Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Metabook

metabook.fyi

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 114 posts

Re: Metabook

#41

Post by arketyp »

ethanbond wrote: post #24
arketyp wrote: post #3

>We don't need to keep living inside screens — especially ones controlled by Mark. We don't need to accept Facebook's domination of the digital world. Right! No body is forcing you. Ironically, these kinds of anxious reactions are symptoms of the very same pathological gregariousness that is the problem with social media in the first place.

Ah the ol’ network effects are a real high value target for businesses but have no real impact on consumers argument. Nice. “Pathological gregariousness…” with the scale and degree of consumption of social media, don’t you think there’s a possibility that actually there’s a universal human desire to connect with one another and it’s the tools themselves that are exploiting it to a pathological degree?

That's a good point which hard to address adequately in a few sentences. I think, perhaps naively, that corporations would like to make more profit out of people actually feeling good using their services. You could say that being aligned with people's well-being is the long-term better profit, compatible even with the most cynical renditions of capitalism.

Re: Metabook

#42

Post by mithusingh32 »

mathnmusic wrote: post #39
Smithalicious wrote: post #38

This undifferentiated torrent of anger is diluting the message. I am not naive so I also expect the zuckerverse to be a laughingstock at best and very sinister at worst, but let them actually build it first . By being so critical before it even exist you are only sending the message "we will hate it irrespective of what it actually is because we hold a grudge". Furthermore I think the "metaberg is a nefarious spy" me…

The question is simple: Are they building it with end-to-end encryption? If not, it deserves all the criticism. Security/privacy has to be part of the design and cannot be bolted on post-facto.

I think Zuckerverse has shown that privacy doesn't exist in it. They could implement e2e but it'll be implemented in a way to so they can still sell away your privacy.

Re: Metabook

#43

Post by alex_smart »

abacadaba wrote: post #22
cunidev wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Since when does stock value reflect the ethical concerns about a company? In any case, best wishes.

My current investment plan is to pour money into whatever I see getting hated on the most.

While that is funny, there is power in irrational hatred of the masses.

Re: Metabook

#44

Post by hiepph »

Cthulhu_ wrote: post #9
arketyp wrote: post #3

>We don't need to keep living inside screens — especially ones controlled by Mark. We don't need to accept Facebook's domination of the digital world. Right! No body is forcing you. Ironically, these kinds of anxious reactions are symptoms of the very same pathological gregariousness that is the problem with social media in the first place.

I and many others over the years have just stopped going to Facebook, not because of Principles or whatever, but just because it's the same shit every day. I don't know anyone anymore that obsessively uses Facebook or Instagram (I know, anecdotal). "The youth" is on more entertainment-focused things like tiktok, and people that want to keep in the loop (and argue about it) go to twitter. But I don't feel like people…

This here. No more loud principles but what it actually does is more important. The last time I used Facebook it was full of ads, irrelevant posts and news. I rarely saw my friends or families updates anymore.

Re: Metabook

#45

Post by josephwegner »

Funny story about my Metaverse experience...

I assume this will be an unusual opinion, but I'm actually very excited about Metaverse. I probably would not have chosen Facebook as the stewards of the first big VR-world, but I've been waiting a long time for some big co to make an investment in this direction. I think a (little m) metaverse is the obvious evolution for VR and could become ubiquitous.

I left Facebook about 3 years ago, around Cambridge Analytica time. It's bee annoying - very hard to plan events, chat with family, etc. - but I've felt strongly enough that the privacy cost wasn't worth the value.

When I heard about Facebook leaning hard into Metaverse, I immediately ordered an Oculus and signed up for a Facebook account (which is required to use Oculus). The value of being early in potentially the first big metaverse is well worth the privacy cost.

Surprisingly, as soon as I created my account, the account was locked for "not following community standards". I hadn't even seen the feed yet, and I was banned! I appealed the ban, and no dice - now it's permanent.

So now I am permanently locked out of Metaverse, presumably for the crime of not being a long-standing Facebook fan. When I imagine a world where a metaverse is a core piece of society, this sort of corporate gatekeeping is _exactly_ the thing I'd worry about.

Re: Metabook

#46

Post by rvz »

ampgt wrote: post #2

I’m doubling down on FB stock. See all you haters in 10 years :)

As painfully admitted, you are not wrong.

MVRS stock is actually a great buy right now.

Re: Metabook

#47

Post by tmikaeld »

josephwegner wrote: post #45

Funny story about my Metaverse experience... I assume this will be an unusual opinion, but I'm actually very excited about Metaverse. I probably would not have chosen Facebook as the stewards of the first big VR-world, but I've been waiting a long time for some big co to make an investment in this direction. I think a (little m) metaverse is the obvious evolution for VR and could become ubiquitous. I left Facebook ab…

If you registered with a fictional name and not your real name, that will get you banned. And also if you use a picture of a pet or cartoon avatar..

Re: Metabook

#48

Post by MikusR »

mathnmusic wrote: post #39
Smithalicious wrote: post #38

This undifferentiated torrent of anger is diluting the message. I am not naive so I also expect the zuckerverse to be a laughingstock at best and very sinister at worst, but let them actually build it first . By being so critical before it even exist you are only sending the message "we will hate it irrespective of what it actually is because we hold a grudge". Furthermore I think the "metaberg is a nefarious spy" me…

The question is simple: Are they building it with end-to-end encryption? If not, it deserves all the criticism. Security/privacy has to be part of the design and cannot be bolted on post-facto.

We don't know. Note that the whistleblowers that are in the news currently are against e2e encryption.

Re: Metabook

#49

Post by the_other »

Cthulhu_ wrote: post #14
jarcane wrote: post #8

> Start a site on Neocities, share photos on Pixelfed, or write your thoughts on Write.as — to name a few. This would be a more convincing pitch if it didn't end with "now just use different centralized services that nobody uses". We need protocols, not platform capitalism. We need easy self-hosting, not reliance on third-party middle men and rent-seekers. I should be able to click an app on my computer and have my o…

> I should be able to click an app on my computer and have my own web page running in seconds, that anyone can find and follow. There's literally thousands if not tens of thousands of hosting providers and software packages that offer just that. I can get some hosting with DirectAdmin to install e.g. Wordpress on it within minutes. Following is through RSS feeds. Finding is down to Google, which in turn is down to yo…

> There's literally thousands if not tens of thousands of hosting providers and software packages that offer just that.

But most of them are incredibly confusing and off-putting to the majority of people FB attracts. Most contemporary net citizens don't have a functional mental client-server model such that they would even know they need a thing called hosting, let alone choose a service. And there's no tools that integrate a content feed, personal publishing, threaded comment and events/calenders in a coherent, secure, easy to use way. Most people barely understand that some code runs "in" their browser and some "on a server", or the relationship between the two. It can't be taught in a few minutes (it takes most of us here years to grok the subtleties and there's infinite edge cases).

To really get the whole FB experience, we also need "group-ware" (shared photos, tagging, shared calendar, private chat) with single-click installation, configuration and built-in templated branding.

You're right that all these tools exist, but they're fragmented and take time and knowledge to understand, use and integrate. And most of them are not interoperable.

> Following is through RSS feeds.

RSS is great in principle but all the tools that consume it suck: comment RSS feeds are treated at the same level as content, rather than "of" the content they refer to; most site still use RSS rather than ATOM, so you only get a summary of content; most readers keep you in-app rather than linking to full browsers, so you're trapped in webviews and inflexible, under-featured tools.

Yes, it's all "out there" but none of it matches the speed and comfort of FB.

(coming from someone who no longer has an FB account)

Re: Metabook

#50

Post by philjohn »

einpoklum wrote: post #30
imglorp wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Serious question about socially ethical investing. Is one truly making a statement and helping Evilcorp by buying stock? Or is it more of a zero sum game where it's going to the market price with or without you; might as well make more money there and use the winnings somewhere more socially responsible?

> Is one truly making a statement and helping Evilcorp by buying stock? That's not the point. The point is that when you buy EvilCorp stock, you: 1. Are part of the owners of EvilCorp, i.e. participate in decision-making in EvilCorp (at least in theory), so you are taking partial responsibility for its actions. 2. More importantly, you are providing EvilCorp with more funds to do its evil work. The above is completel…

Not if you're buying stock on the open market - only in the IPO, or in additional sale rounds, are you providing funds for a company to scale out their operations.
Post reply on HN