11–20 of 210 posts
FB sold users to advertisers. Very Web 2.0.
Well the potential decentralization of Web3 potentially destroys that business model and the Meta strategy seems like it reflects this potential change in the way Amazon saw the world going to digital?
>The fact that Facebook is uniquely held responsible for the societal problems engendered by the Internet does, I suspect, stem from the fact that Zuckerberg is an obvious target. How many people concerned about anti-vax rhetoric, for example, can even name the person in charge of YouTube, a far more potent vector? This article makes a very cogent point: Zuckerberg has too much baggage with the general public and Met…
I was "defending" the metaverse to a friend outside of the tech bubble last night and I talked a lot about how much I learned about socialization/human connection when I used to play Star Wars Galaxies and World of Warcraft. That those relationships which started somewhat "metaverse"-first meant as much as my "real" connections did... and that's what I feel the essence of Meta/metaverse is really trying to bring to everyone.
Nice article. It's amazing how much bike-shedding there is here around the name and logo, and how little capacity most have for what these changes actually mean. Meta is going full in on the metaverse... so that's going to be hitting some critical mass fairly soon (less than a decade). And that's nuts. We should take this time to enjoy living before that moment. Who knows what changes it will bring, but surely enough…
>The fact that Facebook is uniquely held responsible for the societal problems engendered by the Internet does, I suspect, stem from the fact that Zuckerberg is an obvious target. How many people concerned about anti-vax rhetoric, for example, can even name the person in charge of YouTube, a far more potent vector? This article makes a very cogent point: Zuckerberg has too much baggage with the general public and Met…
Sorry but YouTube is not a far more potent vector. Facebook and Zuckerberg were fairly blamed because they actively developed features that amplified misinformation, and refused to take any action to curb their damage.
Nice article. It's amazing how much bike-shedding there is here around the name and logo, and how little capacity most have for what these changes actually mean. Meta is going full in on the metaverse... so that's going to be hitting some critical mass fairly soon (less than a decade). And that's nuts. We should take this time to enjoy living before that moment. Who knows what changes it will bring, but surely enough…
The way I see this playing out is that the metaverse is going to be for poor people while reality is enjoyed by those with resources for "all five senses".
>The fact that Facebook is uniquely held responsible for the societal problems engendered by the Internet does, I suspect, stem from the fact that Zuckerberg is an obvious target. How many people concerned about anti-vax rhetoric, for example, can even name the person in charge of YouTube, a far more potent vector? This article makes a very cogent point: Zuckerberg has too much baggage with the general public and Met…
Sorry but YouTube is not a far more potent vector. Facebook and Zuckerberg were fairly blamed because they actively developed features that amplified misinformation, and refused to take any action to curb their damage.
Nice article. It's amazing how much bike-shedding there is here around the name and logo, and how little capacity most have for what these changes actually mean. Meta is going full in on the metaverse... so that's going to be hitting some critical mass fairly soon (less than a decade). And that's nuts. We should take this time to enjoy living before that moment. Who knows what changes it will bring, but surely enough…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sorry but YouTube is not a far more potent vector. Facebook and Zuckerberg were fairly blamed because they actively developed features that amplified misinformation, and refused to take any action to curb their damage.
YouTube’s algorithms also amplify misinformation, and demonetization isn’t exactly a fix for that
I'm not sure anyone (other than some geeks) really understands what the "metaverse" is... or cares.
The name/symbolism/demo were uninspiring and vague at best.
Not to mention Mark isn't the best salesman for this. It seems so egotistical of him to assume HE needed to be the front-man for this effort other than to say "all of this... it's about me".
IMO this point is just a single example of the pattern we've seen. Everything done at Facebook is to drive that network data even if it harms the individual component. That's why Meta is so different from Alphabet. Alphabet is legitimately a collection of pretty independent companies - some of them synergize but never unnecessarily[1]. I purchased a VR headset last year and I ended up getting an Index after being mightily tempted by the Oculus - it's my first headset and I wasn't sure how much I'd like VR so I was really hesitant to drop a grand on it but... the likely future where all my activity is forcefully broadcast to all my family and friends on Facebook is a price I'm not willing to pay.
Facebook's non-Facebook products suffer from the fact that they so habitually pipe data right back to Facebook.
1. Oh - I'll add a caveat here about google accounts and Youtube. Google did try to merge the two at one point, but they got a huge amount of negative PR and ended up stepping it back significantly with aliases and multi-account management tools.