In some ways this isn't a new problem, though. The challenge here is defining a collective good and valuing it over individual power, and that might not be a wholly solveable problem but it's certainly a negotiation that takes place as long as there is not only one power that exists.
In that way, these rules (fantasies as they are) become valid. They're not laws as in 'gravity', they're laws as in 'enforceable and societally agreed upon'. I'm a bit puzzled how you enforce 'nobody controls the Metaverse' but it is quite a stake in the ground: you can sure tell when it's NOT being honored.
The fundamental laws that determine whether decentralization or centralization dominates is the rate of accessible content creation.
If a centralized organization (AOL & Yahoo, early and late 90s respectively) can create more content than the Internet (decentralized, early/mid 90s), then the former dominates.
If the greater number of content developers afforded by a decentralized system can create more content (Internet, late 90s - 10s), then it dominates.
Attempting to co-opt both strengths via platforms (Google & Facebook, 10s - now) is a newer phenomenon, but fundamentally still has the same tension.
If anyone wants decentralized metaverse to prevail, work on open dev tooling, content creation tools, and client standards. Not because they'll shift the balance, but because with them creators will shift the balance.
If there was to be a "standardized/decentralized" "metaverse", things would have to move much faster. Think of all the features a "metaverse" might want, and each item would have to go through spec gatekeepers that don't even use/develop VR
I wonder if it is possible to build a Verse on something like Godot, which is open already and has VR tools.
You could do it with Godot, but distribution is also important. I built a VR browser before that browsed standardized VR worlds, but control of hardware also felt important. Perhaps there was a long-term path to success there.
Let's say we lived in a time where the internet didn't exist but we somehow knew its potential could lead to what it has today. You better believe that someone commercially minded (think AT&T) would be sitting on DARPA's shoulders to make sure they captured all of the value.
Peter Thiel's obsession with naturalistic monopolies is no coincidence.
But it won't.
Internet was already too much of a proof that we are not ready for it as a species. I am not just talking about powers-that-be getting riled up over how it took some of the power away. I am talking about how it laid bare how downright awful average human can be.
But I hear metaverse and I chuckle, because the best comparison for it for me is Fed-issued crypto coin. Completely misses the point, but it runs on blockchain. Yay.
Never will buy any of facebook's shit but I damn well did invest in their stock cuz it's evident that no one sees the problem with selling their souls away be it in the browser or in virtual reality (where there's even more opportunity to influence you).
>Rule #3: Nobody controls the Metaverse.
I'm no expert and to be honest, a bit like I was with the internet back in the day, don't see the point but if those two rules aren't adhered to then the "metaverse" is dead on its feet.
I feel the internet had an advantage in that at the start there was no Facebook, Google, Apple, Microsoft, etc, either around or interested in it. If these companies get in at the start of this thing their wall gardens will kill the metaverse just like they're current effort to create wall gardens on the internet are chipping away at what made the internet what it is today.