I'm going to keep calling them Facebook out of spite, since this doesn't distract me in the slightest for how toxic the company continues to be.
Instead of Metaverse, I'm going to call it Virtual Hell™.
Facebook Renames to Meta
471–480 of 1001 posts
Re: Facebook Renames to Meta
#472The video they put out is extremely cringe. The whole “metaverse” thing is cringe. It makes me believe Zuckerberg is completely surrounded by yes-men who never challenge him and only tell him what he likes to hear. He is truly detached from us normal people and our human experience.
To be fair, that’s the exact same sentiment I remember reading about Zuck on HN around the time Instagram and WhatsApp acquisitions happened. People were saying it was one of the dumbest business decisions, that Zuck is just desperate and without any brain trying to spend his FB money on acquisitions before FB inevitably dies of irrelevancy, etc. Look at today, and I think most people would agree that acquiring whats…
Zuck and The Book have a lot of dumb, cringeworthy, failed initiatives that have nothing to do with those surprisingly high valued acquisitions a decade ago.
Re: Facebook Renames to Meta
#473Earlier quoted context omitted.
>I don't think Facebook is constitutionally able to give up ad revenue gains This "fiduciary duty" meme really needs to die. Seriously the idea of fiduciary duty [to maximixe profit] is dystopian, corporations don't fuck us over because they have to they do it because they can. Edit: clarify
They have a legal obligation to maximize shareholder profits. See Dodge v. Ford Motor Co. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dodge_v._Ford_Motor_Co .
The very article you cited disagrees! You said they have "an obligation to maximize shareholder profits" while the linked article says they have to "operate in the interests of the shareholders." Those are two very different things!
Hunt around for just a few minutes on the google search, "do corporations have a legal obligation to maximize share value," and you'll see that what you said is the myth that gets repeated -- this one link probably summarizes the argument against the myth in the most neutral way:
https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/8146/are-u-s-co...
Re: Facebook Renames to Meta
#474Earlier 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?
I’ve seen it said (somewhere, sorry) that humans simply aren’t designed to interact on these mass social scales. And (without evidence, I admit) that feels kind of right to me. The ideal social network is a small one. But the incentives of advertising and/or just growth in general mean that it would difficult to compete in the market against the likes of Facebook.
This is completely backwards.
The large scale social interaction is courtesy of the internet not from Facebook.
For example websites like Reddit, HN, Twitter, TikTok etc are the ones that facilite interaction with large, broad groups of people whereas the majority of Facebook users are just interacting with their small social circle.
Re: Facebook Renames to Meta
#475My 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…
They aren't going after the people who have realized over-technicalized life is bad for humans. They're going after the kids who grow up in it and will take until their 30s to realize they've had depersonalization disorders their entire lives.
Re: Facebook Renames to Meta
#476In London, in the area around the London Eye, there is a tourist trap that offers a very poor 'haunted house' type of attraction, usually something having to do with zombies. As each iteration of this tourist trap gains a reputation for being total rubbish and gains one star reviews online, every few months the attraction rebrands to another name.
This doesn't sound quite right, what's one of the names?
The London Dungeon is near the Eye and has been around since the 70s, albeit in different forms and location. They moved closer to the Eye due to rail station construction in 2013, I believe? Down the street from the old London Dungeons location is the London Bridge Experience, which generally gets better reviews and doesn't appear to be owned by Merlin Entertainment. I'd avoid both, but neither appear to match your description.
Re: Facebook Renames to Meta
#477How long until I get a "Come join Meta!" recruiting email?
Re: Facebook Renames to Meta
#478Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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. I'm confident I don't want them to own it - or for it to be owned by a single party of any kind, for that matter. > 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? I mean, that would be nice f…
> How much would it cost to just send every one of them an Oculus headset for free? That's the wrong question. The right question is "how many FB users would accept a free headset that advertisers paid for in exchange for access to your data and exclusive rights to place ads in front of you?"
No, that question is wrong, because that answer rounds up to 100%.
Maybe a vocal minority like us HN-folk, but I don't think that by ourselves we really matter in terms of numbers.
Re: Facebook Renames to Meta
#479Can anyone here convince me AR/VR isn't a fad? If FB is headed towards a metaverse where our insane uncles can embed themselves further in a false reality, how is it that the rest of us sane individuals want to join their conspiratorial matrix? Even taking out the crazy uncles, VR makes me insanely nauseous. What's more, it's very expensive to get solid VR that doesn't, nevermind it still looks terrible even if you h…
More fluid collaborative remote work environments.
I haven't kept up with or tried any of the AR/VR products but I could see huge usage if someone can nail the remote work VR experience.
Assume there will be reasonably priced hardware with good performance when thinking about the space. This bit is inevitable if the demand exists.
Re: Facebook Renames to Meta
#480Can someone PLEASE tell me why the metaverse will succeed when things like Second Life and oh so many other immersive realities have failed. Is it because of the VR? Honestly why is this a thing?