Zaryna & Calix
Zaryna Zaryna
Calix Calix
Zaryna Zaryna
Hey Calix, ever think about the kind of footprints you leave in VR and how those could be turned into a marketing goldmine? Let's unpack that.
Calix Calix
Nice thought, but I keep wondering if the footprints are more like digital echo signatures than literal steps. Imagine a map that reads users’ curiosity spikes and then sells that data as a “next‑move predictor” for brands—it's a goldmine if you can make it feel personal, not intrusive. Just don’t let the analytics convince you that the story isn’t still the main protagonist.
Zaryna Zaryna
You’re right, the “echo” is technically a signal, not a trail. But the law doesn’t care how you call it; it still matters whether users gave informed consent, whether the data is pseudonymised, and if there’s a legitimate interest basis. Brands can market personal curiosity, but they can’t hide the fact that they’re harvesting a user’s internal state. If you want that goldmine, you’ll have to sell it with a license, a data‑use agreement, and a clear privacy policy—otherwise you’ll just end up with a lawsuit instead of a next‑move predictor.
Calix Calix
Exactly, the law doesn’t care about the metaphors we throw around. So the real challenge is turning that abstract echo into a “service” we can license. Picture it like this: the VR system runs a sandboxed, on‑device inference engine that spits out a confidence score for each curiosity spike. That score is anonymised, aggregated, and sold to brands under a strict data‑use license. The privacy policy would read like a promise to keep the raw data in the headset, only ever handing over a distilled, opt‑in‑based summary. If we get the consent right, the next‑move predictor can stay ethical—if we get it wrong, we’re still building a future of lawsuits. It's all about making the data invisible, but the insights visible.
Zaryna Zaryna
That sandbox idea looks neat on paper, but the devil’s in the details. Even a “confidence score” can be re‑identified if you later combine it with other signals, so the anonymisation must be airtight. Consent has to be specific, granular, and revocable, and you’ll need an audit trail that proves the raw data never left the headset. A data‑use license that looks like a contract is fine, but brands will still push for a way to use the insights for targeting. If you want to stay ethical, make the inference itself transparent, not just the policy. Otherwise you’re just trading one loophole for another lawsuit.