131–140 of 409 posts
Is anyone outside of Meta really disturbed by this?
The story talks about an impact on ads. While this immediately translates to something monetary, this probably extends to all sorts of analysis of user-data and will limit features that ensure continued user-engagement, too. Like recommending friends of friends, flooding the timeline with something to keep the user busy, etc.
Friend recommendations on Facebook are so creepy. I have an unused, empty Facebook account that recommends connecting with people I know in real life, even if I don't use WhatsApp, Instagram, Facebook, Oculus, or other Facebook products. Some of these people recommended to me might have given Facebook access to their phone contacts, and that's how Facebook associated me with them. Or that's what I believe happened. I…
Next day Facebook was recommending her as a friend.
I do have FB Messenger and Whatsapp on my phone. Still that's creepy.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
kinda like what radical reactionary (R) state legislatures have been doing with abortion restrictions since 1973 until the Dobbs decision, right? Funny that. Not.
Please point to unconstitutional laws that were passed and sustained in spite of these.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's not a "loophole", that's called living in a country of laws with due process.
> that's called living in a country of laws with due process. The loophole is that the company is allowed to continue breaking the law while the appeal is in progress.
If they can't show good ads in Europe, I assume that they will lose money and eventually have to close down here. I think that users have a right to know what happens to their data. But this is not a consent or information screen, this is the end of it. Europe tells us they do this for our own good, so we can own our data, but then they make it illegal for us to exchange our data for someone's service. Basically they…
> If they can't show good ads in Europe, I assume that they will lose money and eventually have to close down here. They can't do it based on external browsing activity. In-Facebook likes, comments, group memberships, clicks, etc. sound like they'd still be applicable, and give pretty good targeting info for a lot of folks.
> If upheld, though, this decision will make it much harder for Facebook and other platforms to show users ads based on what they click, like, share and watch within these platforms' own apps.
> While Meta is already allowing users to opt out of personalizing ads based on data from other websites and apps, it has never given any such option for ads based on data about user activity on its own platforms.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But a leader in what exactly? I have been looking for years for actual usage stats. E.g., MAU and UAM for VR headsets, especially ones broken out by length of ownership. I get that people are buying Oculus units because of the hype, but is there much sustained usage? If so, what exactly is keeping people engaged once the novelty wears off? As comparison, look at Amazon's smart speakers. $10 billion spent, lots of hyp…
Meta is betting on the long term. They're the leader of a very niche market _now_, but as XR technology improves, that market will only grow, and Meta will be ready for it, with years ahead of the competition at that point. That's their bet, anyway, and we can speculate whether it will come to pass or not. I'm inclined to think that the tech will eventually become mainstream, when headsets are as comfortable to wear…
> that market will only grow
I too have read science fiction, so I get the theory. You know what else is in science fiction? 3D movies and 3D TV. But we've had 3 waves of 3D films (1950s, 1980s, 2000s) and it turns out nobody cares. And 3D TV fared even worse. And let's not forget the 1990 wave of actual VR, which also cratered. So the question is: will facehugger VR go the way of other stereoscopic 3D entertainment?
I think it's an open question, but my point is that it's very plausible that VR and the Metaverse will, like the jetpack, remain in the realm of sci-fi long after you and I are in the ground. And as far as I can tell, nobody is releasing data that shows it on a different arc. The Brewster Stereoscope sold a lot of units too, as did the Viewmaster. But ultimately people seem fine inferring 3D from 2D images without stereoscopic effects to help them along.
> The EU decision will not have direct consequences for users, unfortunately, as it can be appealed to. Such an appeal would lead to a lengthy judicial process. So companies can flout the law for years, making massive profits, and continue to do so for as long as they can string along an appeal process? Seems like a pretty nice loophole.
That's not a "loophole", that's called living in a country of laws with due process.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's not a "loophole", that's called living in a country of laws with due process.
> that's called living in a country of laws with due process. The loophole is that the company is allowed to continue breaking the law while the appeal is in progress.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But a leader in what exactly? I have been looking for years for actual usage stats. E.g., MAU and UAM for VR headsets, especially ones broken out by length of ownership. I get that people are buying Oculus units because of the hype, but is there much sustained usage? If so, what exactly is keeping people engaged once the novelty wears off? As comparison, look at Amazon's smart speakers. $10 billion spent, lots of hyp…
Meta is betting on the long term. They're the leader of a very niche market _now_, but as XR technology improves, that market will only grow, and Meta will be ready for it, with years ahead of the competition at that point. That's their bet, anyway, and we can speculate whether it will come to pass or not. I'm inclined to think that the tech will eventually become mainstream, when headsets are as comfortable to wear…
They want "Ready Player One", warts and all. Big Tech wants all the rough edges filed off, and for there to be little user control.
This is why VRChat is so amazing and AltspaceVR is dull and uninteresting.
Curated experiences with moderation and controls to prevent copyright infringement don't have broad appeal. A few of these events sound mildly cool:
https://account.altvr.com/events/all
But something like VRChat always has something weird and interesting going on. Like, maybe I find a virtual theater where a bad sci-fi movie is playing and I sit down next to a group of Kermit the Frog / Booby Anime girl avatars who are trash talking the movie ala MST3K. Every day of the week you get this!
> The EU decision will not have direct consequences for users, unfortunately, as it can be appealed to. Such an appeal would lead to a lengthy judicial process. So companies can flout the law for years, making massive profits, and continue to do so for as long as they can string along an appeal process? Seems like a pretty nice loophole.
That's not a "loophole", that's called living in a country of laws with due process.
If a court decides the action is overtly harmful, they might ban it pending appeal. This happened with the U.K. government trying to send refugees to Rwanda. The ECHR blocked action since it was likely illegal and wouldn’t be easily reversed once the activity had taken place.