Can a universal digital ethics exist in a structurally unequal world? A critical theory perspective on Web3, metaverse, and the global south

Abstract

The rapid expansion of blockchain infrastructures, Web3 architectures, and immersive metaverse environments has reignited calls for a Universal Code of Digital Ethics. International organizations, technology leaders, and multilateral forums increasingly advocate for global standards capable of guiding decentralized innovation toward inclusion, transparency, and social good. Yet the normative ambition of universality confronts a structural contradiction: digital access, connectivity quality, and technological literacy remain profoundly unequal across the Global South.Ethical frameworks for Web3 and the metaverse often presuppose a baseline of connectivity, computational capacity, and institutional stability that large segments of humanity do not possess. The COVID-19 pandemic amplified these asymmetries, accelerating digital transformation in high-income countries while deepening infrastructural gaps elsewhere. Concurrently, geopolitical tensions and emerging techno-nationalist strategies have repoliticized digital infrastructure as a domain of strategic competition rather than global solidarity.This Opinion article argues that any claim to a "universal" digital ethics framework is normatively fragile unless it incorporates a structural critique of global capitalism, technological acceleration, and asymmetrical power. Drawing on critical theory-particularly Herbert Marcuse's concept of the "one-dimensional man"-as well as Marxian analyses of technology and capital, I contend that ethical discourse risks becoming ideologically functional to market expansion if it fails to address material inequalities in connectivity and digital capability (Marcuse, 1972;Marx, 2005;García Ramírez, 2021).proposals but also problematizes the concept of universality itself as a normative and political construct.Global ethics initiatives often frame digital transformation as inherently democratizing. Blockchain is described as decentralized, Web3 as user-empowering, and the metaverse as participatory. However, decentralization at the protocol level does not necessarily translate into equitable access at the societal level.In regions of the Global South, access to stable broadband remains limited, mobile data costs are disproportionate to income, and digital literacy gaps persist. Under such conditions, the ethical vocabulary of autonomy, self-sovereign identity, and tokenized participation becomes aspirational rather than operative.Marx's analysis of technology as a force embedded within relations of production remains instructive. Technology is not neutral; it is shaped by capital accumulation dynamics (Marx, 2005). Fumikazu (1983) similarly emphasized that technological evolution must be understood historically and politically. When applied to Web3 ecosystems, this suggests that blockchain infrastructures operate within global financial logics that may reproduce, rather than dissolve, structural dependency.Contemporary Science and Technology Studies (STS) and critical philosophy of technology further reinforce this perspective. Feenberg (1999) argues that technology is not merely instrumental but socially constructed and politically conditioned, shaped by dominant interests yet open to democratic transformation. Similarly, Yuk Hui (2020) challenges the presumed universality of technological rationality, proposing the concept of "technodiversity" to account for plural technological trajectories rooted in different cultural and cosmological traditions. These perspectives suggest that any ethical framework for digital technologies must recognize the multiplicity of socio-technical realities rather than assume a homogeneous global condition.Thus, a universal code of digital ethics risks functioning as what critical theory would describe as ideological abstraction-detached from the material preconditions required for ethical agency.Herbert Marcuse's One-Dimensional Man (1972) provides a compelling lens through which to interpret contemporary digital governance. Marcuse argued that advanced industrial societies generate a form of technological rationality that integrates dissent by absorbing it into the logic of efficiency and consumption.In the context of Web3 and the metaverse, ethical discourse may become one-dimensional when it focuses on procedural compliance (privacy standards, transparency metrics, algorithmic audits) while neglecting structural exclusion. The language of inclusion becomes embedded within market expansion strategies. As Daum (2018) argues, digital capitalism increasingly converts users into capital itself-data, attention, and participation become monetizable assets.From a constructivist perspective, technologies such as blockchain are not inherently emancipatory but acquire meaning through their social embedding (Bijker, 1995). This implies that ethical claims about decentralization and empowerment must be evaluated in relation to the socio-economic contexts in which these technologies are deployed. Without such contextualization, ethical discourse risks overstating the transformative potential of technological architectures. This dynamic is particularly visible when global institutions promote digital entrepreneurship and blockchain adoption in developing regions without parallel investments in public infrastructure, education, and regulatory sovereignty. The rhetoric of empowerment may conceal asymmetric dependency.Cañas Quirós (2023) emphasizes that ethics cannot be separated from political structures; morality detached from power analysis risks legitimizing unjust arrangements. In this sense, digital ethics frameworks must confront the political economy of connectivity rather than merely codify behavioral norms for technology developers.Digital governance is increasingly entangled with geopolitical competition. Infrastructure financing, cloud sovereignty, semiconductor supply chains, and cybersecurity alliances shape technological ecosystems. In this context, international organizations often advocate regulatory harmonization to "facilitate innovation" and "reduce market friction".While harmonization may lower barriers for cross-border digital services, it can simultaneously constrain policy autonomy in developing nations. Ethical frameworks that prioritize market efficiency risk subordinating universal connectivity goals to investor confidence and capital mobility.García Ramírez (2021) calls for a "Marx in the South," reinterpreting technology through the lens of rights, education, and structural inequality. From this perspective, Web3 adoption without universal broadband is analogous to building virtual property rights atop infrastructural scarcity. The promise of decentralized finance or immersive governance becomes utopian-or dystopian-when foundational digital rights remain unrealized.The acceleration principle of technological evolution -where innovation in wealthy nations compounds exponentially-renders access in peripheral regions inversely proportional to global advancement. Ethical frameworks that ignore this asymmetry may inadvertently normalize a tiered digital citizenship.The assumption that a single set of ethical principles can be universally applicable across diverse socio-cultural and technological contexts has been widely debated. From decolonial and pluralist perspectives, ethical frameworks are historically situated and epistemically conditioned (Escobar, 2018). What is considered "ethical" in one context may not translate directly into another, particularly when technological infrastructures, cultural values, and political systems differ significantly.In this sense, the concept of a Universal Code of Digital Ethics may be inherently paradoxical. Rather than a fixed and homogeneous set of principles, digital ethics may need to be understood as a plural and adaptive framework, capable of accommodating different technological ontologies and social priorities. This does not imply abandoning normative aspirations, but rather rethinking universality as negotiated, situated, and contingent.If a global digital ethics framework is to be normatively defensible-whether universal or plural-it must integrate structural and contextual dimensions:If universality is to be normatively defensible, digital ethics must integrate at least five structural components:If universality is to be normatively defensible, digital ethics must integrate at least five structural components:1.Material Preconditions Clause: Ethical standards should explicitly recognize connectivity, affordability, and digital literacy as prerequisites for meaningful participation.Political Economy Transparency: Frameworks must disclose how market incentives shape technological deployment.Geopolitical Reflexivity: Digital governance should account for power asymmetries between states and corporations.Public Infrastructure Commitment: Ethical guidelines must prioritize universal broadband as a public good, not merely a commercial opportunity.Critical Participation Mechanisms: Inclusion must extend beyond tokenized representation toward substantive decision-making capacity.5.6. Epistemic Pluralism: Ethical frameworks must recognize diverse knowledge systems, cultural values, and technological imaginaries, particularly from the Global South.Such principles align ethics with transformative social justice rather than technocratic governance.The aspiration to develop a Universal Code of Digital Ethics for Web3 and the metaverse is commendable. However, without structural critique, universality risks becoming rhetorical. Critical theory reminds us that technological systems embed power relations (Marcuse, 1972). Marxian perspectives reveal how capital shapes technological deployment (Marx, 2005). Contemporary analyses from the Global South highlight the need to situate ethics within historical and geopolitical realities (García Ramírez, 2021;Cañas Quirós, 2023). The ethical question is not merely how to regulate blockchain or ensure transparency in virtual worlds. It is whether digital transformation reproduces one-dimensional rationality-where market logic absorbs ethical discourse-or fosters multidimensional emancipation grounded in material equality.A truly global digital ethics must therefore begin not with code, but with conditions. Without universal connectivity and critical capacity, Web3 and the metaverse risk becoming architectures of selective participation. Ethics, to be universal, must first be infrastructural. Ethics, whether conceived as universal or plural, must first be infrastructural, contextual, and politically grounded.