There is a meta vision (pun) that is bigger than a "leftist vision", in the sense enlightenment and humanism is a very deep well that originates much more than the debate about particular economic system designs, capital formation, ownership and employment contracts etc.
It feels as if abusive societies are the norm (and we have seen that in breathtakingly dark glory with the ascent of surveillance capitalism) but the historical pattern seems to be pointing to the gradual discovery of tools (institutions, behaviors) that eliminate these local minima. Alas it may not be happening fast enough to prevent drifting into a bottomless pit.
The main current issue with the "metaverse", imho, is not who will control it, but is it actually a breakthrough communications technology that is worthwhile developing to its "full" potential? Its "wow" factor feels really gimmicky. I am thinking that if it feels like a gimmick maybe it is a gimmick. But I do acknowledge that a combination of preliminary implementations and not have discovered yet the use cases what would really make it worthwhile may change the picture at a future point.
For every Thomas Midgley Jr. [0] there is a Clair Patterson [1] - and thats the problem.
Artistic talent seems to have strong correlation with empathy and a sense of social responsibility. Scientific and technical (STEM) talent much less so.
While the very pinnacle of science (people like Einstein) display (or convincigly fake) deep humanistic traits, the army of scientists / engineers that got educated since the early 20th century are basically just run-of-the-mill willing executioners, cogs in the machine, eager to turn in the prevailing direction, support whatever power structruce exists, with no strong conviction as to what "good" looks like.
How digital technology has been developed and used is just the latest manifestation of this amoral stance. If we consider areas like biotech, the risks those over-eager idiot-savants help bring to life are potentially existential.
It feels as if abusive societies are the norm (and we have seen that in breathtakingly dark glory with the ascent of surveillance capitalism) but the historical pattern seems to be pointing to the gradual discovery of tools (institutions, behaviors) that eliminate these local minima. Alas it may not be happening fast enough to prevent drifting into a bottomless pit.
The main current issue with the "metaverse", imho, is not who will control it, but is it actually a breakthrough communications technology that is worthwhile developing to its "full" potential? Its "wow" factor feels really gimmicky. I am thinking that if it feels like a gimmick maybe it is a gimmick. But I do acknowledge that a combination of preliminary implementations and not have discovered yet the use cases what would really make it worthwhile may change the picture at a future point.