Meta Myths

The article is right to point out that Meta has by far the largest and most sophisticated ad targeting and tracking system in the market. The problem is that even if you don't count Apple's ATT the window of places where they can use it is getting smaller: Facebook the app is a shell of its former self, WhatsApp is un-monetiseable despite a lot of attempts to get companies to pay directly to talk to other users, and new acquisitions are impossible in this post-Obama era. Instagram is growing, but mostly in countries with relarively low ad spending levels.

And there comes the difference between this drop and the one in 2018: ads work when people want to spend money on products. The pressures of inflation, rising cost of living, and devaluation of almost every currency to the USD is putting a block in the one reliable source of income for the company.

I would bet on Meta's stock price rising if the economic and social crisis in Europe magically improves tomorrow. Otherwise, it's a matter of believing in the Metaverse and hoping the Oculus Pro becomes successful enough to at least provide another large source of revenue for the company.

But I think that's the intent. Because when you lay out Meta's strategy so naked, like Marques did, then you realize that no one is going to buy into it. You need early adopters and those are the ones that are going to sniff out that you're actually building a dystopian privacy-invading Skinner Box platform controlled 100% by Meta and they will predictably eviscerate you.

Marques brings up the part of what Meta is focusing on now, which is creating replacements for everyday functions with a VR twist. He claims some of them are actually quite good. But I think this is the way Google approached Google+. People don't want something good-as or marginally better. What Meta needs is a killer app. Something that can only be done in the Metaverse and is so compelling that people are willing to give Meta full control over their life and spend the money on the hardware. That's a tall order.

> Today is full of cute Halloween photos, reports on last weekend's high school sports team's results ( our marching band won the regionals!), and not much else. If there's a vicious underbelly than I am blind to it.

You mention that you notice the ads for geeky t-shirts and cross body bags (what are those?), but what about the recommended content? Do Stories and Reels not get in your way? Don't you miss content from school pagse, kids clubs, activities, and team pages because the algorithm decides that it would rather show you yet-another-meme-post?

I'm glad that Facebook seems to work for you. But it really sucks for those of us who don't agree with Facebook's business practices, because you contribute to a network effect that actively excludes non-users. I don't like Facebook's dark patterns, their advertising, or their "recommended" posts. So I choose not to use it. It's absolute bollocks that I can't easily look at community event pages as a non-user, and it only makes me happier that I've opted out of such a toxic, exclusive community.

The same distributions of haves and have-nots exist on any platform. Reddit/Facebook/Instagram/TikTok/everything else are composed of an ever changing and uncountable number of communities, a few of which are bound to be good because of the continuous efforts of their members, and everything else is varying degrees of toxicity, narcissism, hatred, and every other negative trait you can think of.

If someone stereotypes you as a "toxic racist Karen" because you mainly use Facebook, it seems to follow the same reasoning behind why you might perceive Reddit as "horribly toxic and depressing." You get out of X what you put in.