Earlier quoted context omitted.
It disabled my fucking back button. What a perfect encapsulation of what they are about.
You sure this isn't from FireFox Facebook container?
ah yeah, looks like it was that. I never would have noticed.
Facebook Renames to Meta
801–810 of 1001 posts
Re: Facebook Renames to Meta
#802Odd defenses of FB/Zuck in this thread. Criticism of Zuckerberg isn't sour-grapes, its pointing out that a ubiquitous product that made a handful of people fabulously wealthy has been proven to be both destructive to society and helpful for finding friends, and the balance isn't clear which is better.
Re: Facebook Renames to Meta
#803Earlier quoted context omitted.
NFT's let you own digital assets. That means people can make a real living building them.
Which is exactly the argument big studios used to argue for DRM. NFT is (quite literally) DRM, rebranded and ostensibly accessible to the masses, but with all the caveats amplified accordingly and with a huge energy cost attached.
A high energy cost is not fundemental to NFTs.
Re: Facebook Renames to Meta
#804Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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.
Sounds like they don't have the capability to deal with bad actors.
We know this from the congressional hearings - its hardly insightful.
Very few can handle bad actors at the scale they have to. But no they were clearly not ready. Not sure what tech company really showed success at this sort of scale. Twitter could barely stay above their toxic sludge of content, Youtube is even more full of misinformation, reddit is not free of controversial decisions - hell, even good ol' SMS and phone is a heap of robocalls and spam.
Re: Facebook Renames to Meta
#805I cannot think of a worse group of people to be spearheading this effort.
Are Facebook execs really this tone deaf?
Re: Facebook Renames to Meta
#806Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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?"
Counterpoint: the HTC First (aka the Facebook Phone) was >$1 USD less than a month after it debuted, and still was a gigantic flop. Facebook Portal has sold ~1 million units. Oculus has sold ~8 million units or so (all numbers based on quick googling, might be wrong). So people reject Facebook hardware all the time, and they don't actually have that much in the way of hits in the HW space.
The phone is a bad example. It was a shitty phone. There was absolutely no advantage to using it.
On the other hand, oculus is state of the art in virtual reality. I don't know if any other hardware or ecosystem as well developed as theirs is.
Re: Facebook Renames to Meta
#807Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 b…
Why not just let me download my property as a file. I can store it in cloud storage, sd card, etc, i can email it to a friend, and can change it without worrying about hashes changing.
I can just upload my *.loot file, and get it anywhere.
The only "good" thing this does is enforce a way to ensure users pay. Eg. Blizzard can't ensure i bought that new skin for my avatar if i'm just uploading a file, but by transferring an NFT or whatever they can. I would rather not use new-age DRM in my metaverse.
Re: Facebook Renames to Meta
#808Earlier quoted context omitted.
They were great acquisitions because Facebook failed to compete in those markets. Facebook continues to fail to compete in the youth market. I don't think failing to innovate and then buying your way out of the hole is a sign of particular acumen. And they're still failing to innovate. Facebook now will be "retooling" toward "serving young adults the north star, rather than optimizing for older people." https://twitt…
> I don't think failing to innovate and then buying your way out of the hole is a sign of particular acumen. I guess Apple failed to compete and innovate when they acquired NeXT and Beats. Or Microsoft failed to innovate as soon as they acquired GitHub and Xamarin. /s Very senseless acquisitions that have no long term strategy or reason behind it to sustain the future of the business or to compete in the market. /s
The reason that Apple had to buy NeXT was that they were absolutely failing internally to innovate. They tried for years to build a next-generation OS and were incapable. The acquisition was not a sign of success, but desperation.
Indeed, part of that acquisition was firing the then-current CEO. So as an example, I think it better serves to point out why we should question Zuckerberg's performance.
Re: Facebook Renames to Meta
#809Earlier quoted context omitted.
Can we finally remove Netflix which doesn't fit in here? We can always replace it with Microsoft.
Yeah, I dunno how netflix is in that acronym and not Microsoft. If you are gonna put in "netflix" might as well include salesforce, dropbox or github.
Historically it was because Microsoft and Salesforce didn't pay well. They're getting better, but they still don't.
Re: Facebook Renames to Meta
#810For a common man like me it feels like: too much bad publicity change the identity!