The metaverse: redefining the communicative paradigm through a critical discourse analysis of power and policy

The metaverse presents a distinct policy challenge, effectively redefining communication, economics, and identity outside the bounds of current regulation. While corporate narratives emphasize decentralization and empowerment, they often obscure the consolidation of platform power, the replication of economic inequality, and the expansion of biometric surveillance. Using Critical Discourse Analysis, this study deconstructs these narratives to identify architectural control, digital gentrification, and the commodification of embodied identity as primary policy concerns. We propose actionable recommendations, including “fairness by design” audits, strict interoperability mandates to prevent monopolies, and the establishment of clear legal rights regarding biometric and embodiment data.

1 Introduction

The rise of the metaverse, a concept originally popularized in fiction (Stephenson, 1992), marks a watershed moment for digital communication, requiring immediate regulatory attention (Anderson and Rainie, 2022; Ball, 2020). By establishing a persistent, immersive, and interconnected network of virtual spaces, this technology challenges the fundamental assumptions governing the two-dimensional internet. The transformation of digital content into integrated, three-dimensional worlds redefines social presence and economic exchange. Although industry leaders frame this shift as a natural evolutionary step, it provokes urgent policy questions. Specifically: How does the architecture of these spaces embed power and control?. How are user identities monetized in an environment of embodied interaction?. And where do existing legal frameworks fail to address these novel risks?

Dominant industry discourse promises empowerment, creativity, and a decentralized future. However, these utopian narratives threaten to mask a reality where power is consolidated by the platform owners controlling the underlying infrastructure.

Methodology: Critical Discourse Analysis We investigate these dynamics using Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA), applying the frameworks of Fairclough (1995) and van Dijk (2001). This method transcends surface-level content to reveal how language reinforces power structures. Our analysis covers a corpus of industry white papers, policy documents, and user forums published between 2021 and 2024. By dismantling specific linguistic strategies—such as labeling speculative asset markets as “democratization”—we expose the disparity between corporate promises and the socio-technical reality of surveillance and control.

2 The policy problem: power, control, and inequality

Traditional communication models fail to capture the complexity of the metaverse. Viewing the metaverse through McLuhan’s (1964) lens—where “the medium is the message”—it appears not merely as a new channel, but as a distinct media ecology reshaping social and economic interaction.

2.1 Architectural control vs. spatial liberation

Promising “limitless” freedom often disguises subtler mechanisms of control. Governance shifts from content moderation to “spatial governance”—the rigorous control of architectural design. Unlike the 2D web, where moderation involves removing posts, metaverse platforms control movement and visibility. Wang et al. (2023) note that the placement of storefronts, algorithmic curation of hubs, and visibility of activities serve as powerful environmental “nudges.” For instance, a platform might architecturally funnel users through commercial zones to access social spaces, effectively treating attention as a spatial resource. This shifts control from the message to the environment itself, allowing owners to arbitrate interaction beyond the reach of traditional speech-focused moderation policies.

2.2 Digital gentrification vs. economic democratization

While technologies like NFTs and blockchain promise a creator-led economy, practice suggests a trend toward “digital gentrification.”

• Case Study: The Digital Land Grab. In ecosystems like Decentraland, initial land distribution triggered a speculative rush, creating substantial financial barriers to entry.

• Inequality. Joshi (2022) observes that this mirrors real-world disparities, favoring real estate speculators and corporate brands over individual creators.

Consequently, the rhetoric of decentralization legitimizes speculative markets that concentrate economic power. This fosters new monopolies within “walled gardens” (Radoff, 2021), where early investors, rather than the community, capture the generated value.

2.3 Embodied identity as a data commodity

The avatar, ostensibly a tool for self-expression, serves as a new frontier for data extraction. The harvesting of “embodiment data”—biometric signals including gestures, gaze, vocal inflections, and emotional states—introduces unprecedented privacy risks. Unlike clickstream data, embodiment data exposes intimate physiological and psychological baselines, enabling sophisticated manipulation and discrimination (Yao et al., 2024; Hsu and Lin, 2021).

Current frameworks like the GDPR and the EU Digital Services Act (DSA) were not designed for such intimate, persistent surveillance. While GDPR protects biometric data used for identification, it remains ambiguous regarding behavioral data used for inference—such as detecting fatigue or vulnerability to target advertising.

3 Policy options and implications

Policymakers face a decisive choice in metaverse governance. Their approach will determine if the metaverse evolves into an equitable public square or a privately controlled commercial enclave (Table 1).

Table 1

Table 1. Governance frameworks comparison.

3.1 Option A: maintain the status quo (industry self-regulation)

This model leaves platforms to enforce their own codes of conduct and economic rules. While it may spur rapid development, it incentivizes commercial interests over user protection. Precedents in social media demonstrate that self-regulation rarely solves systemic issues like algorithmic bias. In the metaverse, this likely ensures entrenched digital gentrification and the normalization of biometric surveillance for profit.

3.2 Option B: apply existing legal frameworks (incremental adaptation)

Extending current laws (e.g., GDPR, antitrust) offers partial protection but remains reactive. GDPR is ill-suited for the continuous, passive generation of “embodiment data.” Likewise, antitrust laws focused on price struggle to address power derived from architectural control and vendor lock-in. This leaves regulatory gaps where harms like spatial manipulation can flourish.

3.3 Option C: develop proactive, metaverse-specific governance (systemic regulation)

We recommend creating forward-looking frameworks that specifically address spatial communication, virtual economies, and embodied identity. This comprehensive approach fosters a more equitable ecosystem by design. Although it requires significant political will and international cooperation, it is essential for aligning the metaverse with public interest values and preventing the replication of physical-world inequalities.

4 Actionable recommendations

To achieve systemic regulation (Option C), policymakers must move from high-level principles to concrete enforcement.

4.1 Regulate spatial governance

Not just content regulation must pivot from monitoring speech to auditing architecture. We propose mandating independent “fairness by design” (Parisi, 2021) audits for public virtual environments. These audits would identify manipulative “dark patterns” in 3D navigation and behavioral nudging. Furthermore, the algorithms curating social hubs and visibility must meet transparency requirements, treating virtual architecture as a matter of public interest.

4.2 Promote economic equity and fair competition

To dismantle “walled gardens” (Radoff, 2021), regulators must enforce interoperability. Ensuring that assets (avatars, goods) and data are portable prevents lock-in and drives genuine competition. Policymakers should also explore economic levers, such as taxes on high-value virtual land transactions, to curb the rampant speculation currently observed. Revenue generated could fund digital literacy and accessibility programs.

4.3 Expand data protection to cover embodied identity

Legal definitions of protected data require modernization. We advocate for a new category of “embodiment data”—covering biometric and behavioral information derived from avatars—afforded the highest level of protection. Users must possess explicit biometric rights, including control over the monetization of their expressions and movements. Crucially, advertising standards must prohibit targeting based on emotional or cognitive states inferred from this data (Figure 1).

Figure 1

Figure 1. The reinforcing cycle of platform dominance in the metaverse.

Mechanism: The diagram illustrates how the three core policy challenges—Architectural Control, Embodied Data Commodification, and Digital Gentrification—are mutually reinforcing, creating a structural loop that solidifies Platform Dominance.

• Flow 1 (Control → Data): Architectural design maximizes the passive collection of intimate embodiment data.

• Flow 2 (Data → Money): Sophisticated data extraction enables targeted manipulation, driving profitable speculation in virtual land and assets.

• Flow 3 (Money → Architecture): Concentrated wealth from digital land grabs funds the proprietary infrastructure, reinforcing the platform’s ability to exert Architectural Control.

• Final Loop: All three elements directly feed back into, and ensure the continuation of, Platform Dominance.

5 Conclusion

The metaverse acts as a contested arena where today’s policy decisions will define the future of the digital economy and social interaction. A passive approach cedes control to dominant platforms, entrenching inequality and opening new avenues for harm. Policymakers must look past the hype to adopt a proactive, systemic regulatory framework. By addressing the foundational structures—architecture, economy, and identity—we can ensure the metaverse evolves not as a tool for extraction, but as an accessible, ethical medium for human potential.

Author contributions

HA: Methodology, Writing – review & editing. EM: Investigation, Methodology, Resources, Supervision, Validation, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. AA: Conceptualization, Data curation, Writing – review & editing. BB: Conceptualization, Project administration, Writing – original draft.

Funding

The author(s) declared that financial support was not received for this work and/or its publication.

Conflict of interest

The author(s) declared that this work was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Generative AI statement

The author(s) declared that Generative AI was not used in the creation of this manuscript.

Any alternative text (alt text) provided alongside figures in this article has been generated by Frontiers with the support of artificial intelligence and reasonable efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, including review by the authors wherever possible. If you identify any issues, please contact us.

Publisher’s note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

References

Anderson, J., and Rainie, L. (2022) The metaverse in 2040 Pew Research Center. Available online at: https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2022/06/30/the-metaverse-in-2040/ (Accessed 15 July, 2025).

Google Scholar

Ball, M. (2020) The metaverse: what it is, where to find it, and who will build it. Available online at: https://www.matthewball.vc/all/themetaverse (Accessed 15 July, 2025).

Google Scholar

Fairclough, N. (1995). Critical discourse analysis: the critical study of language. London: Longman.

Google Scholar

Hsu, C. L., and Lin, J. C. C. (2021). An empirical examination of the moderating roles of privacy and security in the metaverse. J. Bus. Res. 129, 837–848. doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2020.08.016

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Joshi, P. (2022). Virtual real estate in the metaverse: a bubble or the future of property? J. Digit. Econ. 1, 269–278. doi: 10.1016/j.jdec.2022.11.001

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

McLuhan, M. (1964). Understanding media: The extensions of man. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Google Scholar

Parisi, T. (2021) The seven rules of the metaverse. Available online at: https://medium.com/meta-verses/the-seven-rules-of-the-metaverse-7d4e06fa864c (Accessed 15 July, 2025).

Google Scholar

Radoff, J. (2021) The metaverse value-chain. Available online at: https://medium.com/building-the-metaverse/the-metaverse-value-chain-afcf75817a15

Google Scholar

Stephenson, N. (1992). Snow crash. New York: Bantam Books.

Google Scholar

van Dijk, T. A. (2001). “Critical discourse analysis” in The handbook of discourse analysis. eds. D. Schiffrin, D. Tannen, and H. E. Hamilton (Oxford: Blackwell), 352–371.

Google Scholar

Wang, Y., Su, Z., Zhang, N., Liu, D., and Xing, R. (2023). The call of the metaverse: a new stage of marketing. J. Bus. Res. 157:113627. doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2022.113627

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Yao, M., Li, Y., and Chen, Y. (2024). Algorithmic fairness and discrimination in the metaverse: a critical review. Ethics Inf. Technol. 26, 1–15. doi: 10.1007/s10676-023-09745-z

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar