21–30 of 210 posts
FTA: > “Meta”, on the other hand, is explicit: CEO Mark Zuckerberg said that Facebook is now a metaverse company 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…
>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…
Facebook's potency is in the reshares, and in the "headline only" feed format where lies in headlines are persuasive even when the linked content is not. YT algorithm shows one person more bad content, but doesn't spam their friends. And in a video the viewer has time to think if the claims make sense.
It looks like a pretzel or the bag end of male genitalia.
It looks like a morose Visual Studio icon
I don't know why he didn't pursue it if he is so sure in Metaverse VR/AR thing.
I see it as closer to the Amazon pivot from selling physical goods to selling digital goods (using digital as an umbrella encompassing AWS, Kindle, Prime (which essentially digitizes fulfillment and delivery), etc.). 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…
What in world is Mark offering here? He's investing $10B into... what? AWS/Cloud was a reasonable business pitch (which seemed crazy but essentially: outsource your IT ops to AWS and we can help you scale like crazy very quickly).
What's Mark's pitch here? VR is nowhere near prime-time - just read around even on HN. It's got major issues and still lacks a killer app.
It's a vanity project that only a fantastically rich, out of touch person can indulge in. That or FB is toxic.
>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.
(And, yes, there's a larger question about how companies like YouTube and Facebook should be approaching moderation at all, who gets to decide what is and isn't misinformation, who watches the watchmen, etc. But if we presume there's a rationale for moderation at all, then YouTube should be getting way more scrutiny than it generally receives.)
Consider this, and call me out if I'm wrong, for the past 5 years we were led to believe by FB/YouTube that algorithmically generated could only have negative consequences as it moved people to more and more reactionary content as it was the only way to optimize time on site. The only way FB could grow was by pushing content that got people riled up. Then TikTok came along and it's kind of disproven that? I started using TikTok as a joke and it's by far my most use social app now, and none of the algorithmically generated content is as polarizing as what I would find on the other apps; and clearly they are growing fast. There was another way but the local-maxima prevented FB from seeing it and as a result they have lost major brand cachet.
I don't know what is different about TikTok but the way I see it is Meta's problem will be avoiding their user base dying off and the USG will likely prevent any future acquisitions. Their standalone apps (M, Rooms, Riff, Gaming, Dating, Collab) haven't been major successes (although given the size of Facebook some of these have 10s of millions of users); and I'm not confident a VR platform will have major penetration outside of "Ready Player One" fanboys.
That said, FB is a trillion dollar company and betting against a company with such a huge war chest is like trying to catch a falling knife.
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…
I think as technology goes more... meta, the more valuable reality will become. I can't help but thing of Duncan Trussell's quote: "Some poor, phoneless fool is probably sitting next to a waterfall somewhere totally unaware of how angry and scared he’s supposed to be." 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 sen…
Given my experience in Alt Space thus far, I think there's a really good chance you're right.
FTA: > “Meta”, on the other hand, is explicit: CEO Mark Zuckerberg said that Facebook is now a metaverse company 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…
The demo is for geeks and investors, so I’m not sure it matters.