Virtual reality (VR) simulations purport to provide a uniquely immersive means of understanding experiences different from our own, potentially serving as “empathy machines”. The utility of such simulations, however, is controversial. We examined people’s preferences for learning about others’ experiences of visual impairment and sexual harassment, through VR versus firsthand testimony. We find that people have a general preference for VR over testimony, expecting VR to be able to provide a high understanding of others’ experiences. The preference for VR over testimony was more pronounced for learning about visual impairment than sexual harassment, and prior experience with sexual harassment reduced the perceived value of VR relative to testimony. These findings raise concerns about epistemic justice, as reliance on VR may undermine deference to firsthand accounts.