11 ms·
Chan Zuckerberg Initiative sunsetting science research platform meta.org
- leeoniya 5y agois this effectively the closing off of apis that can be used for conducting unfavorable research on facebook's data?
- threatofrain 5y agoCZI's Meta was a competitor to Google Scholar. The data is a bunch of information on academic journals.
- leeoniya 5y agoah, too many Metas to keep track of in this new metaverse
- sharken 5y agoAnd 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 5y agoI 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 5y ago> 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 5y agoMeta 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.
- Talanes 5y ago>It could just as easily be a bar or art gallery as a $100 trillion dollar virtual empire. "Meta" the bar or art gallery actually makes far more sense than "Meta" the tech company. Search would be a great name for a bar too. Generic industry terms make far more immediate sense when used outside the industry. Meta just feels like a company in 1999 naming itself "Internet." But, it doesn't matter because Facebook has the resources to make any bad idea stick.
- zozbot234 5y agoMeta.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/ https://scholia.toolforge.org/ based on the openly-available Wikidata knowledge graph.
- jessfyi 5y agoRegularly 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.
- killthebills 5y agoCan we just execute the billionaires already? I'm fed up of our world being controlled by these parasitic abusers.
- gondo 5y agoSo basically moving to a different domain and freeing up space for FB Meta.
- benatkin 5y agoIt 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.
- josefx 5y ago> 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 5y agoThat's why I said "advice from lawyers" and not "legal advice". It isn't about following the law but managing the consequences.
- dannyw 5y agoCZI is a for profit company, not a non-profit.
- vmception 5y agoThe long game
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- twobitshifter 5y agoMeta.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.
- jimhi 5y agoIf 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-meta/ 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.
- duud 5y agoMeta.com is a 7-8 figure domain in this market. This year metaverse.io sold for $175k and meta.so sold for $149k.
- jimhi 5y agoThe 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 5y agoI don't know how much you sold shotput.com but it's still in sale.
- GDC7 5y ago> 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.
- zorpner 5y agoI'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.
- nbzso 5y ago>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 5y agoUh 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 5y agoConspiratorial 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 5y agoI 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.
- teruakohatu 5y agoHas Facebook applied for, or acquired, trademarks on the use of Meta?
- NiceWayToDoIT 5y agoI don't understand how can you trademark common words, even in the case of Apple? Is it difference between Apple and apple?
- impulser_ 5y agoBecause 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.
- mkl95 5y ago> 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.
- cblconfederate 5y agoI 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.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- itronitron 5y agoMetastasize seems like a good option, although I'm optimistic that the whole meta move is going to throw FB into remission.
- dylan604 5y agoSure, 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 5y agoThe perception that big tech's power is above everyone and the law only helps to make their position more authoritarian
- dylan604 5y agoIn 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 5y agoi 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.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- NiceWayToDoIT 5y agoIt 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)?
- deltron3030 5y agoI'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 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 5y agoHeh. 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 5y ago> twice https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Corps_v_Apple_Computer 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.
- stemc43 5y agoSo everyonene OK with saying sunsetting instead of shutting down now?. Even though its clearly a corporate-speak?. Are we gonna be so easily manipulated?
- seanhunter 5y agoI 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 5y agoUmm, so it will come back up the next day?
- KerryJones 5y agoThis 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 5y agoI'd prefer "deprecated" which is what the teams I've worked on used. That's an actual programming term as a bonus.
- KerryJones 5y agoPedantically they are similar but not the same. https://nordicapis.com/how-to-smartly-sunset-and-deprecate-apis/ https://nordicapis.com/how-to-smartly-sunset-and-deprecate-a...
- presentation 5y ago
- jonplackett 5y agoIt amuses me that a company literally founded from pinching someone else’s idea still surprises people when it acts dubiously.
- moate 5y agoEspecially when the idea being pinched was checks notes a way to objectify women in a super gross way.
- lvl100 5y agoPeople cringe at Zuck but what he’s doing is nothing compared to what’s happening on the crypto scene.
- LurkingPenguin 5y agoPeople 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.
- greg 5y agoI 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.
- pezzana 5y agoWhat 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 5y agoI 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.
- supermatt 5y agowe 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.
- cloudking 5y agoIt'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://twitter.com/meta https://instagram.com/meta https://instagram.com/meta
- wavefunction 5y agoPresumably 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.
- ChuckMcM 5y agoWell clearly they couldn't afford to by meh.com :-)
- jmnicholson 5y agoMeta (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