Will Augmented Reality Present A Moderation Problem?
from the new-challenges-in-new-places dept
Augmented reality is on its way. The ability to layer media over top of the real world is, for the moment, a hardware problem. Our phones can do it – think Pokémon Go, or Snapchat’s dancing hotdog – but a real-time heads-up display remains out of reach, for the moment. When such technology arrives, it will be a speech problem.
True augmented reality will be social and locative. Users will view media published and placed by other users, and unlike a photo-bound dancing hotdog or dog’s tongue-and-ears mapped to your face, this media will be tied to particular real-world locations. Users’ AR content may be visible to anyone who glaces at a particular wall, or only apparent to a select few.
For thousands for years, humanity has sought an escape from the detached scribal hunch that reading, writing, and computing have thus far required. Neck pain and blundering around the world with our faces in our phones have kept the dream of heads-up computing alive through multiple premature hardware hype-cycles.
This pent-up, unmet demand was on full display at the launch of Apple’s Vision Pro – a virtual reality device with effective-enough pass-through to mimic augmented reality, until users moved around. Nevertheless, VisionPro users did their best to compute while walking, driving, and riding the subway – only to see their apps slide away from them, left behind as they moved (you can, at least, carry your apps with you). Augmented reality, tethered to the user and their immediate surroundings, will satisfy this want.
We have also already grown accustomed to wearing sunglasses and corrective lenses, and seeing them worn by others. As a result, when they arrive, or arrive at an accessible price point, augmented reality glasses are likely to be adopted by most consumers very quickly.
No matter how it is used, social, locative, ubiquitous augmented reality will turbocharge anxieties about online speech by bringing it further into, or onto, the real physical world. If existing uses of speech are any guide, it will be used to exalt, express, opine, teach, trade, harass, titillate, blaspheme, and defame. Some of these uses will present problems, both for budding AR platforms and their users.
When there are controversies generated by AR’s rapid adoption and sheer imposition upon the physical world, features of the AR medium will make classic misuses of speech much more difficult for moderators to govern.
Locative AR media is unlikely to be text-first. Text was developed for flat surfaces – floating text is either difficult to read – let alone interact with as one might on a desktop computer – or obscures the surrounding environment, replicating the problem of walking while holding a book in front of your face. It’s hard to compose an email on the side of a building. This isn’t to say that text won’t be used to communicate in AR – but that messages will be short, overlaid on flat surfaces, and usually presented alongside other media. Phone AR apps, such as Mirage, which allows users to leave multimedia collages for others to view around New York City, seem to confirm this intuition. Confusingly, an earlier, different app called Mirage World pioneered the concept in 2017.
Thus, if platforms fully embrace the natural expressive and possibilities of this medium, moderators will not be dealing with easily machine readable text so much as subjectively interpretable public art. This might be an acceptable issue for a hyperlocal startup, but as with all content moderation problems, the long tail of novel misuse grows large at scale.
The context, meaning, and offensive potential of AR speech will turn in large part on where it appears. What is it layered over? “Who can place what speech where?” will soon matter a lot to already-large platforms moving into the AR space. Whether geospatial AR advertising in Google Maps or sharing locative multimedia with friends via Snapchat Spectacles, limiting the “who” to trusted creators and state tourism boards is a beta test, but eventually these products will launch to the full, diverse public. Even if hardware costs provide another initial gate to adoption, it won’t last forever, and as we have seen with the internet at large and within gaming subcultures, the shift from hobbyist to mass medium can itself be culturally tumultuous.
Their varied uses of the ability to layer speech over the real world are likely to push the boundaries of platform comfort and constitutional speech protections. Who can publish what on a church, a gay bar, an embassy, or their ex-husband’s home. Visible to whom? Although the speech will be virtual, platform answers to these questions may provoke the ire of the owners of physical properties to which AR content is mapped or tethered.
Even how some media or animation appears may matter. Higher and lower resolution versions of the same content will coexist as AR hardware evolves. Moderators won’t just find themselves having to answer questions like “are the AR arms sprouting from the shrub hugging or groping?”, but even “do they look unseemly at a lower frame rate?”
None of this will be easy to solve, but good solutions will provide strong reasons to prefer one platform’s overlay over another’s. User control over what they see in the world around them will be paramount. No one wants to put on a pair of glasses to be assaulted by ads and horrors. Some public/private distinction will also likely work well. The potential controversy, harm, and sheer competition for space that attends speech visible to all users of a given platform will likely spur platforms towards subsidiary layers of visibility – public, followers, close friends, etc. – but the prospect of personal augmented realities raises all the democratic anxieties of individualized algorithmic feeds. Nevertheless, for the best solution, ownership of a new layer of spatial, social computing is prize.
Will Duffield is an adjunct scholar in the Cato Institute’s Center for Representative Government
Filed Under: AR, augmented reality, content moderation, speech, xr
BestNetTech is off for the holidays! We'll be back soon, and until then don't forget to




Comments on “Will Augmented Reality Present A Moderation Problem?”
Setting aside the fact that it should be an “opt-in” choice from the start, currently property owners have the ability to have their property blurred in Google Maps, and the like. I would like to think that one would have some equivalent ability with these upcoming platforms, but that would be entirely dependent on the whim of whichever companies manage to beat, hammer, and bend the technology enough to satisfactorily fuel the marketing department’s next product placement vehicle first.
I just want a way to personally opt out. I want to have a thing, either active or passive, that I can have or wear that either alerts me that I am within view of someone’s AR camera, or that generates some sort of interference that blurs my face in their cameras. I do not want to be an extra in the background of anyone’s Augmented Reality fantasy just because I had to run to the store, get gas, or any other reasons for potentially being out in public.
We all know that where there’s a camera with access to the internet, there is, or soon will be, a facial recognition filter filling yet more databases of locations, dates, times, and sightings of faces supposedly recognized. We all also know that no company can resist selling that data, regardless of how much they might pretend to “value your privacy”.
No good can possibly come of any of it.
Also, GET OFF MY LAWN!!
Re:
I swear if I ever figure out who you are, I’m going to find you and Augmented Reality you onto a flying dachshund.
I don’t have any social media accounts, so I won’t be able to share it. But I’ll make sure you know.
Re: Re:
…But I’ll make sure you know.
Realistically, what more could any reasonable person ask for?
Re: Re: Re:
touché
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: It correct
same like https://www.entrivistech.com/
Re: Re:
FRAUD ALERT https://www.entrivistech.com/ FRAUD ALERT
Entrivis Tech SCAM
Re:
So, like The Laughing Man from Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex, who’s hacked the system such that nobody looking at them via a computer can see their face.
Re: Re:
When the show was first published in 2002, that seemed far-feteched. Wouldn’t this person have to hack thousands of types of devices? And now in 2024, we have some idea to the contrary: nope, just gotta hack maybe 2 big classes of device—or maybe just their central servers, ’cause they’re not even doing anything locally.
I feel like I remember at least one Second Life virtual interview getting bombarded by flying dicks. Google is proving useless in trying to find it though.
Ralph Pootawn is a hoot as well.
It seems prevalence as much as anything contributes to perceptions of safety. I predict that as AR gains prevalence, two things will happen:
First, actual funny trolls will make it hilarious.
Second, the bad guys will exploit the same flaws as the funny trolls and ruin things for everyone.
Re:
You need to up your Googling skills: https://www.engadget.com/2006-12-20-second-life-millionaire-plagued-with-peckers.html?guccounter=1
Re: Re:
Honestly, the more it gives me what it thinks I want instead of what I ask for, the less inclined I am to try to learn it. I’ve kind of just accepted the fact that Google is going to decide what I meant regardless of my intentions.
Re: Re:
I just don’t use Google. Haven’t for years.
Huh?
What is a “misuse” of speech? In the US at least, anyone is free to lie. And anyone is free to call them out on their bullshit. And while yes, we’ve disinformation campaigns galore on social media, that doesn’t mean the structure of AR will support that.
AR is likely to be networks. Not in the television sense, but more like frequencies. Layers of accessible networks to join. Some popular, some secretive, others the empty rolling wastelands of the untamed West. People will be free to flee the advertiser-dense networks, and they will.
You seem to be thinking of AR being exactly like the internet, but in the worst way. Centralized, clustered, huge audiences just waiting to be reaped of their data. Why should AR be like that at all? Instead, essentially, AR will be databases and pointers and image files of various types… as if you were in a video game world that didn’t have to render the landscape, physics, or players.
Go watch the movie Free Guy. It’s a good look at over the top AR environments. That just one channel, one frequency, one network connected to the internet. Is it wildly ‘loud’ and in your face? Some of it is. And some of it isn’t.
Another one to watch is Den-Oh Coil (Coil – A Circle of Children). The story follows a group of children as they use AR glasses to unravel the mysteries of the half real, half Internet city, using a variety of illegal software tools, techniques, and virtual pets to manipulate the digital landscape. It depicts daily life in a world with AR. It’s an enjoyable watch but the melding of AR and daily life shows yet another possible network.
Don’t think of AR the same way you think of the internet. It’ll be layers on top of the internet. As the use of it grows, more and more the underlying structure will be relegated to old farts, subversives, governments, and any business that desires classic security.
Re:
Social media is already layers on top of the internet. As the use of it has grown, more and more the underlying structure has been relegated to old farts, subversives, governments, and any business that desires classic security.
I’m old enough to remember Web 1.0 and not particularly miss it, in any event.
Re:
And why shouldn’t we? Growing up with it In the 1990’s, we had high hopes. It was a bunch of independent people publishing stuff, and people would “flee the advertising-dense” stuff. Every major city had dozens of internet service and hosting providers. Cellphones looked promising too: so many manufacturers, and the technology could allow many network providers to co-exist, freeing us from the traditional and much-hated phone companies.
I’m still not convinced augmented reality is “likely” to be much of anything. It seems like something being pushed onto the public, rather than something wanted by them. (And perhaps one of the things that keeps it from getting big will be the desire of companies to maintain ownership.)
Re: Re:
Cyberpunk-style optical cybernetics are essentially “augmented reality.” There’s a lot of ground between here and there. You’re suffering from a severe lack of imagination.
I do wish I didn’t share in your pessimism.
Re: Re: Re:
Sorry; I’d just read the Wikipedia article for Apple Vision. One obvious use is for things such as driving directions; Apple explicitly warns against that. Okay, how about walking directions? “Not officially supported.” Showing recipes while cooking? “Not recommended by Apple.” Surgery is mentioned, but I’m willing to bet Apple forbids any use relating to life safety.
In other words, they released it too fucking early. An unfinished product that’s likely to sour people on the whole idea, as the Virtual Boy did in my youth (and “requires a Facebook account” Oculus did for younger people).
I do actually have some optimism, but I classify such ideas as “possible” rather than “likely”. Some of that optimism stems from cyberpunk fiction, but let’s not forget that most of that fiction (by my reckoning, anyway) is dystopian. People have already mentioned Ghost in the Shell and Minority Report; of course there’s also Snow Crash, which took corporate power to absurd levels. So I see Apple wants to own everything related to their device, Meta wants their own walled garden, and I can’t help but draw parallels.
If centralized platforms aren’t doing the thing, it’ll likely be a lot less trouble. But they cannot help themselves.
Re:
AR NFTs?
Sci-fi dystopia?
Why am I suddenly reminded of that scene in Minority Report, in which Tom Cruise’s character is repeatedly accosted by yet another personalized advert, addressing him by name, and pitching yet another product at him, with every step he takes?
Re:
Just for old time’s sake, here’s the relevant clip, about a minute long:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uiDMlFycNrw
AI ∪ AR = AIR
Ghost in the Shell
Interestingly, the timeline for Ghost in the Shell begins about now. It’s set in 2030 but references events from “six years ago”. The more time passes, the more prescient it seems.
I am more concerned about our flying cars and self driving cars.
Lets cross bridges when we get to them.