With the introduction of the Metaverse, the avatar based virtual reality (VR) world depicted in Ready Player One is quickly becoming reality. However, the experience of using the Metaverse’s social virtual spaces has not been a bed of roses for everyone. From complaints of racist abuse to bullying, the most concerning has been the cases of virtual groping faced by numerous players on Meta’s own VR game, Horizon Worlds.
To some, virtual groping (when a user’s avatar non-consensually touches the virtual chest and groin areas of another user’s avatar) may not seem as serious compared to other forms of sexual harassment such as physical sexual harassment. Experiences of virtual groping have been dismissed by some people as not “actual groping” as victims’ bodies have not been physically touched. However, whether the sexual assault is done to a victim’s avatar or physical body, psychological harm is still dealt to them. Besides, the immersive nature of VR platforms has successfully led users to believe they are physically in an environment with other users. As such, virtual groping is experienced similarly to physical groping, resulting in victims experiencing the same intensity of emotions and psychological responses.
This situation becomes more dire when one considers the large number of pre-teens and teenagers active on these VR platforms. Although Horizon Worlds has set an age limit of 18 in a bid to protect minors, minors who are unable to bypass this age limit simply turn to alternatives such as VRChat with an age limit of 13. Minors are thus still potentially exposed to virtual sexual assault just on a different platform.
Worse still, perpetrators of sexual assault on VR platforms will more often than not get away with their actions. The use of virtual avatars on these platforms brings about a cloak of anonymity which shields offenders from facing justice.
This predicament is certainly applicable to Singapore. Although the use of VR for recreational purposes is presently not very high, the popularity of social video game platforms like Roblox indicate that increasing numbers of Singaporean youths will be drawn to VR video game platforms where they can also interact with their friends and other players like the above-mentioned VRChat. As such, more youth on these platforms are at risk of harm from sexual predators, which is a deeply worrying situation.
To protect users, including and especially the vulnerable, legislation must be timely in responding to the latest trends in technology. Despite virtual sexual harassment not being a new issue, thoroughly effective solutions by governments have not yet materialised.
Countries like the United Kingdom (UK) have taken some steps to address technology facilitated sexual offences. Recently, as part of efforts to ensure that laws keep pace with emerging crimes, one of the changes introduced in the UK’s Online Safety Bill was the criminalisation of cyber flashing. Over in Singapore, the Little Red Dot can seemingly allow itself a twinge of pride at being ahead – sexual offences aided by technology including cyber flashing and voyeurism have been criminalised since January 2020 – however the fact remains that Singapore, along with many other countries, have yet to introduce legislation pertaining to virtual groping.
Indeed, these efforts by lawmakers to keep people safe on the internet should be recognised. Still, Still, lawmakers globally must continue pushing for and implementing more through legislation to deal with technology facilitated sexual offences. Presently, the law has failed to protect and seek justice for all victims when dealing with online sexual harassment. As long as gaps in the law are present, the vulnerable are at risk of harm, and offenders are free to continue their acts of sexual assault.
How can legislation be improved? For a start, legislation can target offenders by imposing harsh penalties in the form of hefty fines or long jail sentences to punish, rehabilitate and deter offenders. Another route legislation can take is to compel technology companies to implement more extensive anti-harassment measures to reduce the opportunities for sexual harassment. However, challenges plague both methods.
Prosecuting individual offenders requires technology companies to hand over evidence of sexual assault such as video footage and personal user data. Should technology platforms refuse to hand over the data or assist in decrypting the data (as in the case of Apple refusing to unlock a terrorist’s iPhone after being ordered to do so by the FBI) over concerns of opening a Pandora’s box of consumer privacy protection issues, the process of charging and punishing offenders may come to a halt.
In addition, when the specifics of a relationship between the accused and victim are murky, it will become a headache to determine the intent of an action. For instance, the same action could be interpreted by the victim as harassment, but by the accused as flirting. The line between harassment and flirting is a fine and often blurred one. This is especially so if the issue of whether consent was given is in question, which is a problem that already plagues prosecuting physical harassment.
As for the other solution, the implementation of greater restrictions on what users can do and stricter monitoring of user interactions would leave many innocent users with the short end of the stick. The loss of platform functionality and privacy will no doubt frustrate them and disrupt their user experience.
Comparing the two, the second approach is perhaps more effective. Instead of simply making tokenistic gestures and statements, companies are pushed to implement effective and lasting changes in the form of anti-harassment measures stipulated by governments in order to avoid being handed massive fines. While the jury is still out on exactly what anti-harassment measures should be implemented, such measures could build on current measures that are in place such as Meta’s “personal boundary” function to create a ring of space around a user’s avatar that cannot be entered by other users’ avatars.
Furthermore, ground-breaking changes to legislation will naturally garner greater media attention and in turn public attention. Consumers with a greater awareness of the issue of online sexual harassment will shun and boycott technology companies which fail to take effective action on this issue. As such, companies have an incentive to protect and retain their user base in order to protect their bottom line.
Yet, each approach has its shortcomings and cannot protect the vulnerable and seek justice for victims wholly by itself. Ultimately, both approaches should work in tandem for the work of preventing and punishing sexual harassment to fire on all cylinders. This would involve punishing and deterring individuals’ attempts while minimising opportunities for sexual harassment by implementing platform wide changes. There will certainly be conflicts and shortfalls along the journey to stamping out sexual harassment, but what matters most is lawmakers and technology companies remaining committed to eradicating all forms of sexual harassment.
References:
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/oct/26/virtual-reality-sexual-harassment-online-groping-quivr
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/cyberflashing-to-become-a-criminal-offence
https://www.channelnewsasia.com/singapore/voyeurism-cyber-flashing-doxxing-crime-penal-code-reform-1311791#:~:text=A%20new%20offence%20of%20sexual,criminalised%20from%20Jan%201%2C%202020.
Written by: Camille Goh (22S7E)
Edited by: Alina Tan (21A14), Tan Xuanmin (21S78)
Comentários