Good thing even training wheels devices for AR aren't selling very well just yet, because that gives us much more time to answer ethical questions some of us have only started to ask. Such as:
A new batch of apps that allow users to create hidden graffiti using AR raises an important question about who is legally allowed to “tag” a place. Physical graffiti itself is illegal without the permission of a property owner, but what about virtual graffiti? If not immediately viewable by the public, how big a crime is it? If it is just for a group of friends, or patrons, or other groups, is it an intrusion on the property? At some point, the answer is probably yes. When a space becomes “public” is in fact defined by law (thought not yet in MR). However, Yelp reviews of a particular “place” have been perfectly acceptable up to now, suggesting some general societal tolerance for open commenting on private places.
... Will cities require a similar permit or approved labeling process for content that is tied to public locations? What history or cultural perspectives will be prioritized or denied, if any? Figuring out the right number and providing equal access to all participants will be a challenging political task, equal to, or even harder to align consensus around than the recent debates over Confederate statues. The “vandalization” of a virtual, public Koons exhibit enabled by Snapchat provides an early sign of the complexity of the debate to come.
Many more compelling points from futurist Matt Kanen here, in an article I came across via game designer Raph Koster, who has been making related points in recent months. The image above, by the way, is from a short that conveys a lot of these questions in six disturbing minutes below:
I think AR will be like TV in that there will be a list of channels that you can flip on and off.
Posted by: metacam oh | Sunday, October 29, 2017 at 12:53 PM