{"id":28741,"date":"2025-05-07T14:25:49","date_gmt":"2025-05-07T18:25:49","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.tedic.org\/?p=28741"},"modified":"2025-05-07T14:25:52","modified_gmt":"2025-05-07T18:25:52","slug":"futures-yet-to-be-designed-between-tech-promises-and-exclusionary-realities","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.tedic.org\/en\/futures-yet-to-be-designed-between-tech-promises-and-exclusionary-realities\/","title":{"rendered":"Futures yet to be designed: Between tech promises and exclusionary realities"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

This content was written by <\/em>Araceli Ram\u00edrez<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Amid the COVID-19 pandemic, during 2021 and 2022, the metaverse emerged as one of the dominant tech narratives of the moment. What had long belonged to the realm of science fiction or existed as an experimental space for gamer communities suddenly became the next big thing for major tech platforms, companies across sectors, and even governments. The leading figure behind this push was Mark Zuckerberg, who not only rebranded his company from Facebook to Meta, but also announced investments exceeding $10 billion per year to build what he called \u201cthe next evolution of the Internet.\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Blending futuristic marketing with promises of structural solutions to social isolation, the metaverse was presented as the new space where we would work, study, shop, interact, and entertain ourselves. Virtuality would no longer be just an interface\u2014it would become an environment in itself. Headlines multiplied: Barbados announced the opening of a virtual embassy in Decentraland; companies like Microsoft and Nike launched digital offices and stores; Sotheby\u2019s held art auctions in 3D galleries. Even in countries like South Korea, governments began exploring public policies with metaversal components, aiming for a fully digitalized state.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Source: Sotheby\u2019s in Decentraland. Available at: https:\/\/www.sothebys.com\/en\/articles\/next-stop-the-metaverse<\/a>.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The promise was total: a multisensory, persistent, decentralized, and expanded internet. A supposed \u201cmirror life\u201d where we could experience new forms of existence without the physical constraints of the body, geography, or time. But behind that optimistic and homogeneous discourse, there was little discussion about how these technologies could reproduce\u2014or worsen\u2014the structural inequalities already embedded in digital environments.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Now, as media attention shifts toward artificial intelligence and the metaverse fades into the background, it\u2019s worth asking: what did we learn from that hype? How does it relate to the current challenges of technological development? And what if, instead of designing the future from the same old perspectives, we imagined it from other realities?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In this context, the research Rethinking and Redesigning a Safe and Inclusive Metaverse<\/a><\/em>, coordinated by TEDIC in collaboration with civil society organizations from Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Mexico, and Peru, offers both a critical and forward-thinking perspective. From an intersectional and decolonial approach, the study argues that just digital futures are not possible without the active inclusion of those who have historically been excluded from tech design: women, trans and non-binary people, Afro-descendants, migrants, people with disabilities, rural communities, and low-income populations.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The goal is not just to rethink the metaverse, but to question where it is produced from\u2014and for whom. While big corporations continue designing platforms with commercial and standardized criteria, the digital lives of millions are shaped by surveillance logics, data extractivism, tech-facilitated gender violence, and symbolic exclusion.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

But first\u2026 What Is the Metaverse, and why are we researching it?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

The metaverse is not a single technology, but a constellation of emerging ones\u2014such as virtual reality, augmented reality, blockchain, and artificial intelligence\u2014that aim to create immersive, persistent, and interactive digital environments. In these spaces, people gather, work, shop, play, or socialize via personalized avatars and 3D settings.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Source: Person using VR headset in an immersive environment. Courtesy of https:\/\/edu.gcfglobal.org\/es\/<\/a>.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

At its peak between 2021 and 2022, the metaverse was pitched as the next major digital revolution: a multisensory Internet without physical or temporal barriers, where everything we currently do online would take place in digital worlds\u2014from business meetings and classes to concerts, shopping, and public services. This narrative was driven by large tech companies, but also by governments, investors, businesses, and media who saw in the metaverse a new frontier of economic opportunity, innovation, and social transformation. So why talk about the metaverse now, when public discourse seems entirely focused on AI?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Because tech promises don\u2019t disappear\u2014they evolve. And because the questions raised by the metaverse\u2014Who designs these technologies? Who benefits? Who is left out? What rights are at stake?\u2014remain urgent under any innovation narrative, immersive or intelligent. At TEDIC, we chose to investigate the metaverse not to follow a trend, but to offer a critical, context-aware perspective on how the digital future is imagined and built in Latin America. We know that visions of the future hold very real power: they shape public policy, guide investment, mold behavior, and exclude voices when not grounded in justice, equity, and participation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

A research rooted in Latin America<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

TEDIC carried out this research between 2023 and 2024 across eight Latin American countries, creating listening spaces with people from diverse backgrounds, all affected by various forms of inequality\u2014gender, race, migration status, disability, class, age, sexual orientation, and geographic location, among others.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This work was made possible with support from seven civil society organizations with strong backgrounds in digital rights, feminism, and tech justice:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

InternetLab<\/a><\/strong> (Brazil), Luchadoras<\/a><\/strong> (Mexico), Amaranta ONG<\/strong> <\/a>(Chile), Fundaci\u00f3n Karisma<\/strong> <\/a>(Colombia), Sul\u00e1 Bats\u00fa<\/a><\/strong> (Costa Rica), Hiperderecho<\/a><\/strong> (Peru), and Latfem<\/a><\/strong> (Argentina).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Through this collaboration, we spoke with over 90 individuals from different realities to understand how the promises of the metaverse are experienced, perceived, and challenged from the Global South\u2014and what conditions are necessary to build truly inclusive and safe technologies.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Alongside the listening sessions, we mapped legal frameworks on gender violence, discrimination, and digital rights across the region to identify legal gaps and policy opportunities for action in virtual spaces.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

We also conducted interviews and mapped concrete examples of good practices across areas that offer clues for imagining more livable digital futures: safe virtual parties with care protocols, innovative public policies on inclusion and digital accessibility, and groups designing technology through horizontal, feminist, and community-centered narratives.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Unlike many tech studies that adopt a technical or market-driven lens, this research centers the lived experiences of those historically excluded from tech design. Not to speak about<\/em> them, but to listen, systematize, and elevate their knowledge, concerns, dreams, and proposals.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Representation, accessibility, and participation: The missing pieces<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

One of the study\u2019s most consistent themes is the tension between ideals of representation and the actual practices of tech design. Across all countries, participants noted that most avatars in immersive environments reflect normative bodies: thin, young, able-bodied, Eurocentric, binary, hyper-stylized. Aesthetics, language, and interaction logic reinforce homogenous models that exclude a large part of the world\u2019s population.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Source: Avatars from Meta Horizons World, Meta\u2019s metaverse platform.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cI\u2019ve always been fat. And all the avatars are thin. It might seem silly, but when your body isn\u2019t there, it\u2019s like you\u2019re not allowed in,\u201d said a young pansexual woman from Argentina.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

On top of that, there\u2019s the structural issue of access. For many people\u2014especially those in rural, low-income, or non-urban settings\u2014the metaverse simply isn\u2019t an option. It requires expensive devices (like VR headsets or high-end computers), fast and stable internet, specific digital literacy, and above all, cultural capital that isn\u2019t equitably distributed. This means large parts of the population haven\u2019t even heard of the metaverse or see it as alien, inaccessible, or irrelevant to their lives. The access gap isn\u2019t just technical or economic\u2014it\u2019s also symbolic, political, and cultural. When innovation happens without dialogue with diverse realities, gaps widen: worlds are built for the few, based on user models that exclude the rest.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cCan you imagine someone using a white cane or a wheelchair in the metaverse? I haven\u2019t seen that anywhere. But what worries me more is not whether virtual ramps exist\u2014it\u2019s whether anyone dares to imagine different bodies without hiding them,\u201d said a blind activist from Paraguay.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The study also highlights how participation remains severely limited. Interviewees weren\u2019t invited to any design or consultation processes\u2014and most didn\u2019t even know such processes existed. As it stands, the metaverse is being developed as a closed, extractive, and top-down infrastructure.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Recommendations for a collective redesign<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

The research doesn\u2019t stop at diagnosis. Based on participant dialogue, legal review, and organizational experience, we offer concrete recommendations to build more just, accessible, and caring immersive technologies:<\/p>\n\n\n\n