571–580 of 1001 posts
https://meta.com is live as well. ...I can't tell if it's intentional that the page loads initially with the "facebook" brand in the uppper left and then quickly overwrites it with meta.
It's definitely intentional
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 .
They have a legal obligation to maximise shareholder value, but what that entails courts will generally leave up to the discretion of the company's executives. In fact, the very first paragraph says precisely that: > At the same time, the case affirmed the business judgment rule What is the business judgement rule? > The business judgment rule is a case law-derived doctrine in corporations law that courts defer to th…
The rebrand was introduced as a "One More Thing" during the event keynote. A 2007 "One More Thing" was the announcement of the iPhone and the future of mobile computing. Now a 2021 "One More Thing" is the announcement of a company rebrand to avoid government regulation.
For better or worse, it does seem Zuckerberg is as invested in making the "metaverse" the new future of Facebook as Jobs was with Apple and the iPhone
I don't think we should take that at face value; Zuckerberg of course has strong motivations to appear completely committed, including a desire to motivate employees, partners, etc., and a desire to distract from FB's current bad news (which might explain the timing - why now?). If we take it at face value, we are part of the messaging.
For one thing, FB's metaverse is an over-the-horizon technology and product, very much vapor at this point and one that may never happen. The iPhone went on sale months after Jobs' announcement (IIRC).
More interesting is that FB possibly has lost so much confidence in its brand that it's de-emphasizing it, which seems like an overreaction to me.
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…
> 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…
20-50 times what they earn per user.
The 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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There are also leftist visions of a future world where we actually address the core problems plaguing our world and give workers democratic control over their own work, instead of leaving that up to wage slave owners who view all of us as human resources.
I didn't include that because I don't see a workable, viable proposal. My intention was to list futures that I can see actually happening. I'm not against what you describe nor do I think it's mutually exclusive with option (3), but so far IMHO leftists have offered no solution to some of the inherent problems of this vision. The biggest one is how to make democracy work. How do you do good work under a democratic mo…
That's a common adage, yet some of our most used technologies are created or maintained by committees - the Internet, web technologies, ECMAScript (enemy though it started out as a single person project), C++, OpenSSL, Unicode - these are all design-by-committee projects.
Regarding your point about democracy vs oligarchy, this is to some extent a spectrum. There are few truly democratic (one man one vote) organizations, that is quite true. But I still have much more of a say on how my city is run than my company.
And there are some examples of huge co-ops with a great degree of success. The biggest is the Mondragon corporation in Spain. They're by no means an example of a perfect democracy, but again - workers clearly have much more of a say there than in most similarly sized corps.
Also, some of the countries on Earth with the biggest quality of life happen to be some of the most democratically run as well - Switzerland perhaps being the most striking example.
The sheer amount of effort put by those in power in making sure those below them don't get any ounce of power also shows that they see the potential risk to their status if some of these things happen - thinking here specifically of the huge union busting industry, and of efforts to discredit any leftist candidate that makes it onto the world stage (like the disgusting accusations of anti-Semitism against Jeremy Corbyn, or the insinuations of being anti-black against Bernie Sanders).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I'm not sure I want Facebook to own it. I know I don't. It's a dystopian nightmare for an advertising company to be building "the metaverse". I hope all the other players in this space band together and form an open, federated metaverse. It's one use-case I can kind of see benefiting from blockchain protocols: enforcing digital scarcity in a federated metaverse, by recording transfers of avatars and assets between…
> I hope all the other players in this space band together and form an open, federated metaverse. Seems unlikely. Google, Apple, and Microsoft would surely each want their own proprietary metaverses. Mozilla is experimenting in the metaverse space linking VR and web with Mozilla Hubs: https://hubs.mozilla.com/