Journal 4: Hot & Cold Media: McLuhan & The Metaverse.

I already explored the hotness and coldness of a new media / technology in journal 3, specifically algorithms within social media, so for this journal entry I will explore the hotness/coldness of the metaverse, which is another technology I am considering for the encoding project as well as AI social media algorithms.

The ‘metaverse’ as we know it today was uncleverly used by Mark Zuckerberg in his rebranding of Facebook to Meta to be a buzzword in the development of new technologies and the Web3 internet, but the term itself has been around for much longer, and can be applied to previous technologies and mediums, mostly relevant to online internet spaces / games with a community aspect that often transcends the original mediums they were made on/for.

Today’s idea of the metaverse, powered by VR headsets, detailed graphics, and spatial audio, might at first glance appear “hot” because of its seemingly high-definition presentation. Immersive visuals and audio appear to fill in a wealth of sensory detail. Yet, McLuhan’s emphasis is on how much engagement or “completion” the user must provide. A medium can have high fidelity imagery and still demand extensive interaction. In the Metaverse, users co-create worlds, construct digital objects, and communicate through avatars and body language simulations. Such activities make the Metaverse highly participatory.

Besides the technology itself, the content is almost entirely user generated: participants build and modify spaces, invent their own cultural norms, and even influence platform policies. This communal, evolving environment positions users as collaborators rather than spectators. They must continuously fill in knowledge gaps, learn new interfaces, and adapt to the dynamic nature of virtual realms, which are perpetually changing through updates and community-driven projects. The Metaverse does not necessarily have a finished product; it provides frameworks that require co-creation, improvisation, and continual evolution.

Social interaction also plays a large role in the metaverse’s media type. Even with advanced motion tracking or haptic feedback, the user must interpret digital gestures, decode avatar expressions, and navigate voice or text chat. These cues are more open-ended than face-to-face encounters, forcing participants to fill in emotional and contextual nuances. This process of active interpretation and adaptation makes the metaverse and the spaces within much more cool as a media type.

The Metaverse’s fluid, incomplete, and collaborative structure calls for user engagement and participation. Although it can deliver detailed audiovisual elements, the key factor lies in how much the user must do to make the experience meaningful. By bridging communal sense-making, user-driven content, and ever-evolving spaces, the Metaverse invites a level of interactivity that aligns with McLuhan’s notion of a cool medium, one that thrives on active participation rather than passive consumption.

Lastly, and as more of an interesting side note or food for thought, the ever increasing fidelity and immersion of VR raises interesting questions about our own ‘real’ reality, what with simulation theory coming into the mix. It makes me wonder, if we were to classify ‘real’ reality as a media type, what would it be? A first thought is that it would be cool, since typically you would think everyone actively chooses what to do with every action and interaction, but that assumes that everyone experiences reality the same way you do. Considering the un-objectiveness of consciousness and how social media echo-chambers and algorithms push singular trains of thoughts onto people using it, it’s entirely possible people experience a much more ‘hot’ reality, taking things at face value instead of actively “filling in the blanks”. Not that there’s anything inherently wrong with that, but with relevant concerns of fake news and critical thinking, I think people should more consider the overall ‘warmth’ of how they navigate life.