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

Facebook Renames to Meta

about.facebook.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

381–390 of 1001 posts

Re: Facebook Renames to Meta

#381

Post by salt-thrower »

viro wrote: post #245
goatlover wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is it FB or social media and big tech in general? I'm confused by the laser focus on FB all of a sudden.

Its people that are the problem, they are just using Facebook as a scapegoat. No matter what they do, they(FB) will get attacked by 50% of the country ... Remove GOP voices spreading crazy shit .. They are suddenly suppressing political voices(censorship). Leave the content up and suddenly Facebook is responsible for domestic terrorist attacks. Honestly Facebook has literally been begging congress to regulate them. T…

I disagree to a certain extent. The business model of adtech + social media creates an especially toxic product that brings out the worst in people, and puts vitriolic content in front of more eyeballs because that's what drives engagement.

If FB's business model were significantly different and didn't depend on maximizing eyeballs-on-screens time, and didn't depend on selling the ability to manipulate people's emotions at scale, the product might be less toxic.

In summary, I think it's a cop-out to just say "humans bad." Yes, but the systems we create and participate in can and do influence human behavior in different ways. Facebook wouldn't be quite so toxic if there wasn't money to be made from the toxicity.

Re: Facebook Renames to Meta

#382

Post by Tepix »

daviding wrote: post #36

If there is going to be a metaverse, I'm not sure I want Facebook to own it. It's like a bad sci-fi pulp story. Given their investment and research, I wonder if they should open it all up (even if contradictory to short-term gains in ad revenue) so it has a chance to grow? Federate it a bit more than they are comfortable with, to at least give it a chance. I could see this flubbing out hard otherwise. I'm personally…

Facebook is investing 10 billion dollars into the metaverse this year alone and will increase this amount in the future.

They can probably make the Metaverse an open standard like the web and still end up with one of the most popular hubs.

If people who value their privacy can setup their own hubs, i'm pretty much OK with Facebook speeding up the advancement of AR/VR technology for the next several years using their advertisement dollars.

Re: Facebook Renames to Meta

#383

Post by acchow »

silisili wrote: post #179
nyt-maps wrote: post #19

My god, if you get it, you get it. They are going all in on metaverse / have decided that the future of oculus is the primary long term bet, not facebook itself. And they have the money to make it so. This is incredibly scary, and probably a good investment.

Not a chance. I've been wrong about a lot of things tech, probably even most things, but this isn't something I think most people want. Metaverses have always been niche. Most people don't like things attached to their head. Remember 3D TVs? But, perhaps you and they are right. For the first time in my life, I honestly feel like 'if this is the future, I want no part in it.' Please don't take this as like, suicidal o…

A common argument for why humanity has never encountered extra-terrestrial life is that any hyper advanced civilization likely moved into a virtual world. Do you believe this is unlikely and humanity is not headed in this direction?

Re: Facebook Renames to Meta

#385

Post by [deleted] »

astlouis44 wrote: post #277

Sorry Zuckerberg, but the metaverse will NOT be a walled garden, tied to a social media company. Is the the internet, and more specifically, THE WEB itself as an immersive, distributed spatial ecosystem of worlds. The metaverse needs to be interoperable above all else, and this is unachievable with the equivalent of native, vendor locked apps controlled by an entity. The web already does this, as every site is govern…

[deleted]

Re: Facebook Renames to Meta

#386

Post by vineyardmike »

IceWreck wrote: post #197
losvedir wrote: post #35

I suspect we will be awash in critical comments shortly, so let me just say I'm kind of excited about this. Don't forget that the internet was originally a military project. I'm excited to see a huge corporation going all in on VR and AR. It has the potential to be really interesting technology, and the research in displays, sensors, and other hardware and software won't go to waste. If "Meta" is the new ARPANET, I w…

> If "Meta" is the new ARPANET, I wonder what the new CERN and web will be. Lets not get ahead of ourselves. This so called "Metaverse" will be another proprietary project that may or may not gain traction unless they open it up for federation. And facebook is all about walled gardens so they won't. And if they do, how do we know that 10 years later they wont shutter up their instance, cut off the federated parts to…

> And facebook is all about walled gardens so they won't.

They had tons of Open APIs and stuff until people abused it and the CEO had to go to congress, so idk if the blame is solely on the company.

Re: Facebook Renames to Meta

#387

Post by joshmarlow »

vineyardmike wrote: post #158
swalsh wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There needs to be many metaverses, and NFT's should be able to be shared between them. It's dangerous to think about the prospect of a major company like Facebook (Or a DAO for that matter) locking up the entire universe.

Why NFT? Why can't we just "import jpeg" instead of "link NFT"?

The neat thing about using NFTs is that you can represent the ownership on a public blockchain and that gives you some nice possibilities:

1) storing virtual property rights on a public ledger means that it can be shared among different 'metaverses', which provides friction against vendor lock-in; it limits specific vendors (like Facebook) to only providing UIs to underlying property

2) a single vendor going out of business doesn't impact your virtual property; Blizzard could shutdown WOW and you would loose all of your loot, but if it's on a public ledger then your loot survives

I think something like this is the only really plausible approach to building an open and interoperable metaverse (it's also the most compelling application of NFTs IMHO).

Re: Facebook Renames to Meta

#389

Post by m3kw9 »

There is still a huge massive gap in what peoples think a metaverse is like(think Ready Player One, or any move with VR involved) vs what it is in reality.

Facebook will still be Facebook for quite a while.

Re: Facebook Renames to Meta

#390

Post by md8z »

hdjjhhvvhga wrote: post #337
md8z wrote: post #252

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I see this sentiment posted often on HN but I've seen no social media that didn't eventually become toxic or that didn't feed on human attention, this website included. What good is a platform if nobody pays attention to it? And if people are paying attention to it, how do you plan to prevent them from fighting, competing with each other over every little thing, and spreading misinformation?

HN (and other discussion sites like lwn.net) are way different in this regard. Also, it's not a social medium but a forum. Before social media we had many fora. The success of each of them depended on their specialization and moderation. The more specialized the forum was, the easier it was to keep order because there were fewer trolls. Also the users knew they should not feed the trolls. We hat heated discussions, d…

Is it? The HN front page absolutely does have some level of algorithmic manipulation going on. There was just a thread on this: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29024032
Post reply on HN