[HN Gopher] Meta
___________________________________________________________________
Meta
Author : simonebrunozzi
Score : 207 points
Date : 2021-10-29 13:17 UTC (9 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (stratechery.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (stratechery.com)
| TheOtherHobbes wrote:
| This is an investor's view and the subtext seems to be "We're
| making a lot of money out of this, and I expect we'll make a lot
| more."
|
| The problem is that it's _only_ an investor 's view. It's quite
| dismissive of Facebook's very real political problems, and
| doesn't acknowledge that for many people - especially, but not
| exclusively younger users - Facebook is a terminal combination of
| boring, evil, and cringe.
|
| But more than that, Facebook isn't in a unique position to own
| the metaverse. The rest of MANGA will be converging on similar
| space. If there's any possibility at all of open hardware - or at
| least of an open standard - it's likely the real competition will
| come from an unexpected direction.
|
| Social and AR/VR are fundamentally different spaces and
| Zuckerberg's idea of what's supposed to happen in those spaces is
| fundamentally weird and very possibly ridiculous.
|
| Between the absence of consumer-friendly hardware - nothing is
| going to happen until the tech fits into very wearable low-effort
| glasses - and Facebook's eccentric history, I would expect Meta
| to fail and the metaverse to happen elsewhere, leaving FB to
| carry on as a kind of AOL for an ever-decreasing userbase until
| it's sold off for far too much money to some other large
| corporation which should know better.
| sharkjacobs wrote:
| > MANGA
|
| This was a funny bit when i saw it on twitter yesterday, but if
| we're actually going to update our top 5 tech companies acronym
| let's do it comprehensively.
|
| Google has been Alphabet for a while, so MANGA should be MANAA.
| And I haven't understood why Netflix is in there for a while
| now, I think we should swap it for Microsoft.
|
| What do we think about MAMAA?
| mupuff1234 wrote:
| Alphabet's stock ticker is GOOG so I think 'G' still works.
| tempodox wrote:
| So, MAGMA?
| davesque wrote:
| > leaving FB to carry on as a kind of AOL for an ever-
| decreasing userbase until it's sold off for far too much money
| to some other large corporation which should know better.
|
| Mapping FB onto AOL here feels like an effective way of summing
| things up. Although I'm trying to remember because it was a
| long time ago: did AOL make any grandiose product moves that
| ended up signalling its decline? I'm inclined to say no, but I
| could be completely wrong and forgetting something. What I
| recall was just a complete lack of innovation from AOL and a
| regression to money printing mode on the antiquated ISP with
| fancy user portal model.
|
| Although perhaps you weren't trying to make a direct comparison
| between the two.
| jamesjyu wrote:
| The other subtext is that Zuck was always frustrated that he
| didn't have control of the underlying mobile platforms
| (ios/android) which strangled a bunch of FB's strategy for over
| a decade.
|
| He's not going to let that happen again.
| [deleted]
| gfodor wrote:
| You can change the name, you can change the products, you can
| change the vision, hell, you can even change the CEO.
|
| But until you change the business model, it's just shuffling deck
| chairs on a ship we're now, sadly, almost all passengers on.
| munro wrote:
| This makes me think of Comcast rebranding to Xfinity (USA);
| though I didn't really grasp what the intended reach of the
| rebranding to Meta will be from the last post [1]. It seems like
| it's for the umbrella entity, no product renames. But it still
| seems like a play to distance their image from Facebook, only to
| be referenced in court. And if it's anything like the Comcast
| rebrand, it's like, everyone still knows who you are--and yes
| we're still stuck using your products--it's just pretentious,
| annoying, and you're just creating another bad name for yourself
| lmao.
|
| [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29029317
| munk-a wrote:
| Remember that the Facebook renaming was for a very good
| purpose. It became clear as the company aged and grew that the
| initial name choice was quite poor, unfortunately in a lot of
| areas around the globe that name has a very negative
| association that wasn't obvious to Mark when he chose the name.
| The problem is that the word Facebook just happens to have a
| historical association with companies that don't respect your
| privacy - thankfully changing the name to Meta will let this
| company stand on its own merit. It's so Meta.
|
| (Also, /s)
| nobody9999 wrote:
| >it's like, everyone still knows who you are
|
| "Yes, we know who you are."[0]
|
| [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qOrbrjBQf7Y
| fdgsdfogijq wrote:
| Honestly, I am dismayed by the negative reactions. Even if
| facebook fails at this, they will produce huge technical
| innovation. This is an expensive space, you need a big player
| willing to spend 10-20 billion on it. You need the technical
| resources and data. The end result will be a ton of open source
| and new know how in AR/VR. What a blessing!
| che_shirecat wrote:
| There's always going to be a segment of people who are scared
| of strides towards the future. And for good reason, unknowns
| are scary for a reason.
| losvedir wrote:
| I'm with you on this. I was an original backer of the Oculus on
| Kickstarter, and it's just mindblowing to see how far it's come
| to the Quest 2.
|
| And while the original Oculus shows you what promise there is
| from a hacker in the garage, the Quest 2 shows you what can be
| done when significant capital is invested in development.
|
| I bought a Quest for my little brother across the country, and
| hanging out in VR is pretty cool. I can definitely believe
| there's something here. I don't know if Meta will actually end
| up being the platform in the future, but I certainly think
| there will be a platform, it will be good in a lot of ways, and
| because of this frankly audacious move by Meta we'll be getting
| there sooner.
| polytronic wrote:
| Meta is copying our work and our logo. I was the chief developer
| of MySoci.Net, featuring my own 3d graphics engine NthDimension
| (https://github.com/StylianosPolychroniadis/NthDimension) for its
| first version before moving on to Unity. You can check out
| MySoci.net at https://www.microsoft.com/el-
| gr/p/mysoci/9pbwts6pnb9r
| tubby12345 wrote:
| I am 100-.9^100 percent sure you are just using this as an
| opportunity to shill for your thing but the Meta logo is just
| an undulating circle, while yours is a Mobius strip (meta is
| only the Mobius in profile)
| [deleted]
| nemothekid wrote:
| Personally, I'm less bullish on FB/Meta now. Half of me believes
| if someone can turn it around it would be Zuck, and the other
| half believes that FB's culture has optimized the wrong the thing
| for the past 5 years.
|
| 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.
| orky56 wrote:
| I think part of it is demographics. Facebook's userbase is and
| continues to trend older especially for Facebook/WhatsApp and
| slightly for Instagram as well compared to TikTok/Snap. I'm not
| saying Facebook has abandoned the younger demo but wants to
| continue to cater to the earning and older demo. We're not
| going to live in Wall-E's world but when the older generation
| no longer wants to or can engage in IRL experiences that
| require being full mobile and healthy, AR and moreso VR will
| allow them to immerse themselves and "preserve" youth well
| longer than we thought possible. We are at an interesting time
| in history where wealth inequality is growing and the wealth
| transfer from rich to poor and more significantly from old to
| young may not happen as quickly as society needs it to. If the
| older demographic can and wants to hold on a decade or 2 longer
| compounded with healthcare advances giving them longer life
| expectancy and their existing investments/savings growing well,
| who knows what and when the future will look like?
| tyrfing wrote:
| 3-5 years ago, the prevailing narrative about Facebook and
| other social media was that of the 'filter bubble', where you
| would only see things you agreed with. More recently, it's been
| a 180 to decrying Facebook force-feeding users content they
| disagree with. TikTok is basically the old model, the one that
| was blamed for things like Trump being elected.
| aaroninsf wrote:
| Knives may be snapped mid air by the appropriate adversary.
|
| The tide is correctly turning against the manifest abuses of
| this organization, regardless of what it asks to be called;
| with any luck it will be systematically dismantled and
| defanged.
|
| The pathology and amorality inherent in its DNA goes back to
| Zuckerberg; the fish has rotted from the head from the start.
| That pathology leads to market valuation is not a surprise but
| it's also not conducive to survival.
| whoisjuan wrote:
| > Then TikTok came along and it's kind of disproven that?
|
| TikTok is the epitome of content augmentation through
| engagement. They literally will push more and more of what
| you're engaging with. Their algorithm is highly optimized to
| put you into very deep rabbit holes of content.
|
| During the BLM protests you could see two very different feeds
| depending what content were you liking and engaging with. After
| a few minutes of browsing it would literally feed you only pro-
| BLM or anti-BLM. No middle grounds.
| georgeglue1 wrote:
| I don't think I've gotten an actual misinformation / hate
| speech / etc. recommendation from Youtube, Facebook, or Tiktok.
|
| On Facebook, I see potentially divisive posts from friends with
| very different political views. The difference with TikTok is
| that those friends don't post content.
|
| I think if you explicitly seek out problematic content you can
| end in a rabbit hole on any large algorithmic app.
| nemothekid wrote:
| Your experience is anecdotal. What "you think" isn't what
| others have found through actual testing, there are actual
| papers written about this. Also, I don't think TikTok is
| different because they are more ethical or anything; I think
| the framework they operate in (China) has forced them to take
| a heavier hand on emotionally extreme content.
| whimsicalism wrote:
| As a counteranecdote to many on this thread, I have also
| never seen hate content on any platform except TikTok.
|
| Only on Tiktok have I seen teen girls dancing along to
| clearly white supremacist content about racial superiority.
| threeseed wrote:
| I get far-right, anti-vaxxer, conspiracy, misinformation
| recommendations from Youtube at least a few times a week. And
| it's been like this for years despite me asking them not to
| show this type of content again.
|
| Anyone who thinks these issues are somehow unique or
| exclusive to Facebook is simply being dishonest. They are a
| byproduct of the anonymous, unfettered free speech we get
| from the internet not something intrinsic to recommendation
| algorithms.
| ricardobeat wrote:
| We had free speech before social networks and this wasn't
| an issue. The problem is when you encourage all the 5000
| lunatics who think the earth is pizza-shaped to congregate
| and consume each other's content.
| YarickR2 wrote:
| Now content consumption is a crime. Next we're going to
| curate reading lists, right ?
| threeseed wrote:
| Reddit and Twitter proves that it's not the case.
|
| They have allowed anti-vaxxer, conspiracy, misinformation
| etc communities to thrive and flourish and it's happened
| without recommendation algorithms. It happened because
| when people can see other's peoples comments they are
| able to follow them to discover more people like that.
| Karrot_Kream wrote:
| Twitter absolutely uses an algorithmic feed to show you
| content you'll engage with more.
|
| On Reddit this is somewhat true, but it's a well-known
| part of Reddit culture (though this has been changing as
| they've been kicking out more subs) that each sub has its
| own set of cultural mores, opinionated mods, and memes.
| There's lots of drama/hate on subs from other subs but
| you'll see the same phenomenon on the Fediverse or, for
| that matter, in a neighborhood gossip group.
|
| It's not like these views go away without algorithmic
| newsfeeds, it just that algorithmic feeds accelerate
| their spread.
| ricardobeat wrote:
| You must be really good at only reading content you already
| agree with.
|
| The moment you watch a few seconds of a polarizing video, out
| of curiosity, they will start recommending more of the same.
| This is how people fall into more radicalized bubbles.
| darknavi wrote:
| > The only way FB could grow was by pushing content that got
| people riled up.
|
| Not sure if I've ever believe it was the only way for them to
| grow. I hate Facebook (product) for what it has become but it
| is an excellent tool for its original use, which is keeping in
| touch with friends/family/communities.
| soperj wrote:
| So is email.
| xwdv wrote:
| Grossly underestimates how complicated email can really be.
| nseggs wrote:
| Right. Easiest maybe, certainly not only.
| kerng wrote:
| I think Snap or TikTok should rebrand to Antimeta, or at least
| build a subsidiary with that name to show how ridiculous this
| is. Facebook, or however the want to call themselves, is still
| the same company with its unethical leadership.
|
| Unless leadership changes, nothing good will be in store for
| society at large.
| xwdv wrote:
| FB has so much money they could try literally hundreds of
| thousands of ideas, have all of them fail, and still have money
| for hundreds of thousands more. Eventually they will find the
| next big thing and execute perfectly.
|
| It is inevitable.
| zamalek wrote:
| > betting against a company with such a huge war chest is like
| trying to catch a falling knife.
|
| Indeed. My biggest fear is that succeed.
|
| I happen to prefer PCs (and there is no reason to argue for or
| against that). Apple has been incredibly successful at
| capturing market share and their devices are now mandatory at
| my new job. I might not like it, but it's not the end of the
| world: Apple behaves ethically.
|
| Now imagine your [otherwise] dream job demands that you strap a
| Quest on and feed Zuck's data fetish.
| gear54rus wrote:
| Apple behaves ethically with those file scanners on your
| devices? Iphone parts that show errors when replaced with the
| same parts from another phone? Lobbying against the right to
| repair? Blocking access to 3rd party app stores?
|
| lol. It's just marketing, nothing more.
| jmknoll wrote:
| Apple has certainly displayed some anti-consumer behavior.
| No one will argue with that. But not all sins are equal.
| Let's not say that blocking access to repair stores is the
| same thing as knowingly aiding and abetting genocide.
| parthdesai wrote:
| Good thing you bring that up: https://www.washingtonpost.
| com/technology/2020/11/20/apple-u...
| random314 wrote:
| Sharing imessages with CCP that is ethnically cleansing
| uyghurs should certainly count as aiding and abetting
| genocide.
| threeseed wrote:
| a) The CSAM scanning on your phone only happens if you
| specify that you want your photos to be uploaded to iCloud
| Photo Library. And if doesn't happen client-side then it
| simply happens server-side with less privacy and security.
|
| b) iPhone parts showing errors issues was a bug that was
| already fixed and applied to TouchID security validation.
| If it's something new then it's almost guarenteed that this
| is a good thing i.e. you're trying to tamper/remove the
| biometrics components.
|
| c) Apple's customers don't want 3rd party App Stores. It's
| not a computer to them but an appliance like a microwave.
| They want security, privacy, moderation, convenience and
| alternate stores trade those away for features e.g.
| flexibility, price that no one really wants.
| vineyardmike wrote:
| 1) Lets not have client side scanning apologists here.
| They are setting a terrible precedent. Even if apple does
| it right, the copy cats won't and that'll be terrible for
| everyone.
|
| 2) Apple customer support has a history of being
| deceitful. In the US it is illegal for them to reject
| jailbroken devices from warranty and I've been told by
| apple they will void your warranty on their internal
| services if you bring them a device.
|
| 3) Not all customers want a 3p App Store. Some do.
| iPhones are not microwaves, they are computers.
|
| > They want security, privacy, moderation, convenience
|
| Like a microwave? Wtf. Also, all these things can come
| through 3p app stores. Security is provided by the OS not
| App Store. Privacy is by app. Moderation apple still
| doesn't do right. Convenience is IAP that apps will
| actually use.
| LordDragonfang wrote:
| >Lets not have client side scanning apologists here.
|
| It's not scanning on the client side, it's hashing.
| People on this site should really understand the
| difference. The alternative, as _many_ have pointed out,
| is them uploading your _whole_ image to be scanned server
| side.
|
| Smart money is that this is a move in front of Apple
| encrypting your whole icloud backup, and they have to do
| _something_ if they don 't want the legal, political, and
| social liability of being a free encrypted cloud storage
| for CSAM.
|
| There's lots of reasons to criticise Apple, this isn't
| one.
| saiya-jin wrote:
| Well that's a convenient set of arguments, lets politely
| agree to disagree.
|
| Privacy is #1 selling point for Apple phones for geeks,
| it for sure ain't some mediocre hardware catching what
| chinese manufacturers released 1-2 generations before,
| nor sheepish bragging mentality that is so popular in
| poorer parts of the world.
|
| They broke privacy. It ain't some super bendy term that
| you can argue about and twist to suit your current needs,
| in similar vein as ie truth. Lets break it down - private
| means mine and mine only, 0 other access, here, there,
| everywhere. Anything else is not private, whatever
| 'noble' cause you wrap it in that keeps shifting with
| time, location, political regime etc..
|
| They claimed they had it. Many honestly believed them.
| They openly kicked it out and failed at it so badly they
| didn't even grok it could be an issue. Then whole
| clusterfuck happened as we all saw from first row.
|
| Apple doesn't have privacy, period. It can claim to have
| some other features, and with some they are correct. And
| that's about it.
| jrockway wrote:
| What is scanning if not reading every byte of your
| private images and using an algorithm to decide whether
| or not to call the cops on you? It's scanning.
| yyyk wrote:
| Apple doesn't do E2E, and there's no evidence they are
| going to. It's very likely they just legally can't.
|
| First, the FBI (which supposedly stopped the last attempt
| to introduce E2E) has more concerns than CSAM.
|
| Second, the current scanning system + E2E will have
| significant weaknesses* compared to server side scanning.
| As it is, Apple will pay the same legal costs as it would
| be if it had implemented E2E without scanning.
|
| The only way to answer both concerns is to have way more
| invasive scanning than Apple told us it would do. IMHO,
| iCloud E2E is just a made up slogan to justify Apple
| snooping on the device. The real future is just way more
| scanning.
|
| * The scanning database must receive updates after the
| images have been uploaded, because the hash as described
| inherently cannot catch most offenders right away. It's
| an issue of both space (the proposal is based on a
| perceptual hash, but the hash must be far smaller than
| the original, so similar images can't all get the same
| hash) and timing (NCMEC can't find new CSAM right away).
|
| However, the images were likely deleted on the device, so
| neither side has access to allow rescanning in the E2E
| scenario. Unless.. The solutions here all involve more
| scanning than the original proposal.
| random314 wrote:
| I don't understand why nobody seems to care that apple
| shares imessages with CCP. Google and Facebook avoid that
| by not operating in China.
|
| How can a company claim to be privacy friendly because it
| blocks ads while sharing private messages with a
| genocidal government?
| Nevermark wrote:
| I agree that most customers are not asking for another
| App Store, but they are being negatively impacted.
|
| 1. Apple has blocked apps as objectionable because they
| were political even though simply factual. [1]
|
| 2. Apple's lock on the App Store facilitates government
| blocks on apps that Apple itself would otherwise deem
| fine. [2]
|
| 3. Apple blocks "adult" oriented apps. How many times do
| people have to rehash the lines between art and porn with
| authority gatekeepers instead of making their own
| choices?
|
| 4. Apple blocks game streaming apps, and other apps that
| act as front ends to other app-like worlds on the web, a
| whole new category of innovation cancelled. [3[
|
| 5. Apple inserts itself into otherwise peer-to-peer
| transactions, i.e. in-app non-code content purchases.
| This economic tax is both unfair, but also a dampener on
| innovation.
|
| 6. Apple on iOS restricts the downloading of code within
| apps to educational situations. (Currently rule 2.5.2
| [4]) This is a huge dampener on innovation. Coding,
| including no-code coding, should be available to anyone
| wanting to be code literate or want to make their own
| tools. I get that their are safety issues, but those can
| be addressed with sandboxes, etc. Again, another layer of
| innovation killed off.
|
| In summary, instead of being a bicycle shop for the mind,
| Apple's app stores block many kinds of innovation, tax
| providers in ways unrelated to Apple's role as phone
| provider, and routinely censor useful apps that are
| politically unappealing to Apple or governments, threaten
| Apple's lock on development tools, or based on Apple's
| sensitivity to safe (from a tech point of view) material
| where legitimate opinions vary as to what is desirable or
| not.
|
| This is all user hostile.
|
| Noting that there are alternative phones isn't a good
| response, as Apple's phones are at the center of tightly
| knit ecosystems. Customers do not have the ability to mix
| and match products between a few ecosystems and get the
| same value.
|
| I view the App Store as Apple's new Achilles heal.
|
| Apple's gatekeeper role has created perverse incentives
| for Apple to block significant innovation, economic
| viability, and freedom of expression on devices at the
| center of many of our lives.
|
| Perverse incentives don't go away. They tend to
| metastasize (pun very much intended) [5].
|
| [1] https://9to5mac.com/2017/03/28/apple-drone-striking-
| app-remo...
|
| [2] https://www.vox.com/recode/22680010/russia-apple-app-
| store-s...
|
| [3] https://appleinsider.com/articles/20/08/07/apples-
| block-of-x...
|
| [4] https://developer.apple.com/app-
| store/review/guidelines/
|
| [5] https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/oct/29
| /facebo...
| joeberon wrote:
| It's the difference between eating an okay meal and
| literally stabbing yourself in the face with a knife
| monkeybutton wrote:
| Here's hoping Microsoft's HoloLense takes off in the
| corporate world.
| quantum_magpie wrote:
| Ugh. Here's hoping that all crapware VR crashes, burns, and
| takes down their host companies.
| soperj wrote:
| >Apple behaves ethically
|
| There was that whole no poaching thing.
| random314 wrote:
| And sharing imessages and imail with iCCP.
| slivanes wrote:
| And:
|
| caught attempting to be a book cartel
|
| hostile to right to repair
|
| browser render lockdown in iOS
|
| slow moving PWA support in Safari
|
| deliberate slowdown of older iPhones due to battery
| nathias wrote:
| if you can believe Apple behaves ethically you can convince
| yourself Meta is ethical too if you try
| [deleted]
| wlesieutre wrote:
| Don't forget to put on your Meta Smartwatch with front-facing
| camera
|
| edit: for reference
| https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-10-28/leaked-
| ph...
| ycoculushaver wrote:
| Haha I work for a company that literally bought and
| distributed Quest 2s for an event and I had to create a
| Facebook account for it.. not much imagining needed for me!
|
| Oh and it was my otherwise dream job at the time :)
|
| Oh yeah, and it's a YC company.
| vineyardmike wrote:
| > Now imagine your [otherwise] dream job demands that you
| strap a Quest on and feed Zuck's data fetish.
|
| Its very likely that a commercial Oculus device won't collect
| data (what company approves that?), so it might actually give
| FB a path to money that is free of data+ads.
| lostlogin wrote:
| > what company approves that?
|
| Kissing by the number that have FB accounts, most?
| zeusk wrote:
| They only want to collect consumer data for themselves,
| not the data of employees by other corporations.
| lostlogin wrote:
| Sorry, moving too fast. "Judging by the number that have
| FB accounts, most?"
| bink wrote:
| > betting against a company with such a huge war chest is like
| trying to catch a falling knife.
|
| Maybe. But if money could buy product adoption we'd all be
| using Microsoft phones right now.
| twright0 wrote:
| > Then TikTok came along and it's kind of disproven that? ...
| none of the algorithmically generated content is as polarizing
| as what I would find on the other apps.
|
| I don't think this is fully accurate. The big differentiator
| for Tik Tok's algorithmic feed from FB's or Youtube's (in my
| mind) is not its accuracy or lack of polarization, it's
| actually that it draws much firmer and harder to cross lines
| between the parts of its userbase with an (IMO intentionally)
| nerfed search capability, so it's very difficult to break out
| of the demographic/interest bubble it decides you are in for
| feed purposes. So you, personally, probably receive literally
| _no_ polarizing, political, etc content that you aren 't happy
| to see. But that doesn't mean it's not there!
|
| Here's an example: a researcher set up a new account,
| interacted with transphobic content, and was very quickly (in a
| few hours of viewing) seeing far-right conspiracy theory,
| antisemitic, white supremacy (and so on) content, some of which
| was endorsing violence.
| https://twitter.com/abbieasr/status/1445888305997000705
| 908B64B197 wrote:
| ByteDance (Zi Jie Tiao Dong ) the parent company that owns
| TikTok and mainland china Douyin Dou Yin have been caught
| suppressing and hiding videos from disabled or LGBTQ users so
| that they are not shown to regular users. [0] [1]
|
| One might wonder what other content is suppressed on the
| platform. [2]
|
| [0] https://www.dailydot.com/irl/tiktok-fat-lgbtq-disabled-
| creat...
|
| [1] https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-50645345
|
| [2] https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/sep/25/reveal
| ed-...
| data_ders wrote:
| isn't ByteDance's play with TikTok to be as inoffensive as
| possible too? over-greedy filtering out of voices deemed to
| be "controversial"
| riantogo wrote:
| In my personal experience with tiktok it will pigeonhole you
| rapidly. But overall the platform is heavy on silly and fun
| content (not sure if it intentionally maintained like that by
| the owners). So before you know it you are pigeonholed into
| extremely fun stuff (compared to tediously polarizing content
| on other big apps).
|
| Now over time it might devolve into bad content if there is
| no higher level moderation to keep it on lighter side of
| things. I would personally be okay with not all platforms
| being totally democratic.
| unstatusthequo wrote:
| My opinion is a name change is just that. You can also put a
| Ferrari body kit for a Pinto, but it's still a pinto. Name
| change is just them trying to dodge their own brand's
| untrustworthiness.
| furgooswft13 wrote:
| MAKE EVERYTHING TRUMP AGAIN
| lsjvjn wrote:
| >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 Meta would be much better off
| if he stepped out of the light.
| kevinmchugh wrote:
| Zuckerberg controls a majority of voting shares in Meta, right?
| bluepizza wrote:
| 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.
| chipotle_coyote wrote:
| "Facebook is a potent vector for misinformation" doesn't
| disprove the contention that YouTube is a more potent vector.
| We're aware of Facebook's issues around this largely because
| Facebook became the de facto representative for Everything
| Wrong With Big Tech -- and while there's a solid case to be
| made that it's their own damn fault they're in that position,
| it's kept documented problems with other platforms out of the
| spotlight. YouTube's recommendation algorithm is notorious
| for leading you to ever-more extremist ("high engagement!")
| takes on a variety of topics. And in some high-profile cases
| -- for instance, Alex Jones back in 2018, coronavirus vaccine
| disinformation just this year -- YouTube was well behind
| other social media platforms in executing bans. There is an
| arguable case to be made that compared to YouTube, Facebook
| is a relative model of responsibility.
|
| (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.)
| lsjvjn wrote:
| We've seen many articles over the last few years about the
| YouTube recommendation rabbit hole radicalizing young people
| online. Facebook is not blameless, but they've become a
| scapegoat for issues plaguing an entire industry.
| edgyquant wrote:
| YouTube's algorithms also amplify misinformation, and
| demonetization isn't exactly a fix for that
| lupire wrote:
| Are demonentized videos allowed in Recommendations/Watch
| Next?
| apozem wrote:
| YouTube has been an _extremely_ potent vector for antivax
| rhetoric. They 've banned antivax content, but we'll see how
| that holds up.
|
| https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-news/youtube-
| an... (2021)
|
| https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/carolineodonovan/youtub.
| .. (2019)
| jfernandez wrote:
| Agreed, Meta's "good parts" would have a better chance to
| succeed if it weren't entangled so much with Mark and Facebook
| at large. Listening to the interview made me feel that
| Mark/Facebook have good intent with this work (and are clearly
| doubling down ala rename) but the metaverse feels like
| something that's being pushed through vs a natural extension of
| human connection. They are making sure they have a big say on
| how it unfolds by shifting the focus on the company towards.
| Good and bad.
|
| I was "defending" the metaverse to a friend outside of the tech
| bubble last night and I talked a lot about how much I learned
| about socialization/human connection when I used to play Star
| Wars Galaxies and World of Warcraft. That those relationships
| which started somewhat "metaverse"-first meant as much as my
| "real" connections did... and that's what I feel the essence of
| Meta/metaverse is really trying to bring to everyone.
| 908B64B197 wrote:
| > 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
|
| Interestingly, the most vocal opponents of Facebook are...
| traditional medias. The same medias that are competing (and
| losing!) against Facebook for add revenue.
|
| Keep in mind that before Facebook, for a story to get any
| traction it had to be approved by the "editorial board" of a
| legacy news outlet. What do you think happened if the owner of
| the TV station or newspaper didn't want a story to hit the
| front page?
| lupire wrote:
| I have no idea if FB or YT is more potent, but Ben didn't offer
| any evidence so this looks like shilling for Zuckerberg.
|
| 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.
| jensensbutton wrote:
| What if they're resharing Youtube videos?
| apozem wrote:
| The author of this piece pointed out on his podcast that
| Zuckerberg, despite his baggage, is a founder and thus the only
| person who can sell such a huge change to employees and
| investors.
|
| If building a metaverse is a good idea, and that is a large if,
| then it will have been good for him to stay.
| whimsicalism wrote:
| Founder loyalty is much larger among employees than it is
| among investors (in general, don't know about FB).
| orhmeh09 wrote:
| OK. How do you know this?
| seph-reed wrote:
| 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
| that there will be no going back.
| _jal wrote:
| Meh. I've ignored them for the last 20 years. I expect to
| ignore whatever their services metastasize into for the next
| 20, too.
| AlexandrB wrote:
| > Meta is going full in on the metaverse... so that's going to
| be hitting some critical mass fairly soon (less than a decade).
|
| That's a stretch. Tech history is littered with big companies
| who went hard on a technology only for their attempt to flop.
| See: Newton, Virtual Boy, Windows Phone, and most recently
| Google Stadia. There's also little reason to think that CEO
| Mark Zuckerberg of 2021 is as in-touch with the what the public
| wants and tech trends as college student Mark Zuckerberg was in
| 2004.
|
| Edit: Another way to look at is: Has Facebook ever launched a
| product as successful as their primary business?
|
| They've _acquired_ some wildly successful properties (I 'm
| thinking Instagram & WhatsApp) - but their in-house product
| efforts outside of Facebook itself have either flopped or been
| marginal at best - Facebook Phone, Facebook Portal. Oculus
| might be the exception - for now - but there's healthy
| competition in the VR headset space and the market isn't yet
| big enough for a "metaverse" to be widely accessible like the
| Facebook website was in 2004.
| stevofolife wrote:
| And there's also little reason to think that anyone on Hacker
| News is more in-touch than Zuckerberg of 2021 with what the
| public wants and the tech trends. Someone who owns Facebook
| and Instagram can identify the trend easier than you. Unless
| you also happen to have a platform of more than billion of
| users, then please share your thoughts about trends.
| mathgladiator wrote:
| 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 senses".
| seph-reed wrote:
| > 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 senses".
|
| Given my experience in Alt Space thus far, I think there's a
| really good chance you're right.
| ihumanable wrote:
| I don't claim to know what exactly the metaverse will look
| like, but I remember the first time I put on an Oculus
| Quest.
|
| The first experience you have is being dropped into your
| "home" and mine defaulted to a big mountain side house,
| warm wood, fireplace, massive window looking out into a
| beautiful valley.
|
| It was virtual but convincing enough and I still sometimes
| enjoy just taking in the virtual view before or after
| playing a VR game.
|
| I remember thinking it a bit odd, the actual world around
| me could be awful, but in here it was just good enough to
| trick my brain. Throw $10B at that experience and I'm
| curious to see what happens. Maybe a scarcity-free utopia
| where everyone can "live" in whatever beautiful environment
| they want to, maybe a dystopia where you get home and enter
| your unadorned concrete cube and plug in to your real home,
| needing just enough physical space to use the VR.
|
| If they can ever get it fully jacked into your brain, I
| could see people just plugging in and never coming out.
| pessimizer wrote:
| My home isn't primarily for looking at. It's mainly where
| I keep my things, a collection of comfortable surfaces, a
| place to cook and entertain, and a place for privacy. VR
| gives you none of those.
|
| edit: home is also a place to work on projects, so I
| guess that VR fulfills that in a minecraft-type fashion.
| [deleted]
| [deleted]
| rStar wrote:
| it will be interesting to see what facebook turns into if/when
| they get a new ceo who is business success focused, like tim cook
| and satya nadella, who are just corporate mercenaries trying to
| run the most efficient business possible, which is not what the
| founders of those businesses did. then there's the question of,
| will zuckerburg ever even get fb now meta to that point or will
| he insist on maintaining control and using the company to fund
| his pet projects to the detriment of the bottom line? zuck spends
| his time, pie in the sky, while cook and nads eat sleep and
| breath spreadsheets! riveting!
| pdpi wrote:
| Nadella joined Microsoft in '92. Cook joined Apple in '98. I'm
| not sure I'd describe either of them as "mercenary".
|
| Tim Cook told an investor to "get off the stock" over
| criticisms that investing in things that don't contribute to
| the bottom line (such as sustainability initiatives). "When we
| work on making our devices accessible by the blind, I don't
| consider the bloody ROI" is not something you expect a bean
| counter to say in a shareholder meeting.
| klelatti wrote:
| Aside from the personal things about Cook and Nadella you're
| saying that you want a product guy / founder in charge. The
| thing is that Meta is a huge company with a massive impact and
| the man in charge is spending his time on his dream and not
| fixing issues that affect billions.
| dmix wrote:
| Regardless of how this turns out, $10 Billion per year is a lot
| for an early/R&D level product (unless you consider the Horizons
| stuff closer to the endgame).
|
| Sometimes major upfront investments can create situations where
| its own size and expectations cannibalize their own potential.
| sithlord wrote:
| Think Nucleus!
| rdw wrote:
| This is truly an optimistic take. Mark's "maybe no one else would
| bother building this if I don't" ethos is inspiring. But, man,
| that can justify absolutely anything. It seems like an expensive
| hobby, like Rod Stewart's model trains. Impressive, amazing, had
| to be built by that one person or it never would have been
| made....but, it's gratifying to only that one person, too.
| LurkingPenguin wrote:
| It's really hard to use much of what Zuck says for reasonable
| analysis. Examples:
|
| > I care about this existing, not just virtual and augmented
| reality existing, _but it getting built out in a way that really
| advances the state of human connection_...
|
| > I think we'll have hopefully an opportunity to shape the
| development of the next platform in order to make it more
| amenable to _these ways that I think people will naturally want
| to interact._
|
| I mean, how can you read stuff like this and not laugh?
| randoglando wrote:
| Maybe for some things (like playing board games or hanging out
| a la Fortnite) it would be a great idea.
| kwertyoowiyop wrote:
| It's hard for me to read because my eyes keep rolling so far
| back in my head. Didn't he say the same things about Facebook?
| hsnewman wrote:
| This is a very bad sign for facebook. They are betting on
| everyone walking around with 3D goggles talking in Zoom like
| meetings. I personally would rather go outside and see reality
| than virtually doing it. Only time will tell, but I'm betting on
| reality.
| mhink wrote:
| I'm not a fan of Facebook/Meta, but I'm also not sure about
| this take. Rewind the clock 30-40 years, and I feel like it'd
| be easy to say something like "This is a bad sign for IBM. They
| are betting on everyone sitting around staring at a monitor
| sending electronic messages instead of talking."
|
| That's not to say that they'll actually deliver on this idea,
| but we've definitely seen the transformative power of tech on
| society. Whether that's a good thing or not is left as an
| exercise to the reader.
| tinyhouse wrote:
| I think it's a bit naive to think it's either that or nothing.
| As long as they can develop new high quality VR experiences
| with high adoption, they would succeed. I don't think they even
| know what they will end up with in 5-10 years. It's a big and
| expensive experiment with non insignificant chance of success
| in my opinion.
| hsnewman wrote:
| They have changed their company name and the focus. It's a
| very big gamble. I for one won't be investing in vaporware.
| alexashka wrote:
| Am I the only one thinking Zuckerberg, like Bill Gates, was good
| at creating a monopoly, but had no taste or ability to do
| anything else?
|
| This move reminds me of Elon Musk's brain implant garbage that is
| sure to fail. It's like these people can't just do a good job of
| providing a simple thing people want/need, they want to believe
| they can do something big. They can't, and they won't, but they
| will waste billions of dollars making other fools believe it.
|
| I wonder when the music finally stops and these tech billionaires
| are revealed to be the lottery ticket ego-maniac hacks that they
| are. I wonder.
| slownews45 wrote:
| One big difference - a lot of these billionaires are willing to
| try out ideas and ignore folks who say they won't work.
|
| If you try out a few ideas, some will pan out.
|
| And brain implants are certainly coming. Parkinsons and other
| diseases are already being treated with them.
| gz5 wrote:
| 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 way Amazon saw the world
| going to digital?
| r00fus wrote:
| Very not so. Amazon was merely making available externally to
| others the very production line that they used to make their
| own site (at a very healthy profit).
|
| 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.
| rory wrote:
| The Amazon comparison is apt, but I think Apple shifting
| revenue from hardware to services is a better one.
|
| Apple was able to catch the paradigm shift of us starting to
| use our phones for everything, and make loads of money by
| offering services to a captive audience and sharecropping
| opportunities to app developers.
|
| Facebook tried to become a platform during the last paradigm
| shift and failed. Selling users to advertisers has been
| lucrative but clearly isn't as sticky as the platform model
| (which is why they have to keep buying up their competitors).
| So they're trying to push another shift to VR and be the
| platform for that.
| gz5 wrote:
| Apple is nice comparison.
|
| Apple leveraged the power of its brand in that transition
| (and created a flywheel of sorts to strengthen its brand),
| whereas the current FB brand wouldn't likely extend as well.
|
| So helps show one reason why FB likely saw the need to change
| naming and start building a new brand (whereas Apple (and
| Amazon) went the other way).
| jensensbutton wrote:
| I'd argue Apply leveraged lock-in and the power of
| defaults.
| papito wrote:
| Mark Zuckerberg does not care about money. That's what I gathered
| from reading Chaos Monkeys and An Ugly Truth. He never _had_ that
| problem. A privileged sociopath who has never known life outside
| of Westchester, Harvard, and his Silicon Valley compound. He
| talks about "connecting people" but that's probably because he
| himself is deathly insecure about it.
|
| He has never been one of our species and that gnaws at him. Do
| girls like him? Do we like him?
|
| His favorite historical figure is Caesar, he looks like Caesar
| with his haircut, which is also called "the Caesar". This man
| drifts away in meetings when they talk about boring money stuff,
| but he DOES care a buttload about the number of users and those
| users not leaving. It's power, it's influence - it's what he
| craves.
|
| But. The man who pivoted on his idea of rating chicks - by
| stealing a better idea - may have run out his lucky streak, which
| started by winning the birth lottery in Upstate New York. He may
| have been at the right place at the right time, of prime age, and
| of means enough to have access to computers and the Internet (a
| very common thread, see: Bill Gates), but now that The Facebook
| brand has literally become toxic (RIP), he has to come up with an
| actual world-changing idea, and that, as he will find out, is
| _hard_.
|
| And it doesn't help that not only is it hard to hire people at
| Facebook now, I will bet you the farm that those working there
| are walking it in for the nice paycheck. Why do you think the
| TikTok algorithm makes Reels look like a high school project?
| Those people don't have their heart in it, and why would they?
| The company repeatedly, shamelessly _lies_ to them.
| yyyk wrote:
| Well, Facebook sure sent a strong signal of being committed to an
| AR/VR vision. We can't say they don't have a corporate direction.
|
| Would it work? I suspect that it's _too early_ for the tech.
| Haven 't seen much yet in the way of compelling apps - and first
| mover advantage isn't what it used to be.
| Steltek wrote:
| Has a huge company ever rebranded themselves like this to a dream
| that they're so far away from delivering on? The Metaverse isn't
| an unfamiliar or abstract thing, it's well represented in movies
| and TV, and it's a pretty dramatic territory to claim: full
| sensory immersion in an infinite, interactive world. No one has
| gotten even a fraction of those things "right" and a social media
| company is gonna bet the farm on it because they bought a company
| that made VR goggles?
| randycupertino wrote:
| > Has a huge company ever rebranded themselves like this to a
| dream that they're so far away from delivering on?
|
| Theranos, when they pivoted from a medication-delivering patch
| to a blood testing analytics company. Neither of which they
| ever actually had the tech for!
| codezero wrote:
| The one thing they might have done that is closer to a
| metaverse than just immersion though: creating a completely
| digital economy, where work inside the metaverse has value
| based on creating within the metaverse. Facebook has nailed the
| economic walled garden, so may have some good ideas for
| digitalizing people's work using VR/AR as a starting point.
| ketzo wrote:
| This is exactly it, IMO. People are so focused on the
| VR/AR/"immersion" aspect of the whole metaverse concept -
| rightfully so, given the Meta keynote - but there's much more
| to an actual metaverse than some cool goggles/glasses.
|
| If the point of a true metaverse is a persistent, always-on,
| digital universe that exists parallel to our own, it seems
| like the company that defined "social media" is well-
| positioned to define that universe as well.
| mrkramer wrote:
| I think VR/AR Metaverse will happen but it is decades away.
| handrous wrote:
| Most major tech companies seem to be betting that non-shit AR
| glasses aren't far off, and are prepping to be ready for that
| day 1.
|
| Big VR bets makes less sense to me. AR is the next
| smartphone. VR is the next... TV or workstation monitor, and
| even then, only for some use cases. Just seems like a much
| smaller opportunity.
| shock-value wrote:
| Are you implying that their interest suggests that non-shit
| AR glasses will actually happen in the relatively short
| term? Big tech companies were and ostensibly are interested
| in self-driving too, and that seems to be taking much
| longer than they expected.
| handrous wrote:
| They all keep announcing AR features for their devices
| and operating systems, even though those are _very_ niche
| except as a "gee isn't that nifty" demo on current
| hardware--anyone who's held a phone or tablet or Gameboy
| or whatever up to interact with these things can attest
| it's pretty terrible overall UX, even if it's _really_
| cool as a demo. Glasses fix that problem. I assume the
| reason companies are continuing development of those
| capabilities is that they 're pretty sure AR glasses
| aren't too far off. Seems like a much more tractable
| problem than self-driving, anyway--mostly a waiting game
| for battery and display/input tech to hit just the right
| spot and for someone to package it just right, like
| smartphones were.
| mrkramer wrote:
| VR is the next PC. "VR headset in every home" could be the
| next Microsoft like company mission and vision. I think for
| instance VR will have big impact in medicine and education
| but like I said it is decades away something like PC
| industry in 1970s.
| handrous wrote:
| Right, but my point is that the PC is kinda niche,
| itself, as a _consumer_ product. "The next PC" is a very
| different prospect--and far more B2B--than "the next
| smartphone". It could still be pretty big, but it's
| always seemed to me like a weird place for Facebook,
| especially, to be investing. Best-case you also become
| "the next video game console", but consoles (+TVs) are so
| much more (locally, IRL) social than PCs that I wouldn't
| bet on that working out. Worst-case, companies focusing
| more on AR _also_ crack the problem of making their
| glasses function for VR, and you can throw all your VR-
| only hardware investment in the trash (though some of the
| software would be salvageable, I assume).
| pessimizer wrote:
| VR is the next 3D TV. A cumbersome, marginal improvement
| on something that already works fine.
|
| Even for industrial use, its only cases I've heard about
| have been to transmit manual labor over a network. There
| are very limited cases where we need to do that, although
| I have no doubt that VR will be useful for undersea or
| outer space welding, or something, with a very skilled
| operator. Otherwise, the accuracy necessary is going to
| make the machine (at the endpoint) far more expensive to
| build and maintain than it is to just send the human.
|
| edit: It'll be good for killbots. They'll be largely
| autonomous other than Tesla autopilot-style nudges. The
| work doesn't require a lot of accuracy, and there are
| still a few social hangups about _totally_ autonomous
| killing machines that would make an operator in a VR set
| more acceptable, even if they don 't have much to do.
| me_me_mu_mu wrote:
| I hope society improves to the point that we are comfortable
| just being around each other IRL, instead of needing to escape
| to a simulated world in our _sonas.
| lalos wrote:
| I think Zuck is aware that they are a dying company (with a lot
| of cash and a cash cow) and instead of being a sitting duck
| they are embracing the "move fast, break things" and picked an
| un-exploited market (that involves hardware - to own the whole
| stack) and run with it. They still have the nuclear option
| anyways, it fails, they revert and Zuck leaves and becomes part
| of the board, keeping soft control of whoever yes-man from the
| c-suite gets the CEO position.
| Ninjinka wrote:
| Wow, so much negativity! I'm surprised to find that I am one of
| the few who was super inspired and excited by the keynote.
| Granted, I'm a VR/crypto fanboy, but it all just seemed like a
| move in the right direction.
| otterley wrote:
| Overall this new focus suggests to me that Facebook (Meta) sees
| limited potential future growth of their social media properties
| as such, and needs to look to new markets to sustain future
| growth.
|
| However, it is very rare for companies -- especially large,
| established ones -- to succeed in pivoting themselves to deal
| with new market realities and ways of doing business. The
| entrenched interests and culture inside these organizations tend
| to resist significant change. There's an irony that the bigger
| the company, the less power a CEO actually has.
|
| Time will tell if they succeed.
| 908B64B197 wrote:
| Except Microsoft, who did it a few times in the past.
| AlexandrB wrote:
| But not always successfully. It helps to have a big warchest
| so you can try more than once or keep a money-losing business
| running while you figure it out (XBox, Bing).
| 908B64B197 wrote:
| XBox and Bing are profitable, ironically. Bing is a 7B
| business[0]
|
| Phone/ARM tablets were not.
|
| [0] https://news.scott.services/microsoft-bing-usage-and-
| revenue...
| klelatti wrote:
| A company like Facebook (ok Meta) focuses on what the person in
| charge is interested in. Can't be helped - it will just pervade
| the whole company.
|
| Zuck is interested in this Metaverse vision and not in fixing the
| issues with his existing properties. Announcing this now is two
| fingers to those affected by these problems. If he gets massive
| regulatory intervention now he's brought it on himself and
| deserves it.
| pron wrote:
| What surprised me was how pathetic the move looks (as does the
| logo, that looks like the brainchild of an actual child; infinity
| symbol? srsly?). Not only has Facebook proven unable or unwilling
| to make even less immersive wide-scale online interaction
| pleasant and beneficial that they claim it's time to be looking
| for the next challenge (oh, and did they forget about their
| digital currency?), but they don't even have the technology to
| start. If this had come at the same time they unveiled some
| impressive skunkworks project, or even _after_ they emerged from
| their "trial by fire" as the article calls it, it might have
| been a different story, but as it is, it appears like a weak act
| of desperation. Is Facebook feeling _that_ threatened?
| r00fus wrote:
| 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 than to say "all of this... it's about me".
| yepthatsreality wrote:
| The metaverse is gibberish for "chat apps".
| r00fus wrote:
| I bet if you ask 10 people what the metaverse was, you'd get
| 10 completely different answers. I'd say your answer is as
| good as any.
| thebean11 wrote:
| The demo is for geeks and investors, so I'm not sure it
| matters.
| r00fus wrote:
| So pray tell, what do investors see in it? As a geek I see a
| hobby horse.
| thebean11 wrote:
| Selling digital goods with fat margins, app store revenue,
| and ads in digital spaces
| r00fus wrote:
| Great so moving from display & social ads in Facebook to
| ads in ... digital spaces.
|
| Can you name a "digital space" or is this still vapor?
| thebean11 wrote:
| Fortnite is probably the most obvious one, unless you're
| talking about facebook specifically or VR specifically
| (VR chat is big but nowhere near Fortnite).
| threeseed wrote:
| What does Apple see in it ?
|
| They are investing heavily in AR/VR and they have a proven
| track record in new product categories e.g. smartphone,
| tablet, headphones, watch.
|
| Once the technologies improve such that the
| glasses/headsets are light and small enough then it's going
| to be something you can bring and use everywhere. And then
| the popularity will increase which in turn will attract
| developers. Repeat this cycle a few times and you have
| another $100+ billion App Store business on your hands.
| r00fus wrote:
| Apple and Oculus/FB have very little overlap. Apple is
| pushing AR, and Oculus is VR.
|
| I don't think it makes sense to conflate those two
| distinct use cases as the tech is different and user
| experience is vastly different as well.
| jensensbutton wrote:
| FB is pushing AR and VR as I understand it. The VR part
| is just what's already shipped. I think it'll be similar
| to iOS/Android because FB will beat Google to the punch.
| heavyset_go wrote:
| Facebook is pummeling advertising platforms with ads that
| link to the demo.
| 0000011111 wrote:
| Meta put simply is a digital version of human culture and
| society. There is good and evil.
|
| I am not sure they can keep the evil from spreading. How can they
| contains it without blocking large amounts of users.
|
| I see the platform as a dark forest where there is no path toward
| profit unless they allow evil content to be spread widely and
| therefore allow more adds to be seen by more people.
| etxm wrote:
| A metaverse is the last thing on earth this planet needs.
| munk-a wrote:
| > Zuckerberg made a similar mistake last year, forcing Oculus
| users to login with their Facebook account, which not only upset
| Oculus users but also handcuffed products like Horizon Workrooms,
| Facebook's VR solution for business meetings.
|
| IMO this point is just a single example of the pattern we've
| seen. Everything done at Facebook is to drive that network data
| even if it harms the individual component. That's why Meta is so
| different from Alphabet. Alphabet is legitimately a collection of
| pretty independent companies - some of them synergize but never
| unnecessarily[1]. I purchased a VR headset last year and I ended
| up getting an Index after being mightily tempted by the Oculus -
| it's my first headset and I wasn't sure how much I'd like VR so I
| was really hesitant to drop a grand on it but... the likely
| future where all my activity is forcefully broadcast to all my
| family and friends on Facebook is a price I'm not willing to pay.
|
| Facebook's non-Facebook products suffer from the fact that they
| so habitually pipe data right back to Facebook.
|
| 1. Oh - I'll add a caveat here about google accounts and Youtube.
| Google did try to merge the two at one point, but they got a huge
| amount of negative PR and ended up stepping it back significantly
| with aliases and multi-account management tools.
| randoglando wrote:
| What about this though:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29036327 ?
| munk-a wrote:
| Oh I'd missed that announcement - maybe it's a good sign and
| they're changing courses?
| Terretta wrote:
| > _stepping it back significantly with aliases and multi-
| account management tools_
|
| PdM: "Oh, users don't want one account? OK, let them make
| aliases they think are different, and log in that way. They
| won't realize it's all still one account, even when we show
| them their picture and list all these ~~aliases~~, er,
| "different accounts" they can log in as ..."
|
| Users: "Yay, different accounts!"
|
| Analytics: "Yay, one account!"
|
| Advertisers: "Hey, thanks for tying even more of their
| identities together for me."
| munk-a wrote:
| For content producers it has a very real effect - that behind
| the scenes linking doesn't threaten to expose your real
| identity to creepy people on the internet. It _does_ expose
| it to YouTube people, but I think that 's reasonable given
| that there's money involved. It also (so long as you aren't
| receiving a check) doesn't actually require any connection to
| your real name anymore.
| hackbinary wrote:
| We used to call "reactionary" content sensationalism, and that
| type of content has always been predicated on fallacious
| arguments, but especially appeals to emotion.
|
| Facebook's algorithms seems very good at dectecting and pushing
| content that makes users have an emotional response.
|
| They now have developed a feature where is someone or a page
| posts a comment to a page or group that I am not subscribed to,
| Facebook will push that content on to my feed.
|
| It is just about the most annoying thing ever. I am profoundly
| _not_ interested in people who I follow on what they post on Ted
| Cruz 's Facebook page. Why is Facebook pushing Ted Cruz on to my
| feed if I am not subscribed to him? I want to see my friends
| posts, but not their responses to Ted.
|
| Facebook sucks ass now, and I am going to convert over to
| mastidon or something.
| drumhead wrote:
| It looks like a pretzel or the bag end of male genitalia.
| [deleted]
| jnsie wrote:
| It looks like a morose Visual Studio icon
| Steltek wrote:
| Cisco WebEx, really
|
| https://www.google.com/search?q=webex+logo&tbm=isch
|
| https://www.google.com/search?q=meta+logo&tbm=isch
| yuuu wrote:
| Wouldn't one side sag lower than the other?
| valleyjo wrote:
| Sorry but I just don't like this name. The rebrand seems
| appropriate given the expanded ambition. What was wrong with
| horizon?
| ngokevin wrote:
| Because it starts with M and has 4 letters.
| narrator wrote:
| I read that META means "Make Everything Trump Again."
| tigerlily wrote:
| And it's an anagram of meat.
| lvl100 wrote:
| I don't get the hype around metaverse. It's between Zuck and
| Jensen. Sure those two guys can push a lot of eyes and start
| something but the products simply do not exist. It's as if
| they're living in this fantasy world to create...Habbo Hotel for
| 2025.
| judge2020 wrote:
| The metaverse they have a vision for won't exist, but social VR
| is on the rise, even if it won't take over everyday life.
| VRChat consistently has 25k players these days and that's not
| including the amount of people playing it on Quest devices.
| Duralias wrote:
| The official VRChat Discord bot reports the true player
| numbers and while it isn't very high now "27997", on weekends
| I have seen it reach near 50k.
|
| There are as many people playing it on Quest as there are on
| Steam, which is wild considering just how many more Quest
| owners without a gaming PC there must be.
| [deleted]
| kerng wrote:
| This blog post seems to get some fundamentals wrong.
|
| Alphabet is just a holding (that's also why the name is rather
| boring), Google didnt wanna damage it's on brand by rebranding
| everything. There is no need, its positive and people like it.
|
| Facebook tries to distract from its negative press to give the
| company an entire Facelift.
|
| Many people are already updating that they work at Meta and not
| Facebook anymore on LinkedIn - quite interesting to observe.
|
| Most Googlers or people working at one of the Alphabet companies
| would proudly state they work at Google to this day.
| mrkramer wrote:
| Article doesn't mention but Zuck wanted to acquire Unity because
| he thought Unity will be future VR/AR engine/platform and
| Facebook wants to own it and not be at the mercy of Apple and
| Google.
|
| I don't know why he didn't pursue it if he is so sure in
| Metaverse VR/AR thing.
| acomjean wrote:
| It's unreal.
|
| Fortnite seems to have the virtual event model working pretty
| well. Movies and concerts with friends and random annoying
| people jumping around.. but it does work,
| astlouis44 wrote:
| Mark my words, Meta is going to acquire Epic Games so they can
| own of the major content creation engines for the metaverse.
|
| Not to mention all that sweet, sweet game developer data and
| owning one of the most popular social multiplayer games out
| there today.
| mrkramer wrote:
| Epic's valuation is around $30bn and Facebook has the cash to
| do it but arrogant Epic founder and CEO Tim Sweeney would
| never sell to big bad Facebook. Maybe he gives in and sells
| to Facebook because they have common enemies(Apple and
| Google).
|
| FTC is another problem but they would probably allow this
| acquisition no matter how big it is because Facebook is not
| in the business of making video games or game engines.
|
| Besides owning Fortnite and major content creation engines
| for the metaverse like you said another good synergy is
| boosting Facebook's Twitch and YouTube Gaming competitor
| Facebook Gaming with Epic's expertise.
| ryandrake wrote:
| As much as I am _not_ a FB fan, I give Zucc credit for dedicating
| an entire keynote to his vision of the future. What are all the
| other tech companies ' visions for the future? Who knows! They
| never talk about the future. Apple almost never talks about
| anything more than a month away. Their vision of the future?
| Looks like it's probably: a brand new phone, similar to and
| released precisely one year after the previous one... forever and
| ever. What's Amazon's vision of the future? Continue N% YoY
| growth for online shopping and cloud...forever. Google's? Ads on
| moar surfaces...forever?
|
| Zucc said this is our future vision for end users, here's what
| and why. Whether or not you like the idea or company, at least he
| stuck his neck out and articulated it.
| gordon_freeman wrote:
| > "Apple almost never talks about anything more than a month
| away. Their vision of the future? Looks like it's probably: a
| brand new phone, similar to and released precisely one year
| after the previous one... forever and ever. "
|
| This is a very narrow way to look at Apple's future products
| and innovation. A lot of things Apple has done over the years
| such as introducing Macs with M1 chips, focusing on fitness
| (ex: ECG monitoring) and privacy based features, widespread
| adoption of contactless payments through services like Apple
| Pay are all great innovations in their own rights.
| [deleted]
| donclark wrote:
| Agreed, but just like with Tesla (Elon Musk) is it more for
| marketing purposes? I get the actual intent with Tesla (Elon
| Musk). Not so with Zucc. Is Zucc playing a game that he is not
| showing us?
| dangoor wrote:
| > Apple almost never talks about anything more than a month
| away. Their vision of the future? Looks like it's probably: a
| brand new phone, similar to and released precisely one year
| after the previous one... forever and ever.
|
| This is just because Apple never _talks_ about future things,
| but they certainly have a picture internally. Plenty of
| reporting supports the existence of AI /VR glasses of some sort
| and a car of some sort being designed within Apple.
| christoz wrote:
| Amazon and Apple referring to customers, customers don't care
| about the vision, they care about the products, on the other
| hand Facebook has a different relationship,There is a Founder
| that is leading a company that refers to users although
| sometimes dangerously they call them "our people". A company
| with a leader of 3 billions people, sorry users. I wouldn't
| give credit to that.
| heavyset_go wrote:
| > _What are all the other tech companies ' visions for the
| future?_
|
| I can't say that I care at all about what trillion dollar
| companies' visions of the future are.
| shadowgovt wrote:
| It can be useful, if for no other reasons than to understand
| their actions better.
|
| Google believes in a customized, personal assistant in every
| pocket: a you-shaped facet of a gem that is all the data on
| the Internet. Getting there involves understanding what "you-
| shaped" looks like, hence all the data harvesting.
| avs733 wrote:
| I would go further and say that us being excited, and it
| being newsworthy, when a CEO's vision of the future is shared
| is deeply troubling. Their incentives are only aligned with
| society at the absolute loosest level.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-10-29 23:01 UTC)