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

51–60 of 114 posts

Re: Metabook

#51

Post by gbrown »

verisimi wrote: post #34
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.

We are absolutely being forced. Perhaps you didn't realise, but lots of kids were on Google Classroom, Zoom, etc last year during lockdown. This metaverse BS aims to be an even more contained aggregation of all this. If you watch the presentation ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b9vWShsmE20 ), its meant to include all aspects of one's life. Talk about lock in!

Not to mention all the people that were on Instagram and WhatsApp before the sale… If a competitor emerges, it will play out the same way.

Re: Metabook

#52

Post by throwawayswede »

MikusR wrote: post #48
mathnmusic wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The one thing that's more annoying than Facebook are the whistleblowers of Facebook (like that frances haugen character, which I'm fairly certain is a spook). Such a cheap and condescending group of people who think they know more than the rest.

Re: Metabook

#53

Post by arketyp »

verisimi wrote: post #34
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.

We are absolutely being forced. Perhaps you didn't realise, but lots of kids were on Google Classroom, Zoom, etc last year during lockdown. This metaverse BS aims to be an even more contained aggregation of all this. If you watch the presentation ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b9vWShsmE20 ), its meant to include all aspects of one's life. Talk about lock in!

I'm not oblivious to the threat of lock-ins. But as far as remote tools go, my experience during the lockdown was that of competitive capitalism working at its best.

Re: Metabook

#54

Post by notRobot »

tmikaeld wrote: post #47
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..

"You HAVE TO give us ALL your data, just some of it won't suffice!"

Re: Metabook

#55

Post by MikusR »

nabla9 wrote: post #37
zmmmmm wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the least innovative While I'm not a Facebook fan, there are some counterpoints: - they have singlehandedly saved the VR industry by going all in on cordless / standalone VR which has increased the accessible market by at least an order of magnitude. - almost the entire world are using React and Pytorch as de facto standards / defaults now I don't know how you would measure these against outputs from other tech com…

First is example of buying innovation from outside. Fb acquisition did not add innovation to Oculus. It was just throwing money to get into business. Second is not their business innovation. It's open source. They do also good research.

Oculus was making a dumb tethered headset. Go and Quest was after Facebook.

Re: Metabook

#56

Post by girvo »

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…

I wonder how that would play with strong consumer protection laws. Not being able to use the device you paid for immediately is beyond the pale IMO.

Re: Metabook

#57

Post by Strom »

throwaway744678 wrote: post #28
nabla9 wrote: post #20

Of all big tech companies Fb is - the least innovative, - has the worst corporate governance, - purest advertising company, - The CEO is not good but has dominant share of votes. Facebook is relevant only because they spend their way out of trouble and buy competition. The US and EU regulators are going to remove that tactics. Good luck getting EU approval for any new Whatsapp, Instagram acquisition. There is no clea…

Is the EU allowed to have a say when a US company buys another US company?

Yes, for a slew of reasons, including that the US wants its companies to have favorable access to the EU market.

Re: Metabook

#58

Post by gzer0 »

MikusR wrote: post #48
mathnmusic wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I would like to learn more about this, could you provide a source?

Re: Metabook

#59

Post by notafraudster »

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…

I'm all for saying you can't criticize a product that doesn't exist yet, but the company put our a propaganda video specifically so people would get excited for a product that doesn't exist yet and encourage investors to stay onboard with their plan to bet the farm on it. No one asked or required Facebook to reveal their vision at this particular time. As a result. I'm not particular sympathetic to the idea that they need protection from undifferentiated anger. I'm even inclined to say that they announced early specifically so that the anger at them could burn out before they have a product that merits the anger.

Re: Metabook

#60

Post by MandieD »

ampgt wrote: post #2

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

Since my purchases of shares appear to have driven down the prices of XOM and T, I volunteer as tribute ;)

I will either make the world a better place, or make a (in)decent amount of money.

Post reply on HN