society and individuals alike benefit from new technology, facilitating the safeguarding of human rights. But increased reliance on new technology may also have negative consequences for human rights. The less benign effects may be unpredictable and difficult to foresee.

Future integration of our lives with the Metaverse may supersede the profound transformation associated with the smartphones of today. Virtual reality will be based on technological innovations that will remove the experience of distance and geographical importance to a much greater extent than the current internet. Instead of surfing on the internet, we will be in it. The Metaverse will therefore challenge human right protection in more fundamental ways.

In the Metaverse, you might stroll around on a virtual shopping-street in Paris while you are still physically present in your own appartement in suburban Oslo. The opportunities may appear limitless. But who will carry the responsibilities for safeguarding your human rights while you undertake this activity? Is it the Norwegian government, the French government, the tech-company developing and selling the VR-technology enabling your “tour”, the company controlling the platform or the company running the store on the virtual shopping street? Imagine that the activity you participate in is not shopping, but rather gambling in a virtual Las Vegas, or assistance to retaliatory attacks on a Russian paramilitary entity in a virtual Moscow.

One possibility is that the Metaverse will provide us with a digital universe separate from the physical world for which our human rights were made. Another possibility is that the Metaverse will integrate with the real world, resulting in an extended reality by introducing virtual elements into our physical reality (see “What is the Metaverse”).

The core issue for the Metaverse and human rights is whether existing human rights must be adapted to and extended into the Metaverse or whether we need to distinguish between human rights in two separate realities. This could give us a segregation of rights, leaving one set of human rights for the physical world and another for the virtual Metaverse, i.e. digital human rights.

Regardless of which fundamental structures we eventually decide to establish, novel and unprecedented challenges will arise in the interplay between the physical and virtual worlds. The Metaverse will have consequences for human rights in the physical world, which will then feed back into human rights protections in the virtual world. Even if separate, there will be spill over-effects and interaction between the two.

A coherent and immersive Metaverse with unlimited capacity as outlined and discussed in this report remains a phenomena of the (not too distant) future. An analysis of human rights challenges in the Metaverse must therefore base itself on hypothetical projections and predictions about how the Metaverse will develop. Without prejudice to the way forward, this report takes the current human rights regime under international law as its point of departure, sketching out certain overall problems and issues that are likely to arise under various scenarios for the future Metaverse.

Who is Accountable?

Human Rights Accountability for States and Companies

Whether states or companies will run affairs or be in charge in the Metaverse remains to be seen. At present, tech giants such as the GAFAM (American), BATX (Chinese) or specialized gaming companies, develop and possess the technology allowing for progress towards the Metaverse.⁷⁰

The traditional approach to human rights relies on a structure where states are the entities responsible for safeguarding human rights. Companies are not legally accountable for human rights violations in the same direct way as states under international human rights treaties. The responsibility of companies is primarily one of avoiding that their activities contribute to human rights violations held by states, primarily on their own sovereign territories.⁷¹ This similarly applies to the Metaverse.

The Metaverse, however, being a parallel reality, could be detached from physical reality. The question therefore becomes how a state can be responsible for safeguarding human rights of its citizens in a deterritorialised virtual world in which the state does not have prime jurisdiction but is at the mercy of tech-companies (or other states) that possess the technology, control and develop the infrastructure, give its own rules and run the show? The visitors in the Metaverse will find themselves physically under the jurisdiction of one state, but this state may exercise little or no power over the parallel virtual universe. Who shall then safeguard human rights in the virtual world?

In a Metaverse run by tech giants, companies may end up with unprecedented power over human beings. Power to shape the infrastructure of the Metaverse could give companies almost total control of the virtual world. The intimate nature and amount of data potentially gathered about each person venturing into the Metaverse may surpass anything previously known to man. This gives rise to the question of whether companies rather than states should be directly legally responsible for safeguarding human rights in the Metaverse. Will the new virtual world of the Metaverse require a new accountability model for human rights in which the human rights responsibilities would be held directly by companies, mirroring their power over technology, infrastructure and data in the Metaverse – comparable to (or even surpassing) the jurisdiction and control held by states in the physical realm?

One challenge is that companies and states approach rights in different ways. This originates in the fact that the roles, responsibilities and interests of a company in relation to individuals differ from that of a state. The human rights approach compels states to focus on human autonomy, relying on a vocabulary of citizenry, whereas companies rather focus on human consumer choices, relying on a vocabulary of customers. While the power of companies in the virtual world may come to surpass that of states in the physical realm, the horizon and scope of companies’ responsibilities for their “subjects” do not.

Irrespective of how the human rights structure of the Metaverse will eventually develop, states will continue to be responsible for safeguarding human rights in the physical realm. Provided we end up with one set of human rights for the physical world and one set of rights for the virtual world, numerous questions about responsibility for human rights will arise in the intersection between the two.

The state is the primary legal subject

Human rights are held by natural persons, and it is incumbent upon the States to respect and safeguard these rights. Individuals are rightsholders, while the state is the primary legal subject responsible for human rights in territory under its control.

The duty to respect human rights means that in the exercise of state authority the state must refrain from interventions or restrictions that will violate rights such as the right to life, liberty, freedom of expression or privacy. To the extent that state authorities make interventions, they must pursue a lawful purpose, and not go beyond what is necessary and proportionate to achieve that lawful purpose.

The duty to secure human rights entails that the state authorities must prevent others from violating human rights on the state’s territory. This implies a duty to ensure and enforce legislation that will protect us from violations of our human rights by parties other than the state. For example, there must be penal laws, trials and punishment in order to prevent other persons from violating the right to life. But the duty also obliges the state to actively provide services, for example in the form of healthcare services in order to secure the right to life and health.

The duties to respect and secure human rights apply where the state has jurisdiction. In most cases, jurisdiction corresponds to the sovereign territory of the state. Therefore, fundamental questions are: “who will have jurisdiction in the Metaverse”, and “should the duty to respect and secure human rights reflect jurisdiction”? A similar issue arises with respect to where the violation should be registered. Do rights violations occur where the user is physically located, where data is generated virtually or where the owner of the Metaverse or its infrastructure has chosen to locate its physical headquarter?

Do We Need New Human Rights?

Human rights are technology-neutral. Individuals are protected by the same international human rights in the physical and digital domains alike.⁷² If an individual is physically present in Norway, the Norwegian authorities will be responsible for respecting and safeguarding the person’s human rights.

A crucial question for human rights in the Metaverse will be how human rights in the physical world and the Metaverse interact. Will the Metaverse be akin to any digital platform, i.e. an extension of the physical world, or will an integrated Metaverse require an entirely new and separate set of rights? Will our avatars and holograms be bestowed with a separate set of digital human rights largely detached from the physical realm and Norwegian territory?

Traditional human rights protections are geared towards the dangers of the physical realm, and are less adapted to a virtual information-based universe. A discussion is therefore emerging concerning the need for a completely new concept of human rights for a virtual reality such as the Metaverse.

One suggestion is to create a parallel set of digital human rights distinguishing between offline and online human rights. A proposition to this effect is an introduction to the UN Declaration of 1948 of a set of rights reserved for everyone’s digital twin – your digital representation – that will mirror rights in the physical realm.⁷³ If extended to the Metaverse, each person could end up with a digital persona in the Metaverse – a virtual representation that can exist and have Metaverse rights independent of the legal subject in the physical realm.

A virtual universe likewise gives rise to a discussion about the further development of existing human rights. Do we need a new human right to oblivion (to be forgotten), a right to stay offline, a right to forsake our digital presence or a right to protection against algorithms?⁷⁴

Fundamental Human Rights

The Right to Life

Human rights are structured in a hierarchical manner. Some rights are fundamental in the sense that other human rights are premised on them, such as the right to life. As life in the Metaverse will be digital, the human rights hierarchy will be altered. A person will most likely be able to have more than one life in the Metaverse. If your digital representation, for example an avatar, is wiped out, it would be a nuisance, but not beyond repair. Resurrection or a second life could be afforded to the avatar. The most fundamental right of all, the human right to life, and adjacent rights relating to physical integrity, would play a much less prominent role in the Metaverse.

The Right to Personal Data

Digital life in the Metaverse would be based on data. Hence, the rights relating to data and data protection will move to the fore. Other human rights will move up the chain and dominate in the Metaverse compared to the physical world. With the arrival of the age of technology, the right to privacy and the right to manage your own personal data have taken on an entirely new significance.⁷⁵

The human right to privacy is protected by the European Convention on Human Rights (article 8) and the United Nations International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (article 17). The EUs Basic Charter on Human right and the GDPR (General Data Protection Regulation) has established strict standards and far-reaching enforcement mechanisms in order to protect personal data. The right to privacy also enjoys strong protection under domestic law in most countries, such as the Norwegian Constitution (section 102). The right to personal data includes existing or derived data concerning an individual and his/her life, and decisions based on this data. The right also protects the freedom to make decisions about identity.

In a virtual reality such as the Metaverse, everything is based on data. The rights protecting such data assume a correspondingly important role, akin to that of the right to life in the physical realm. The degree of personal autonomy envisageable will largely depend on how personal data is protected. The right to privacy in the form of the management of your own data will be of fundamental importance in the hierarchy of digital human rights, and will be a prerequisite for enjoying numerous other human rights, such as the freedom of thought and expression. In turn, the hierarchy will influence how rights are interpreted and adjusted, including which right prevails in cases of collision of rights.

Freedom of Thought and Expression

The right to freedom of expression and the prohibition against discrimination are enabling human rights. If they are respected, it facilitates for other human rights. If enabling rights are disrespected, cascading effects will negatively impact other human rights. The enabling rights of freedom of expression and protection against discrimination will be of fundamental importance in the Metaverse.

According to international treaties, freedom of expression applies to any medium, encompassing modern technology such as social media.⁷⁶ Freedom of expression aims to protect the search for truth, democracy and the freedom of opinion of each individual.⁷⁷ It comprises both the right to seek and receive information, and to share ideas and opinions. It is closely linked with the right to freedom of opinion and thought.⁷⁸

The Metaverse is likely to pose challenges to freedom of expression on three different accounts. Firstly, data relating to acts and expressions in the Metaverse may be collected and compiled in completely new and all-encompassing ways. Any entity with access to this data will be able to amass the digital history of your digital persona, allowing for extensive profiling, with potentially highly detrimental effects for freedom of expression in the Metaverse.

Secondly, acceptable standards for oral and visual statements in the Metaverse will have to be developed based on a common standard. Yet, what this standard should be, is far from evident. Different countries, cultures, religions and social classes have diverging standards governing which statements or expressions could be affected by restrictions or prohibitions relating to freedom of expression. A Metaverse in which “the entire world meets”, will be faced with innumerable issues linked to the limits for acceptable speech or expressions, what kind of interventions should be subject to restrictions, according to which standards, and decided by whom.

Thirdly, questions will arise concerning the authority to interfere with the freedom of expression, the nature of sanctions and opportunities for redress.

Protection Against Discrimination

Protection against discrimination entails that data about a person’s identity must not give rise to differential treatment, unless for justified reasons. The prohibition against discrimination is established by the European Convention on Human Rights (article 14) and the United Nations International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (articles 2(1), 3 and 26). It is also proscribed under domestic law (Norwegian Constitution, section 98). Protection against discrimination stipulates that discrimination on the grounds of race, skin colour, gender, language, beliefs, political or other opinion, national or social origin, matters relating ownership, childbirth or other status is prohibited.

In the Metaverse, your avatar might mirror your physical self, but it might also be possible to create additional digital twins based on different profiles. While Metaverse enthusiasts speak of a world in which equality can thrive and discrimination can be contained compared to the physical realm, the Metaverse could also introduce new forms of discrimination. If important societal functions are transferred to the Metaverse, there will be issues of access for people with disabilities, such as the blind or physically disabled. Questions will also arise concerning which authority would be responsible for safeguarding against discrimination in the Metaverse, and avenues for redress.

The Right Not to be Monitored

The rights to privacy, freedom of expression and freedom from discrimination all serve the function of keeping state authority in check in the encounter with individual subjects. These rights therefore provide checks and balances that constitute foundations for a democratic society.⁷⁹

In the Metaverse, all activity will ultimately be based on data. Enormous amounts of personal data will be storable and may potentially serve to map, analyse and profile individuals in unprecedented ways for the purpose of surveillance. The technological tools used to provide access to the Metaverse, such as VR headsets, movement sensors and eye movement trackers, are also potential sources of biometric data about each individual user, offering the possibility to map the physical and mental state and reaction patterns of each individual user (see subchapter “Data collection and data protection”). The combination of data-tracking in the Metaverse with the biometric data of each physical user, gives us the prospects for surveillance of an intrusive nature previously unknown to mankind. Biometric data of the physical user and the potential to track all movements and actions inside the Metaverse will therefore enable procurement of more knowledge about a Metaverse user externally than the user has about him- or herself. With the help of analytical tools based on artificial intelligence, such knowledge could include sexual orientation, political preferences or underlying diseases. Artificial intelligence-based tools with the ability to accurately determine sexual orientation by reliance on facial imagery is already available.⁸⁰

The combination of these factors makes the Metaverse an extremely potent and potentially dangerous tool. It may introduce a level of surveillance, the pervasive nature of which has never been previously known to any society.

Rights in a Virtual Economy

A Metaverse with a proper virtual economy will introduce questions about ownership rights and copyrights that will have human rights aspects. When a person is employed in the Metaverse, and receiving salary in the Metaverse, the person must be protected by labour-rights and anti-discrimination rights.

ILO-treaties on labour-rights mostly express global standards. However, the levels of implementation vary significantly between countries and continents. The Metaverse will give rise to questions about who will determine standards of implementation, who will monitor compliance and who will enforce sanctions. As more activity is moved from the physical to the virtual realm, complex legal questions with effects for implementation of human rights will follow.

Future Scenarios

The overall structures that establish and control data management and data exploitation, will determine what human rights protection may come to look like in the Metaverse. How the Metaverse is built, will precondition which legal subject may assume accountability for human rights. A range of possibilities exist. Will the Metaverse be free and open without states, borders or similar obstacles of geographical or political constraints? Will megacompanies control one or more betaverses or will states conquer and reign virtual territories in ways reminiscent of the physical realm?

The urgency and gravity of most questions of human rights raised here, will depend on which structures will ultimately prevail in the Metaverse.

Uncertainty about future developments makes it a hazardous undertaking to predict how human rights will come under pressure in a future Metaverse. Therefore, we have looked to The Copenhagen Institute for Future Studies for guidance. The Institute has developed four architype-scenarios for the future Metaverse.⁸¹ Each scenario comes with a different overarching structure for management and control. In the following, we analyse each architype-scenario from a human rights perspective, looking at which human rights challenges are likely to dominate in each of the four different architype scenarios.

The Free Metaverse – a Virtual Wild West

The Metaverse in this scenario will be open and free – a new decentralised version of the internet. The free Metaverse will create a new digital realm beyond physical reality, attainable through new technology, where no entity is in charge, but where all may establish themselves and operate.

This utopian version of the Metaverse would present significant problems from a human rights perspective, because it would be unclear which entity would be responsible for safeguarding our rights in a free Metaverse. Human rights obligations are held by states. The human rights responsibility of companies is derived from this basis, and focus not on safeguarding human rights, but on avoiding contribution to human rights violations.⁸² Tech companies increasingly adopt their own industry standards to ensure that they do not contribute to human rights violations. For example, in 2022, Meta published its first report on how the company avoids contributing to human rights violations.⁸³

In a free Metaverse, big tech companies are likely to become highly dominant. If everyday activities such as work, payment, shopping, entertainment and nightlife are transferred to the Metaverse, there must be legislation to safeguard a range of human rights in the Metaverse. However, a free Metaverse would be characterized precisely by the absence of entities with overall jurisdiction, i.e. the power and responsibility to make and enforce laws and thereby ensure respect for and secure human rights. The very responsibility to respect and secured human rights would be unclear and fragmented. Therefore, in human rights terms, a free Metaverse would become something akin to a virtual Wild West.

One Metaverse to Rule them All – a Virtual Dictatorship?

At the opposite end, the Institute envisions a Metaverse controlled and managed by one all-powerful custodian, whether a company, a state or a council. Since the Metaverse is based on data and traceability is at its very core, the option of one Metaverse to rule them all opens the possibility that the custodian of the Metaverse would become omniscient.

The founder of Epic Games, Tim Sweeney, has predicted that:

The Metaverse is going to be far more pervasive and powerful than anything else. If one central company gains control of this, they will become more powerful than any government and be a god on earth.⁸⁴

If we imagine that our daily activities move from physical reality to the Metaverse, the result could be a realm in which surveillance is not merely pervasive, but total. All data relating to individuals, companies and states operating in the Metaverse could be owned, managed, used – and misused – by the custodian of the Metaverse.

A Metaverse with power to rule over every sub-Metaverse and everything within them would have the advantage that the legal subject accountable for respecting and securing human rights in the meta-realm would be clearly identifiable. The custodian of the Metaverse would be the legal subject responsible regardless of its legal nature – be it a company, state or council. The less good news is that the power of the custodian would be so extensive that existing international enforcement – mechanisms for human rights would be grossly inadequate. The power of the custodian would be almost impossible to circumscribe. One Metaverse to rule them all would be straightforward in terms of legal obligations to respect and secure human rights, but almost impossible to enforce, and therefore at the mercy of the custodian.

Furthermore, existing human rights protections dealing with protection of personal data, protection against surveillance and the right to freedom of expression are likely inadequate for providing appropriate protection in a Metaverse with an omniscient custodian. Individuals, companies and even states will be in the grip of the custodian. Intergovernmental organisations and courts as they are currently set up and equipped will be unable to effectively influence or pressure the omniscient custodian to respect human rights in ways that would ensure personal autonomy.

In the analysis of the Institute, this scenario seems to be based on the presumption that the custodian will be a rational negotiator, mostly due to market- or efficiency considerations. This is one possibility. But other possibilities exist. This scenario clearly exposes us to the greatest risk of transforming the digital realm into a totalitarian surveillance society. One Metaverse to control them all could deliver a virtual dictatorship.

The Nerdverse

A less maturely developed Metaverse would likely resemble the internet, albeit integrated with gaming technology. In this scenario, the Metaverse would be accessible to persons and groups with a special interest rather than becoming infrastructure integrated in society as set out in the vision for the Metaverse (see chapter “The Metaverse vision”).

In a less extensive Metaverse, different companies and states will offer distinct virtual worlds. The Metaverse will remain fragmented with each segment subject to its own framework. Each provider of infrastructure or services will be responsible for access, use and limitations. In this scenario, the Metaverse would present challenges in human rights terms very similar to those currently existing for the internet. The decisive issue will largely revolve around how states regulate technology and the responsibility of companies not to contribute to human rights violations.

Numerous Betaverses

In the last scenario, several different tech companies or states create their own separate virtual betaverses. The company or state in charge will control the framework for activities in their own betaverse. Access will probably be regulated in ways similar to that of borders in the physical world. The legal subject accountable for human rights in each betaverse will be the entity (state or company) responsible for the infrastructure and activity within it. Legal norms and enforcement mechanisms will mimic and reflect those of the physical realm.

In a world with several betaverses, jurisdiction and control in the digital realm will probably correspond largely with that in the physical world. If, for example, a person in Europe is attending a conference in Sao Paolo, we can imagine that the person will need to gain access to Beta Brazil. From a human rights perspective, a structure where betaverses reflect jurisdiction in the physical world will extend the power and responsibilities of states and companies into the digital realm. Brazil would be legally accountable for Beta Brazil. Anything the person would experience in connection with the conference, or any virtual assets acquired in Beta Brazil, would be legally under the jurisdiction of Brazilian authorities – so too the human rights responsibilities.

The main challenge in this scenario would be the great variance of legal protections in the different betaverses. A bouquet of different norms and enforcement traditions will provide a wide range of diverse betaverses. While some states (or their companies) would have very strict standards and authoritarian enforcement mechanisms in their betaverse, others would be more liberal and emphasise civil and political human rights in their betaverse. Multiple betaverses would allow for a comprehensive distribution of responsibility, but with great variance in standards and enforcement mechanisms, and probably also competition between them. We may assume that betaverses with strong human rights protections would be more attractive to most visitors, customers and jobseekers, and therefore also to companies.

The human rights situation would hence mirror the diversity of human rights situations in the physical world. The difference would be that the technology at the disposal of states and companies would allow for extremely invasive surveillance of users and potentially the population of some betaverses.

This scenario involves numerous challenges from a human rights perspective. States with authoritarian power structures would get a hitherto unimaginable engine and tool for pervasive surveillance of the population with virtual access. Existing human rights challenges linked to political repression would likely multiply both in scope and severity. This, in turn, raises questions about the current human rights enforcement regime. Is it solid enough and appropriately equipped to prevent authoritarian states from relying on the pervasive surveillance offered by the betaverse technology for unlawful purposes? Multiple betaverses would result in a vast number of different virtual worlds, ranging from virtual wild wests to digital dictatorships.

Legal Interaction and Collusion

A different set of problems for human rights will arise in the intersection between the physical and the virtual realm. Human rights violations in the physical realm will have crossover-effects into the virtual realm, and vice versa.

Consequential Issues for Rights in the Physical World

The potential for multiple lives or several digital twins in the virtual world has no correlative in real life. In a recent art project, a creator of the Oculus headset developed a VR headset with the ability to terminate the user’s life. The project can serve to illustrate the dilemma of interaction of human rights in and off the Metaverse.⁸⁵ If we imagine a game in the Metaverse where digital death will be followed by termination of the user’s life in the physical world, the act of the game would be considered as murder in the physical world. Human rights protection entails that the actor responsible for the game in the Metaverse causing an act of murder to materialize on Norwegian soil, would have to be held accountable for murder, even if the ‘act of murder’ was self-inflicted and voluntary, and was caused by events in the Metaverse. In order to safeguard the right to life, entering into agreements about murder or suicide, including murder as ‘punishment’ or ‘reward’ is prohibited in Norway.

Despite clarity of law, significant problems could arise with respect to enforcement. How can those responsible for the murder be prosecuted in Norway, if the person offering the deal is an individual residing in Brazil, operating on behalf of a company registered in a tax haven under a “shell person” with an address in Antarctica. The matter is further complicated if the murdered Norwegian paid virtually for access to the game using money earned from a company in the Metaverse, i.e., if the contract was entered into in the Metaverse, and paid by money earned in the Metaverse. The only link to Norway would the physical result (death).

The murder of a Norwegian citizen in Norway entails that Norwegian authorities are responsible for investigation, criminal prosecution and punishment in case of conviction in order to safeguard the right to life in Norway. If enforcement is complicated or impossible, do Norwegian authorities have other options than blocking Norwegian citizens’ access to such virtual games? And in order to enforce such a ban, would Norwegian authorities need to track and monitor Norwegian citizens’ activities in the Metaverse, or would it be sufficient to prevent the said gaming products from physically entering the country through import controls? In order to safeguard fundamental rights in Norway, government authorities will likely need to restrict access or conduct significant monitoring and surveillance of the activities of Norwegian citizens in the Metaverse.

The Right to Privacy for Virtual and Natural Persons

Data collected in relation to your virtual person in the Metaverse can include track records from the Metaverse, profiling your personal traits, political preferences and antipathies based on your virtual patterns of action and digital history. This could be complemented by biometric data about your physical and mental state assembled through the technological means used to bridge the physical and virtual reality. Highly sensitive data relating to your person could be collected, analysed and processed in order to map your physiological and mental characteristics. The nature and intrusiveness of such biometric data could increase the risk of human rights violations in the physical realm. The surveillance risk from the Metaverse would therefore likely spill over into the physical world.

Difficult questions will arise regarding the management of your own personal data. Can “consent” be used as the basis for processing at all if Metaverse users do not understand what data they are giving up and how such data could be used? The current international and national legal regimes on data protection and the human right to privacy are in no way calibrated for the challenges the Metaverse is likely to bring concerning protection of personal autonomy in both the virtual and the physical realms.

Access to the Metaverse – and a Duty to Participate?

A new type of rights would relate to natural persons’ access to and exclusion from the Metaverse. If the virtual world becomes increasingly integrated with everyday life, access to the Metaverse would become a human rights issue. Can you be obliged to work or study in the Metaverse and what would the consequences be if people refuse to engage with the Metaverse? Do governments have a duty to ensure that all citizens have access to the Metaverse, including groups that are vulnerable due to age, disability and the like? And according to which criteria may natural persons be excluded from entering or even existing in the Metaverse?

If government authorities chose to move activities to the Metaverse, what responsibility would the state assume for the risks to human rights, and does this responsibility extend to both predictable and unintended effects for human rights? Many challenging human rights issues will arise in the wake of the Metaverse, not unlike the effects of the digitalization of the last decade.

Unlike the internet, however, the virtual reality of the Metaverse is likely to increase the geophysical connection with the physical realm, giving rise to more fundamental questions about jurisdiction, responsibility and enforcement of human rights.

Freedom of Opinion and Expression in Relation to Other Rights

The Metaverse will facilitate new ways for human beings to interact. This entails that violations of human rights associated with the internet, such as privacy violations, harassment, threats, hate speech, etc., could become more prevalent. Such effects are already visible in VR:

The Extended Mind produced a study of the experiences of women in social VR. The results were not surprising and quite discouraging: 49 percent of women reported experiencing at least one incident of harassment in VR. Many of them never went back to the virtual experience. The harassing results were not just limited to women, as 30 percent of male respondents reported racist or homophobic content, and 20 percent experience violent comments or threats on the platform.⁸⁶

Human rights violations such as these would have the same impact in reality as online speech has today, possibly with greater psychological effects, as violations will be experienced more realistically in the Metaverse compared to the internet. Although the Metaverse may be perceived as separate from the physical world and could therefore be perceived more like playing a game, the subjective experience of digital harassment and abuse will likely be more reminiscent of violations in the physical world.

Trolling, disinformation and manipulation could also increase in scope and severity with the advances in technological tools. This technology would also be available to states, companies and other parties with malicious intentions. Technology that provides insight into the vulnerabilities of individuals and groups can be abused and expose the public to extremely targeted information campaigns. The Metaverse will likely offer more sophisticated forms of manipulation, disinformation and means of political influence. The human rights challenges that we have experienced in recent years with the arrival of the internet and social media, are most probably only a prelude for things yet to come.

How these challenges will be addressed largely depends on the form and structure the Metaverse will eventually take. This, in turn, will be decided by how and to what extent government authorities take control over the Metaverse for their citizens, and which new categories of rights we choose to develop in order to safeguard the personal autonomy of human beings in the virtual (and physical) realm, in the advent of the Metaverse.

Fotnoter:

¹GAFAM stands for the American companies Google, Amazon, Facebook, Apple and Microsoft, while BATX represents their Chinese counterparts Baidu, Alibaba, Tencent, Xiaomi.
²UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (2011)
³UN General Assembly (2019), UN Human Rights Council (2012) and (2018) and the Tallinn Manual (2017, Rule 35).
⁴Change (2021)
⁵Norwegian National Human Rights Institution (2022)
⁶UN Committee on the Rights of the Child (2021, paragraph 67), the European Court of Human Rights (2022)
⁷The Tallinn Manual (2017)
⁸Second 100-2 of the Norwegian Constitution.
⁹UN Declaration (1948, Article 19), SP Convention (1976, Article 19(2)), UN Human Rights Committee (2011)
¹⁰UN High Commissioner for Human Rights (2021, paragraph 6).
¹¹Porto Júnior, Odélio (2017)
¹²Copenhagen Institute for Future Studies (2022)
¹³UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (2011)
¹⁴Meta (2022)
¹⁵Takahashi, Dean (2016)
¹⁶Wong, Dale John (2022)
¹⁷Heller, Brittan (2021)