13 ms·
Zuckerberg Announces Fantasy World Where Facebook Is Not a Horrible Company
- algebraically 5y agoIt just occurred to me that Zuckerberg is always running away from reality. It's kinda weird.
- smt88 5y agoWhy would one of the wealthiest and most powerful humans ever to live want to run from reality? He is literally above the law. He has no consequences for anything. He seemingly has no conscience. I can't imagine a more pleasant world for him to dream of than the one he is currently gripping by its throat.
- algebraically 5y agoI don't think he's an evil villain. I really do think he's constantly running away from reality. It's why he created Facebook in the first place. It was meant to replace real world social interactions.
- anthk 5y agoIs he mentally ill because of a rejection?
- algebraically 5y agoI'm not a psychologist, I just play one on HN so I don't know but it's definitely weird that he keeps trying to use technology to replace reality.
- smt88 5y agoLiterally all of his bad behavior can be explained by greed. What reason do we have to believe there's anything else motivating him?
- algebraically 5y agoI don't think he's greedy either. He thinks connecting people over the internet is good and that just happens to be a very lucrative business.
- me_me_me 5y agoDo you actually believe in PR prepared statements by famous people? Like a speech by politicians was actually written by them and it reflects their believes. Judge people by their actions and not words, that the most reliable predictor of whats in their head. If someone says they are for X, and they do the opposite of X for Y reason, would you trust them that they actually are for X?
- esarbe 5y agoThis company should have been broken up long ago.
- missedthecue 5y agoInto what? All your problems with FB would be remediated if the government forced them to IPO Instagram and Whatsapp as separate companies?
- JulianMorrison 5y agoWhich demonstrates the error of allowing companies to exist as long as they're "competitive" with no requirement that they play nice with others.
- iakov 5y agoNot all of them, but that would slow down their hypnotizing ad-feed machine. Baby steps into this direction are way better than the metaverse bullshit that we'll see in a few years down the road IMO.
- missedthecue 5y agoWould it? How do you think a standalone Instagram would make money? It would still be run by the same management, maintained by the same developers, and still owned in part by Zuckerberg. The only thing that would change is that Instagram devs W-2s would say Instagram inc instead of Facebook inc
- franczesko 5y agoI think, that the first step should have been treating social media platforms as media companies. This would be enough to hold them accountable for their impact on the society.
- vanattab 5y agoHow so? What would this change?
- rllearneratwork 5y agothat media coverage though ...
- pelasaco 5y agoThat's so woke, weird and awkward. Zuckerberg, trying to be natural, the interview, the interviewer, the parties, the people.. I hope that isn't our future as civilization.
- truculent 5y agoWhat do you mean by woke in this context?
- pelasaco 5y agothe whole first introduction video, for instance. Nothing is organic.
- truculent 5y agoI don’t think I understand. It’s woke because it is not organic?
- pwinnski 5y agoOP either doesn't understand the term, or is trying to decontextualize it. Hypernormalization[0] in action. 0. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=thLgkQBFTPw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=thLgkQBFTPw
- pelasaco 5y agoHyperNormalisation is a great way to describe it and would fit too, however nobody knows it today, which is a shame. Regarding, woke as a term, the term meaning changed along the years. As i used here, was as the Economist described it[1]: "outlook on a host of issues as well as on race". For me sounds like whoever produced this video, had a checklist of groups that should be seem, maybe yes giving up on the complex "real world" and built a simpler "fake world" to avoid bad PR on Twitter (which is per se, a fake world). [1] https://www.economist.com/the-economist-explains/2021/07/30/how-has-the-meaning-of-the-word-woke-evolved https://www.economist.com/the-economist-explains/2021/07/30/...
- alex_young 5y agoIsn't this the backstory for the show Made for Love? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lvWgNSLIULw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lvWgNSLIULw
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- istorical 5y agoWe live in a world where all of our major journalists release fun, high-five-everybody-look-at-how-shit-this-thing-is mockery pieces for every new mistake by a tech company but where are the front page Vice pieces, Washington Post articles, or NYT exposés when Johnson and Johnson sells 33,000 bottles of baby power with asbestos in them? Why wasn't Johnson and Johnson's CEO dragged in front of congress, why don't we hear constant calls to break up Johnson and Johnson? This is just one example, but it's hilarious to see the outrage, the snide articles and nose-turned-up comments, while we conveniently ignore the worst industries that are destroying our planet, the slave labor that goes into all of our physical products, the poison that often finds its way into them, or the destruction they are wreaking on nature. As a site dominated by tech industry employees, it's time that people working in tech stop simply nodding their heads when people shift the cultural spotlight on corporate malfeasance onto tech's bully target of the year/decade, over and over and over again. We get it, social media is fucked up. Great. Now, where are the Frances Haugen's of BigChemical or BigCPG? Why aren't they household names? Why aren't we collectively outraged they aren't at congressional hearings? This piece by Vice absolutely embodies the snide tone, the absolute derision with which we decided it's OK to paint Facebook. That's well and good, Facebook isn't great, but doing so while turning a blind eye to far greater crimes is a crime that itself ought to be castigated. A journalists mission is in part to embody the Fourth Estate - to be a watchdog. When all journalism does is stand around the classroom and pat each other on the back and point at the dunce-hat wearing stooge of the decade making obvious mistakes in an echo chamber while ignoring the subtle crimes of the popular kid, it's worthy of the same snide comments itself.
- jl6 5y agoIncreasingly, media consumers don’t know anything about chemistry, or industry, or manufacturing, or have any contacts in that world, which, to be fair, is increasingly outsourced, subcontracted, offshored, and inaccessible. But they do spend a lot of time on Facebook, so media spends more time writing about Facebook because they know their audience will understand it (and click on it).
- supercanuck 5y agoJ&J poisoning babies doesn't make Facebook less bad. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism
- jkingsbery 5y agoOn the plus side, we got a hilarious headline out of the project.
- dmonitor 5y agoAny online "metaverse" where users cannot be their fursona is doomed to fail. If I wanted to be a human, I'd just stay in the meatspace. The digital realm has infinite opportunities, so what kind of person would spend their life as a mii, but creepier?
- anthk 5y agoFursonas date back to MUD times. It would be a silly mov.
- wyclif 5y agoWhy is this story flagged?
- wcoenen 5y agoThe video showed a couple different styles of avatar, including one that was a robot. I don't see why "furry" wouldn't be an option.
- rhn_mk1 5y agoI think the concept of a fursona extends to more than the style of the avatar. It can go as far as a unique personality.
- VRay 5y agoI'm not a furry, but I definitely appreciate the ability to be anonymous online.
- lapetitejort 5y agoRegardless of how pseudonymous facebook allows a person to be on various 'verses, they're still linked back to a facebook-mandated real name account. If a person's persona edges too close towards stockholder's disapproval, your name suddenly disappears from a large chunk of the online world. Anonymous accounts must exist forever.
- 5y ago
- TedShiller 5y agoA better name would be Total Surveillance Company
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- transitory_pce 5y agoRemember: Facebook grew from a core product that was essentially a "better" copy of numerous existing products. Same for the Google. Starting entirely new things is not their strength. And it is not the strength of people working in mega corps. So you get nonsense like this, or if they do only after many years by hiring from scrappy hungry startups who solve the problem first.. If you build anything remotely Metaverse related and it works you will get acquired, because now.. the Metaverse _needs to_ succeed. And they're not going to do it with the people who work there.
- algebraically 5y agoFacebook/Meta is a consumer company. All the worthwhile applications of remote presence are going to be in industrial spaces that combine robotics with VR. I see no way that Facebook/Meta will do anything worthwhile or useful in that space.
- JetSpiegel 5y ago> Facebook/Meta is a consumer company. There's not a single consumer that ever spent 1 dollar on Facebook. It's an advertising company, doing websites and chat apps on the side.
- algebraically 5y agoHow is advertising not about consumption? Facebook enables consumer activity so it's a consumer company. It does not build industrial robots or enable industrial production of any form.
- mads 5y agoIts neither. Their core product is surveillance.
- zarkov99 5y agoWhat a joke. The only difference between FB and Twitter is that all these virtuous jornos are on Twitter day and night, signaling to each other. FB is being singled out for destruction because it has not yet caved in to the party line and started censoring all the speech the ruling elite deems wrong.
- eigengrau5150 5y agoIt ain't the real metaverse unless I can use a 50ft tall talking penis with a katana in each hand as my avatar.