[HN Gopher] Chan Zuckerberg Initiative sunsetting science resear...
___________________________________________________________________
Chan Zuckerberg Initiative sunsetting science research platform
meta.org
Author : nefitty
Score : 168 points
Date : 2021-10-31 05:19 UTC (17 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (cziscience.medium.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (cziscience.medium.com)
| ChuckMcM wrote:
| Well clearly they couldn't afford to by meh.com :-)
| leeoniya wrote:
| is this effectively the closing off of apis that can be used for
| conducting unfavorable research on facebook's data?
| threatofrain wrote:
| CZI's Meta was a competitor to Google Scholar. The data is a
| bunch of information on academic journals.
| leeoniya wrote:
| ah, too many Metas to keep track of in this new metaverse
| sharken wrote:
| And if it wasn't enough, there is a new Matrix movie out
| soon.
|
| On a more serious note, it's not likely that the Meta name
| will have any bigger impact than Google and it's Alphabet
| branding.
|
| I don't see Facebook.com going away, just the amount of
| links alone will keep it alive for many years to come.
| duud wrote:
| I disagree. Alphabet has no clear connection to their
| current or future business plans. They don't even own
| alphabet.com. Meta on the other hand is the best possible
| metaverse name and was announced alongside a $10/billion
| year VR budget. It was a smart rebrand as Instagram and
| WhatsApp have just as many users as FB and Oculus (now
| Meta) may soon too.
| Talanes wrote:
| > _Meta on the other hand is the best possible metaverse
| name_
|
| It's not like we all use search.com. Having an on the
| nose name doesn't necessarily mean having a good one.
| duud wrote:
| Meta is more open ended than search.com. It could just as
| easily be a bar or art gallery as a $100 trillion dollar
| virtual empire. You are right that a great name can only
| take you so far, ultimately you have to have a
| competitive product.
|
| Fortunately for Meta they already have a market leading
| VR product and a $10 billion annual budget to maintain
| that lead. As someone who has spent several thousand
| hours studying names and recently bought FB stock, I am
| delighted with the change.
| zozbot234 wrote:
| Meta.org was effectively a database index of scholarly
| authors, citations and topics, as opposed to full text
| search. A more modern effort along these same lines would be
| Scholia https://scholia.toolforge.org/ based on the openly-
| available Wikidata knowledge graph.
| supermatt wrote:
| we made a tool to help researchers, but now the husband of the
| founder likes the name so we are shutting down so he can use it
| to avoid the negative publicity associated with his companies
| current name.
| teruakohatu wrote:
| Has Facebook applied for, or acquired, trademarks on the use of
| Meta?
| NiceWayToDoIT wrote:
| I don't understand how can you trademark common words, even in
| the case of Apple? Is it difference between Apple and apple?
| impulser_ wrote:
| Because it doesn't really matter. Its not like you can't use
| the word Apple anymore. You can even use it in your company
| name if you aren't making computer goods/services.
| gondo wrote:
| So basically moving to a different domain and freeing up space
| for FB Meta.
| benatkin wrote:
| It seems they're effectively giving it to Meta.com for free, by
| shuttering the similarly named site. The reasoning makes sense,
| but it's too convenient. I'm sure they got advice from lawyers
| though. They have plenty.
|
| Eventually meta.org will probably be sold to meta.com, but the
| price will be lower because it isn't in use.
| dannyw wrote:
| CZI is a for profit company, not a non-profit.
| vmception wrote:
| The long game
| twobitshifter wrote:
| Meta.com was already owned by CZI. I wonder how much Facebook
| paid to the CZI for the domain? I assume they'll also have to
| pay for meta.org.
| [deleted]
| josefx wrote:
| > I'm sure they got advice from lawyers though.
|
| I love how that is the default assumption when international
| companies often just screw the law outright and then try to
| obstruct both court decisions and their enforcement for
| decades.
| benatkin wrote:
| That's why I said "advice from lawyers" and not "legal
| advice". It isn't about following the law but managing the
| consequences.
| mkl95 wrote:
| > As part of this transition, the technology powering Meta will
| remain available to the community; we will support access to the
| Meta application and associated services, including the Digests
| and API, through March 31, 2022.
|
| So, summing it up, Facebook has just been renamed to Meta, but
| until March 31, 2022 it will coexist with Meta[.org], which is
| led by Zuckerberg's wife, who has coincidentally decided to shut
| her project down a few days Meta was announced.
| jimhi wrote:
| If it isn't clear, they acquired the Meta.com and trademarks in
| 2017 with their non profit:
| https://techcrunch.com/2017/01/23/chan-zuckerberg-initiative...
|
| And today we see the domain points directly to their for-profit
| company which they may not have paid a "fair" price. I'm sure it
| wasn't so clearly planned, but it certainly seems like a conflict
| of interest.
|
| These types of domains can go for 6+ figures which seems like a
| drop in the bucket for Facebook.
|
| EDIT: I was mistaken. As several pointed out - The initiative is
| not a non profit at all. The domain is more of an opportunistic
| move.
|
| I'm still not sure how happy I would be if my company was
| acquired with the promise of "making my research search engine
| free to all" only to be shutdown down and used to help Facebook
| PR problems and market cap 4 years later.
| moksly wrote:
| I'm not sure 7 or 8 figures really matter to a company the size
| of Facebook.
|
| I worked in a medium sized municipality in Denmark, and when
| your budget is 9 billion Danish KR, well let's just say that
| you treat expenses differently in enterprise, and we were still
| a small player compared to our bigger partners on the state
| level who could sign contracts larger than our entire budget
| without batting an eye.
|
| (I'm not English, maybe batting an eye is the wrong expression,
| if so sorry!)
|
| I'm not saying it wasn't planned, but it may just be a "happy"
| coincidence.
| Andrew_nenakhov wrote:
| TIL Demmark doesn't use Euro.
| dijit wrote:
| Neither does Sweden: fwiw.
| Thev00d00 wrote:
| I'm British; we would say "batting an eyelid". So correct
| usage in my book!
| eutectic wrote:
| I'm English and I've always seen it as 'bat(ting) an eye'.
| I don't think I've often heard it said though.
| jjallen wrote:
| In American English we just say "batting an eye".
| headsoup wrote:
| That would hurt!
| godelski wrote:
| It's the same thing. Just drop the "lid"
| jjallen wrote:
| Yes, I have been wondering what that even means. So many
| idioms and phrases don't make sense (ignoring the fact
| that some are historically outdated which is the cause of
| some of them not making sense)
| bookofjoe wrote:
| https://www.idioms.online/not-bat-an-eye/
| JohnBooty wrote:
| Well, then "opening your eyes" would hurt even more,
| right? But we still say that, and everybody understands.
|
| When we say "batting an eye", "opening an eye", etc it's
| clear that we're talking about eye _lids_ since the
| alternative would be very painful and make no sense.
|
| Colloquially, when we refer to "eyes", we're almost
| always referring to _the facial structure through which
| the eyeball is visible_ and almost never the literal
| eyeball itself.
|
| I mean, when you say somebody has attractive eyes, surely
| it's understood that you're not referring to the
| spherical ball of goo itself, but rather their facial
| structure.
| robwwilliams wrote:
| Try this old idiomatic phrase: "beating the boundary".
|
| Once you have made your guess as to the meaning, then and
| only then link to Wikipedia for a marvelous explanation
| from a not-so merry old England.
| webmaven wrote:
| Basically, it means 'without blinking'.
| blagie wrote:
| No, but they matter on the other side. If I am selling to a
| nonprofit to save the world, I'll give a different price than
| to a for-profit.
|
| There ought to be a meta.com shareholder suit.
| ImprovedSilence wrote:
| Maybe you would, but most of the "free market" real world
| out there wouldn't. Or if they did you can be sure it was a
| tax write off as a loss at least.
| vanilla_nut wrote:
| Your English usage is spot on. I read your whole comment
| without batting an eye at any strange constructions :)
| lmc wrote:
| CZI is an LLC funded by 99% of the Zuckerbergs' FB shares[1].
| Isn't the domain transfer effectively just an admin exercise?
|
| [1] https://www.reuters.com/article/us-markzuckerberg-baby-
| idUSK...
| mike_d wrote:
| If CZI were a non-profit they would have lost that status
| with this transaction. Per the IRS: "activities should not
| serve the private interests, or private benefit, of any
| individual or organization more than insubstantially."
|
| They may have exploited the generally held assumption of
| being a public benefit organization to gain an advantage in
| the sale of the domain. For example if the Gates Foundation
| approached me about one of my domains and it later ended up
| in the hands of Microsoft, I'd be quite upset.
| whoknowswhat11 wrote:
| Absolutely false on the loss of status. Folks quoting law
| here on HN tend to ironically be wrong about how things
| work.
|
| If you can afford some lawyers this is routinely done at
| varying degrees of morality and fairness.
| KennyBlanken wrote:
| Acquiring a major asset with a 501c3's funds and then
| selling it to a director or officer below market value is
| very clearly private inurement and absolutely should
| result in their "charity" getting its status revoked.
|
| If you have evidence otherwise, present it.
| whoknowswhat11 wrote:
| Have you presented any evidence whatsoever? None? Ahh.
| Very illuminating!
|
| Let's be crystal clear here. While theoretical options
| exist for a charity to have its status revoked, in
| practice the IRS has not been able to use this authority
| except in the most narrow circumstances.
|
| For example, a director of a hospital chain buys property
| for below market value, and the minutes say - "property
| worth $100M, to scam the IRS we will sell it for $1M".
| That's as clear cut as you can get it. The problem was -
| the blowback political and public impact in shutting down
| a major university, a hospital chain, the AARP, the NYSE,
| the animal shelter etc was just too high for the IRS to
| exercise this "death penalty" option. In theory the rule
| existed, but in practice it wasn't usable.
|
| This is an issue generally with nonprofits, even when
| they do wrong, it can be very hard to go after them for
| political and other reasons. Steven Miller, acting
| commissioner of the entire IRS, lost his job pointing out
| that many tea party groups were political in nature.
|
| As a result, the IRS came to a solution, called
| intermediate sanctions under Section 4958. This is
| actually a great solution. The insider who cheated the
| public is the one who has to pay in contrast to your
| demands that an entire nonprofit be shut down and
| thousands lose their jobs, and all the harm closing a
| hospital might cause.
|
| They still claim they can revoke status and they can
| (maybe). But in practice even in blatent cases, this is
| rare / very unlikely because you punish the public
| relying on the charity, the employees etc, and revoking
| the status does nothing to get the $ back from the person
| who got the sweetheart deal.
|
| You can read about it on the IRS's website if you care
| to:
|
| https://www.irs.gov/charities-non-profits/charitable-
| organiz...
|
| Separately, plenty of nonprofits sell major assets to
| related for profits or even turn into for-profits. And as
| I said, if you hire some attorney's and are not complete
| idiots, the IRS generally does not act, even when things
| get pretty close to the line.
|
| I'm noticing more and more of a sort of "reddit" style of
| comment on HN. Very strong held, demanding, providing no
| evidence or speaking pretty clearly without any
| profession or other background in a field. It's eye
| rolling frankly. If anything, insider deals have
| unfortunately been increasing pretty dramatically in the
| last 5 years because IRS enforcement staffing for things
| like exempt entities, especially after tea party issues,
| has fallen through the floor. So right now we have
| horrible abuses occurring (syndicated conservation
| easements come to mind as a total scam in my book).
|
| Remember, the IRS is something like a year behind even
| getting to their tax exempt mail. Check the notice here
| for period after which they may not have even looked at
| anything.
|
| https://www.irs.gov/charities-non-profits/tax-exempt-
| organiz...
| jefftk wrote:
| The Gates foundation is a 501c3, not an LLC.
| neximo64 wrote:
| When you sell its not yours anymore. You could keep 5% as
| "schucks insurance" if youre unsure youre being tricked.
| bookofjoe wrote:
| "Owning something means you can sell it."--anonymous
| cma wrote:
| > The initiative is not a non profit at all.
|
| Since his wife is involved it still seems like corrupt self-
| dealing. What kind of public corporation owns a "Wife-Founder
| Initiative"? Are these monarchies?
| whoknowswhat11 wrote:
| Um, they are married and they are his shares? Many people
| share resources with their partners?
|
| Only on HN is this "corrupt self dealing".
| cma wrote:
| You can't just do favors for family with the corporate
| treasury because you own some large part of the shares or
| even because you have voting control. Minority shareholders
| have rights. It isn't his piggybank.
|
| Do you think a corporate treasury could be used to directly
| throw a CEO's daughter a wedding celebration?
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiduciary#Fiduciary_duties_un
| d...
|
| "The duty of loyalty requires control persons to look to
| the interests of the company and its other owners and not
| to their personal interests. In general, they cannot use
| their positions of trust, confidence and inside knowledge
| to further their own private interests or approve an action
| that will provide them with a personal benefit (such as
| continued employment) that does not primarily benefit the
| company or its other owners."
| whoknowswhat11 wrote:
| Yes you can. If you own the shares, you can give them to
| someone, or to an LLC. That is what happened here.
|
| You may be confusing spending corporate money on an
| initiative with the stock used to setup CZI (which was
| Zuckerberg's to do with as he wished).
|
| BTW - in CA which is a community property state, this
| type of thing is not uncommon - all sorts of trusts,
| business etc take donated shares (sometimes unsold for
| tax reasons).
|
| In terms of facebook - worth noting that Zuckerberg
| controls the voting power.
|
| This came up when facebook "overpaid" for instragram by
| giving a small company of 13 employees $1B, which was
| unheard of at the time.
|
| This was a major corporate governance scandal in some
| circles because the board wasn't consulted. So I read
| plenty of notes like yours! Outrage!
|
| "CEO Mark Zuckerberg made the company's largest
| acquisition ever without consulting his board of
| directors, according to an account in today's Wall Street
| Journal."
|
| I mention this because you would be amazed at what even
| companies without voting control in one person's hands
| will let an executive do if the executive claims it will
| advance the interests of the company.
|
| Own race cars or teams, lease jets, start a research
| institute. All allowed in most cases even in other
| companies (and yes, spouses are often in the mix).
|
| Anyways, there will be another case soon on this - Tesla
| shareholders (some) are suing claiming Elons plans /
| purchase of solar and doing the solar energy business was
| self dealing (Solar City was basically bust, but Elon
| wanted to move fast, knew and trusted many of the solar
| city folks, so bought them instead of some chinese
| company that might have been better on paper). I think
| the case is weak, but we will see.
|
| The disclosure here that matters potentially is a warning
| to purchasers of Facebook shares:
|
| "As a stockholder, even a controlling stockholder, Mr.
| Zuckerberg is entitled to vote his shares, and shares
| over which he has voting control as a result of voting
| agreements, _in his own interests_ , which may not always
| be in the interests of our stockholders generally"
|
| This metaverse thing is going to be another bet not
| everyone would go along with, and independent investors
| ALREADY voted Zuckerberg off as board chair - which made
| no difference as he could ignore their wishes.
| cma wrote:
| Ok, the way I read it, CZI was a subsidiary. Still, they
| have to sell the name at fair market value if they are
| wholly separate companies, letting Google get a bid, etc.
| if they want to stay above board.
| [deleted]
| MildlySerious wrote:
| I was recently quoted 2m for a 6 letter .com of a dictionary
| word when I inquired about it.
|
| For a 6 letter .sh, also a dictionary word, I paid 250 bucks.
| dmd wrote:
| I have a two letter .org but in 25 years of using it as my
| primary domain name not one financial offer for it has turned
| out to be in good faith / not spam.
| webmaven wrote:
| Is it a two-letter word or common abbreviation, or just two
| random letters?
| dmd wrote:
| Sadly the latter. 3e.org
| robtaylor wrote:
| You also now have a XXXXXX.sh rather than XXXXXX.com :)
|
| Good domains on .com or relevant local tld such as .co.uk are
| worth snapping up.
| MildlySerious wrote:
| You're right of course, I wasn't trying to weigh them
| against each other. The .sh is for a pet project. I just
| added it to the comment because I happened to have that
| data point available from around the same time.
| duud wrote:
| Meta.com is a 7-8 figure domain in this market. This year
| metaverse.io sold for $175k and meta.so sold for $149k.
| jimhi wrote:
| The value of domains at these prices are like startups. They
| are bought, not sold and based entirely on if a company with
| money wants it badly enough.
|
| I agree on your assessment that it would likely have been 7
| figures. 8 if they knew it was Facebook.
|
| For reference, I have bought/sold ZipX.com, Pedal.com,
| Shotput.com, etc
| rnotaro wrote:
| I don't know how much you sold shotput.com but it's still
| in sale.
| GDC7 wrote:
| > The value of domains at these prices are like startups.
| They are bought, not sold and based entirely on if a
| company with money wants it badly enough.
|
| Except for used cars, real estate, bonds and stocks...
| every other asset is "bought and not sold" these days.
|
| Sellers of an asset which is not in the list above don't
| even have a platform to tell the world that they are
| selling that particular thing.
| jazzyjackson wrote:
| I figure they wanted to announce a rebrand and dug around in
| their box of acquisitions and said "hey, meta.com, neat!"
| datavirtue wrote:
| Indeed, it sounds like an eighth grade project.
| colechristensen wrote:
| If you don't want to dislike what is done with "your" company,
| don't sell.
|
| It often seems like the ability to sell companies isn't in the
| best interests of a very large number of people.
| [deleted]
| cloudking wrote:
| It's interesting that they were able to secure the @meta social
| media handle on Twitter but not on their own Instagram platform
|
| https://twitter.com/meta
|
| https://instagram.com/meta
| wavefunction wrote:
| Presumably the owner of the Instagram handle was not interested
| in selling it. I suppose Zuckerberg could have seized it but
| that's a heck of a way to get your rebranding effort going.
| killthebills wrote:
| Can we just execute the billionaires already? I'm fed up of our
| world being controlled by these parasitic abusers.
| stemc43 wrote:
| So everyonene OK with saying sunsetting instead of shutting down
| now?. Even though its clearly a corporate-speak?. Are we gonna be
| so easily manipulated?
| KerryJones wrote:
| This is the standard talk for any part of any program being
| shutdown (including internally among small engineering teams).
| Part of the difference is a "shutdown" can be a rough cut-off
| so people relying on the services don't have much help in the
| matter, sunsetting is a longer time period that allows you to
| transition out of using any services.
| wavefunction wrote:
| I'd prefer "deprecated" which is what the teams I've worked
| on used. That's an actual programming term as a bonus.
| KerryJones wrote:
| Pedantically they are similar but not the same.
| https://nordicapis.com/how-to-smartly-sunset-and-
| deprecate-a...
| jpe90 wrote:
| This is very clever satire of the sad state of internet
| discourse, well done.
| stemc43 wrote:
| thanks - I put 0 efforts into almost all my post
| seanhunter wrote:
| I don't think it's corporate-speak. To my understanding the use
| of "sunset" as a verb comes from law where contracts and laws
| sometimes have "sunset clauses" ensuring they become defunct at
| a certain defined point in the future.
|
| From there, "to sunset" something seems a fairly logical next
| step.
| quotha wrote:
| Umm, so it will come back up the next day?
| jonplackett wrote:
| It amuses me that a company literally founded from pinching
| someone else's idea still surprises people when it acts
| dubiously.
| moate wrote:
| Especially when the idea being pinched was _checks notes_ a way
| to objectify women in a super gross way.
| deltron3030 wrote:
| I'm wondering how Apple reacts as the owners of Metaio, who were
| one of the first companies and brands in the AR space starting in
| 2003 (aquired by Apple in 2015):
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaio
|
| Having the domain is one thing, having the rights to use the
| brand name another if it's the same niche (which is certainly the
| case here). Or do rights to the brand name expire once companies
| get aquired?
|
| If they still hold the rights they could try to block their
| future main competitor in the AR space..
| aristus wrote:
| Heh. Ask Apple Records about that. Apple Inc, which publicly
| admits to being named after the record company, violated their
| agreement not to get into the music business, _twice_.
| ralfd wrote:
| > twice
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Corps_v_Apple_Computer
|
| First:
|
| > In 1986, Apple Computer added MIDI and audio-recording
| capabilities to its computers, which included putting the
| advanced Ensoniq 5503 DOC sound chip from famous synthesizer
| maker Ensoniq into the Apple IIGS computer. In 1989, this led
| Apple Corps to sue again, claiming violation of the 1981
| settlement agreement.[2] _The outcome of this litigation
| effectively ended all forays at the time by Apple Computer
| into the multimedia field in parallel with the Amiga, and any
| future advanced built-in musical hardware in the Macintosh
| line._
|
| This is ludicrous! Whatever harm the british Apple Corp had
| through a computer with a sound chip, this doesn't compare to
| the hinderance of the Mac.
|
| Second:
|
| > In 1991, another settlement involving payment of around
| $26.5 million to Apple Corps was reached.[4] This time, an
| Apple Computer employee named Jim Reekes had included a
| sampled system sound called Chimes to the Macintosh operating
| system
|
| I don't agree that putting a system sound in System 7 is
| "going into the music business".
|
| Interestingly, when Apple got into the music business they
| won:
|
| > On 8 May 2006 the court ruled in favour of Apple
| Computer,[8] with Justice Edward Mann holding that "no breach
| of the trademark agreement [had] been demonstrated".[9][10]
|
| Anyway, after that Apple Inc finally was able to buy Apple
| Corp out for allegedly $500 Million.
|
| Whatever you think about trademark conflict, it did cost
| Apple Inc heavily.
| jliptzin wrote:
| When you have all the money in the world you don't get
| bothered by petty details like that.
| cblconfederate wrote:
| I really dislike their appropriation of the word meta, metaverse
| etc. Can we please have a public campaign to rename it to
| something like metaface or metabook or metaplasteradsinyoface ?
| It's a disgrace really. Especially they way that their keynotes
| failed to mention any of the hundreds of projects before them.
| itronitron wrote:
| Metastasize seems like a good option, although I'm optimistic
| that the whole meta move is going to throw FB into remission.
| mxmilkiib wrote:
| I've seen metaverse-interesred folk somewhere on Reddit say
| they might move to saying "hyperverse" instead.
| [deleted]
| dylan604 wrote:
| Sure, as soon as you raise enough money to combat their war
| chest, you can do whatever you want. Otherwise, your dislike
| bounces off of their teflon-like suit coated with "I don't care
| about you".
| cblconfederate wrote:
| The perception that big tech's power is above everyone and
| the law only helps to make their position more authoritarian
| bmitc wrote:
| Unfortunately, it's not a perception. It's practical
| reality.
|
| I'm in full agreement regarding their coopting of the word
| meta.
| dylan604 wrote:
| In this case, money is power and big tech has all the
| money. The field is tilted in their favor in an even more
| extreme manner than David v Goliath. No mere mortal could
| even afford to fight them via litigation. Fighting them
| legislatively is also Sisyphean as they can afford much
| better lobbyists.
|
| Sometimes, perception is reality.
| cblconfederate wrote:
| i was just making a meta comment
|
| but honestly you re describing a system that would be
| self-annihilating if one has no legal recourse from
| money. I don't think that's the case or else america
| would be a bad place for business
|
| The rest of the world doesnt depend on US courts. Apple
| has lost trademark battles before.
| nbzso wrote:
| >We did this by mapping biomedical knowledge to help researchers
| learn a new area or keep up-to-date in a field through precise
| and flexible feed design, personalized ranking, and surfacing the
| broadest array of research outputs.
|
| This is it. Moneymaking in 21 century. Surveillance capitalism in
| its finest. Manufacturing consent with "science" and "there is no
| other option" narrative.
|
| The next logical step after "collecting" users data and
| "normalizing" biometrical surveillance is Genetic Capitalism.
| 23andme is one of this "outlets" of future like Gattaka.
| jessfyi wrote:
| Uh meta is (was) just a version of Google Scholar with an
| emphasis on biomedical publications and better tools for
| scientists and clinicians to keep track of it all. Not sure
| that warrants your conspiratorial rant?
| nbzso wrote:
| Conspiratorial rant? Please. It is question of when, not how.
| Last time I checked, tracking and surveillance are
| normalized. People like to participate in "technology
| experiments". After Snowden what is changed in general?
| Nothing special. You have listening devices like Alexa &
| Echo, one web browser - Chrome, Ring, and people love it. So
| it is very logical, moving forward genetic tech to create a
| new "market" and people to love it.:)
| lmeyerov wrote:
| I empathize with your concern, so it may help to understand
| how modern science works: scientists like these tools and a
| key (and required) part or their job is to work with them.
|
| Bibliometrics spans multiple scientific fields of research
| , eg, philosophy of science, and an important practical
| area that emerged are tools like Google scholar that are
| one of the key tools to how scientists work today.
|
| A scientist might skim 50+ papers for the background needed
| into every 1 paper they the write (and many more
| abstracts), so STEM researchers spend a LOT of time in
| tools like Google Scholar. Likewise, part of the job of a
| scientist is to disseminate their results to other
| scientists, so part of the writing process is to carefully
| adhere to bibliography conventions explicitly so tools like
| these can help make your work more accessible.
| greg wrote:
| I worked on meta.org for a year starting in 2017 soon after it
| was acquired by CZI. There was no sign that I saw that the domain
| was ever destined for Facebook.
|
| Uninteresting as it may be, I take the reason for the shut down
| at face value. From what I saw, meta.org never did as well as was
| expected, and other competitive services were doing better,
| notably Semantic Scholar.
|
| To be sure, the exact timing probably had something to do with
| FB's announcement, and the shared ownership of the two
| organizations probably helped the domain sale go smoothly.
| lvl100 wrote:
| People cringe at Zuck but what he's doing is nothing compared to
| what's happening on the crypto scene.
| LurkingPenguin wrote:
| People cringe at the crypto guys but what they're doing is
| nothing compared to what [ Hitler/Pol Pot/Joseph Stalin/Idi
| Amin/Muammar Gaddafi/Saddam Hussein/Ivan the Terrible ] did.
| [deleted]
| jessfyi wrote:
| Regularly check on meta, saw the announcement, and figured they'd
| change the name so they can transfer the .org and .ai names to
| the main company. Didn't expect them to just shutdown the team
| altogether. With their May/June updates (where they started to
| track and index beyond just papers) I thought they were actually
| onto something.
| zorpner wrote:
| I've no doubt that this is all above-board and legal, but it's an
| insult to the intelligence of their readers to assert that this
| is for any reason other than Facebook's name change to Meta.
| jmnicholson wrote:
| Meta (a great name) was a very promising startup a few years back
| in scholarly publishing. It had successfully analyzed millions of
| articles to help with discovery of research. It's a shame it is
| being shuttered but there are a lot of tools out there now doing
| similar things and in many cases much much more:
|
| scite.ai (I am co-founder) semantic scholar
| NiceWayToDoIT wrote:
| It is interesting on the first page of meta.org there is title
| "Covid-19: Trump's "distraction" by the 2020 election led to
| thousands of deaths, says pandemic response adviser."
|
| Is that really a science? And does it mean beginning of the war
| between Truth.Social and Meta (Facebook)?
| pezzana wrote:
| What a confusing article. Zuckerberg is the name I associate with
| Facebook. Meta is the rebranded name for the company.
|
| Meta.org is a thing that was supposed to "...give researchers,
| patient communities, science societies, and research
| organizations more ways to discover the research they need."
| Being involved in research I have never once heard of this thing.
|
| What connection does this have to the rebranding of Facebook?
| It's the elephant in the room that this article lacks the common
| sense or courage to address.
| _fat_santa wrote:
| I would assume, if meta.com points to Facebook's corporate
| site, they will likely want to redirect meta.org to meta.com.
| They currently redirect facebook.org to facebook.com.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-10-31 23:02 UTC)