9 ms·

I just can't imagine ever buying something like this from Facebook. I know everyone shits on about Google being bad and whatnot, but the things I buy from Googl

by dools 2y ago

I just can't imagine ever buying something like this from Facebook. I know everyone shits on about Google being bad and whatnot, but the things I buy from Google aren't really part of their advertising business. I pay for Workspace and Google Cloud Platform, and those things don't advertise at me. I am more likely to cruise around already logged into Google as a result of using those things, which obviously plays into their ad business, but those products that I pay for aren't vehicles for advertising and I don't think Google would ever try to make them that. Likewise, Apple does obviously advertise some of their own services (like iCloud backup) in mildly annoying ways through their devices, but by and large I'm buying a thing from them and only to the extent that I am engaged with one of their Apps (like TV+ or Music) do they try and advertise at me. In neither case are their platforms inherently about advertising. Facebook just strikes me as a fundamentally different company. Even if I were to pay them for these glasses I would have no confidence that it wasn't just a gigantic suckhole being fed into their slush fund of data.

rty32 2y ago
Guess what? Most people who end up buying this product won't care about any of these. (P.S. Apple is much worse than you think. Look up Apple's first party tracking.)
- deutschepost 2y ago
  There is always a comment saying Apple is much worse than people think compared to Facebook or Google. But there are never any Sources. Google and Facebook track you wherever you go on the internet. You can't get away from it. Apple only shows ads in their App Store. And you can turn off Apples tracking in their Settings. How is that "Much worse than you think"?
  - manojlds 2y ago
    Nitpick, but the comment said Apple is worse compared to what people think of Apple.
    - ffsm8 2y ago
      I don't think that's a nitpick, that kinda voids their point entirely. Apple is a lot worse then most of their users believe - but even at their worst, they're leagues more privacy focused and less invasive then Google, Facebook and Microsoft are. But they're still getting worse every year, and the time when they were actually torchbearers for privacy have slowly faded over the years as MBAs have strengthened their hold on the company and Steve Jobs influence waned.
      - buran77 2y ago
        It's still of value to have companies that have different incentives even if they will still try to prey on you, if only because you get to spread your digital footprint among competing companies rather than allies. Going back to Apple, their stance on privacy is more geared towards their internal consumption (abuse?) than towards privacy violation-as-a-service for sale. That's not great but I'll take anything I can get. I know what I'm sharing with Apple is up for grabs by them to use "against" me. And I know the same is true for Google of Facebook, so no real difference here. The problem is the next level, where what I share with someone else is up for grabs by Google or Facebook, or the other way around. This huge web of data collection and sharing is the big problem, not the posts that I'm volunteering to give to FB or the emails I choose to host with Google. In other words, when you talk to me alone you choose to give me the information, you're aware I will use it in some way to shape my actions. If you tell me your phone broke, I'll offer to sell you my spare, and you won't turn red that I used the info. But if a stranger shows up at your door a minute later to sell you a phone we're suddenly having a different conversation. Same if you go to a pharmacy on the other side of town to buy some medication and the moment you make the payment I send you a text offering my regrets for your illness. "A lot worse" can mean very different things if you talk in relative or absolute terms, or if you think some practices are just as bad as others.
        illiac786 2y ago
        I have a simple (simplistic maybe) way of ranking the tech giants for privacy: how much of their revenue is ads. Facebook is the worst (98% I believe), followed by google (~90% last time I checked). Apple is in the “least worst” category by this metric for now, but they are slipping.
  - fsflover 2y ago
    > There is always a comment saying Apple is much worse than people think compared to Facebook or Google. But there are never any Sources I'm not sure about much worse. It may depend on your own threat model. But here you go: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25074959 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25074959 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41184153 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41184153 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40006508 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40006508 https://sneak.berlin/20231005/apple-operating-system-surveillance/ https://sneak.berlin/20231005/apple-operating-system-surveil... https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34299433 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34299433 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26639261 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26639261 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26644216 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26644216
    - paulcole 2y ago
      One of those links is a self-described conspiracy theory and another flat out says Google is worse. Personally, I don’t think Apple is bad at all relative to Google/Meta and I’m probably technically “wrong” but those links don’t do much to prove it.
      - fsflover 2y ago
        Perhaps you should be more specific about the links, then I could reply to you. > and another flat out says Google is worse This one I can guess. Google is worse indeed, except they do not advertise themselves as "Android is privacy". This is why Apple is worse.
        paulcole 2y ago
        Did you not read your own links before posting them lol? > Mind you, this is definitionally a conspiracy theory; please don’t let the connotations of that phrase bias you, but please feel free to read this (and everything else on the internet) as critically as you wish. https://sneak.berlin/20231005/apple-operating-system-surveillance/ https://sneak.berlin/20231005/apple-operating-system-surveil... I will admit that this sentence was easy to miss, hidden deeply at the start of the second sentence of the piece. These links are just all Apple Does A Thing HN Dislikes and I just don’t think any of those things is particularly bad.
  - boppo1 2y ago
    >Google and Facebook track you wherever you go on the internet I wonder if everyone's porn habits will one day leak
- taneq 2y ago
  Does Apple buy my transaction records from Mastercard to cross reference against my chat and email logs? (Serious question, I hope not though.)
  - nox101 2y ago
    they don't need to buy the transactions. they have apple pay that integrates your cards into their system. then they push apple pay everywhere both offline and on. eventually they will own all the data
    - threeseed 2y ago
      Apple says that they don't tie transaction data to you personally. But that they do use it for marketing purposes alongside the obvious fraud prevention. https://www.apple.com/legal/privacy/data/en/apple-pay/#:~:text=To%20help%20improve%20Apple%20Pay,does%20not%20identify%20you%20personally https://www.apple.com/legal/privacy/data/en/apple-pay/#:~:te....
      - mrguyorama 2y ago
        That's one of those little white lies. Sure, they don't "tie your transaction data to you personally", but they absolutely do. Every purchase you've ever made on the internet has been deanonymized to a globally unique "Device ID". The companies that manage those device ids absolutely have your entire online interaction history, everything. It only takes about 30 bits of entropy to perfectly deanonymize everyone, and I know of many companies that have been doing it for at least a decade or more. And it works very very well.
    - happyopossum 2y ago
      > they have apple pay that integrates your cards into their system A feature which they've loudly and publicly said many many times they can't use for tracking your purchases, as they anonymize the data before it gets to them. Apple has a long history of not using user-generated data for their own use, sometimes to their own detriment.
- Angostura 2y ago
  As far as I know Apple’s first party tracking allows it to 1. Show ads for apps in AppStore 2. Show ads in the News app. What else are you thinking of?
- threeseed 2y ago
  Almost every single website and app in the world has some level of first party tracking. There is nothing at all wrong with it since you are a direct user of the product or service.
  - manojlds 2y ago
    They do use it to show ads in App Store and News though?
  - fsflover 2y ago
    Not FLOSS apps.
    - jodrellblank 2y ago
      https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/privacy-preserving-attribution https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/privacy-preserving-attr... How to turn off the opt-out thing in Firefox 128 which gathers data on your browsing and sends it to third parties.
      - fsflover 2y ago
        Technically, Firefox is not FLOSS, according to FSF.
        jraph 2y ago
        This statement would need more details. Firefox is in the repositories of most Linux distros' main repositories, most of which only allow free software. With this option enabled, unfortunately. Now, even if technically true for the official distribution (because I don't know, the DRM part, or something like this, although technically, I believe it is not part of this distribution, it is downloaded by open source code on first use), this seems like a weak rebuttal.
        fsflover 2y ago
        https://www.gnu.org/distros/free-distros.en.html https://www.gnu.org/distros/free-distros.en.html
fleischhauf 2y ago
I wouldn't be so sure about google not being inherently about getting all your data. apple I'm not so sure.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
andreilys 2y ago
but those products that I pay for aren't vehicles for advertising and I don't think Google would ever try to make them that. Advertising is 80% of Google's business. If you think those things aren't being factored into their ads model.... Idk what to tell you.
- teractiveodular 2y ago
  Google very publicly commits that enterprise customers (GCP, Workspace) have their data firewalled off from ads. If you have evidence to the contrary, there are many, many companies and governments that would like to know.
  - threeseed 2y ago
    A lot of enterprise companies use Google Analytics and run Google Ads. And it's always been very grey about exactly where that data ends up.
WA 2y ago
That is kinda like saying "I pay for FB ads and WhatsApp business, and these things doesn’t advertise at me". Google has "build an ad profile about every human being" in their DNA just like Facebook, employing similar creepy tactics with Gmail and Chrome.
greatwhitenorth 2y ago
[flagged]
- phs318u 2y ago
  > You are all clowns who don't live in the real world. From the HN Guidelines: "Be kind. Don't be snarky" https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
chipdart 2y ago
> Facebook just strikes me as a fundamentally different company. Even if I were to pay them for these glasses I would have no confidence that it wasn't just a gigantic suckhole being fed into their slush fund of data. I agree, and to that I would add the way they've been contributing, if not actively engaged, to push reality-denying propaganda from hostile third parties, including state actors.
gigel82 2y ago
Data collection is not only bad because of advertising; that's the most visible annoyance to us, but I'd argue that the kinds of data collection that Google (and especially Apple) enable can be orders of magnitude more harmful (things like client side scanning of content, location tracking even with the phone turned off and these all-knowing AI datasets that are just a query away from learning the most intimate things about you).
- threeseed 2y ago
  > client side scanning of content This only happens for photos that were going to be sent to iCloud where all photos are scanned server side. It's hilarious to me that this feature which is actually a privacy win for consumers got so heavily criticised.
  - fsflover 2y ago
    There is no privacy win in this feature: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28309202 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28309202
camgunz 2y ago
I take a totally different position than you do. If I can't think of a technical reason Google can't get data from something, I assume they do. Why do you think otherwise? Google's full of exactly the same rapacious MBA types that Facebook is, and has the exact same obligations to its shareholders. They're essentially the same business (trap users in your services to mine their data and show them ads). I honestly see very little difference.
- rbetts 2y ago
  I find the MBA hate on HN so weird. The founders and leaders of these companies are technologists first. We need to look in the mirror - there's no dodge that software developers, not MBAs, have built these invasive, addictive, misleading, and dangerous products.
  - westmeal 2y ago
    The MBAs tell them to build invasive, addictive misleading and dangerous products and they have to do it otherwise the software developer gets replaced with another one that will do the job.
  - tremon 2y ago
    MBA's are almost never first-time founders. You can find them circling above these companies and positions only after a company has become successful, looking to extract more "value" out of an already-existing (and usually captive) userbase.
  - camgunz 2y ago
    Sorry if "MBA" is distracting, rapacious is what I was hoping would be the main thing.
mrighele 2y ago
This looks to me like a consumer product, so it you should compare it to Google's similar products, not enterprise ones. Does Google stop tracking you when you pay for Youtube Premium ? When you buy a Pixel phone ? Like you, I do think that in general Facebook is an evil company, more than the others mentioned, but I don't think that if Google were able to produce a similar consumer device, they would track me any less
uldos 2y ago
The fundamentally different aspect is also at the user end - you need fb account to run these gadgets, spend money associated with this account and when someone tries to “hack” that account (because it is public), you loose it without a chance to ever get back the account or money. There is no way how to contact any living person for support, most you can get is their faq. I cannot imagine such situation with gmail.
lucideer 2y ago
Agree with the sibling commenter here, this stance baffles me. Google have been caught breaking the law on data collection enough times at this stage that there's absolutely no reason to ever assume they aren't being as invasive & insidious as they can be in their products. I think people seem to give Google a free pass because so much of their presence in our lives is implicit/invisible but they are so much more embedded than Facebook could ever be.
tim333 2y ago
People with the Meta Quest 3 seem happy enough. I've used Facebook for years and the worst that's happened is they've tried to show me some ads. I can live with the forces of evil knowing I've put up "hi mum, here's my hol pics" etc.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
olalonde 2y ago
I actively avoid Facebook URLs because I don't want to see all my unread Messenger/Facebook notifications.
marcosdumay 2y ago
I wouldn't buy something like this that I can not control. And yeah, I do expect that if Google sells it, there's a chance they will allow me to control it, but if it's Facebook, there's no chance at all. But in either case, the product is too intrusive to concede control to those companies.
hinkley 2y ago
My first thought was, “does Meta have a user base anymore that would be interested in this?” Who is their early adopter demographic? Someday old people will use VR for escape but only when they are the late adopters. Zuckerberg has lost his damn mind. But don’t tell him that, I want the full Willie Wonka experience.

by dools 2y ago

rty32 2y ago

Guess what? Most people who end up buying this product won't care about any of these. (P.S. Apple is much worse than you think. Look up Apple's first party tracking.)

deutschepost 2y ago
There is always a comment saying Apple is much worse than people think compared to Facebook or Google. But there are never any Sources. Google and Facebook track you wherever you go on the internet. You can't get away from it. Apple only shows ads in their App Store. And you can turn off Apples tracking in their Settings. How is that "Much worse than you think"?
- manojlds 2y ago
  Nitpick, but the comment said Apple is worse compared to what people think of Apple.
  - ffsm8 2y ago
    I don't think that's a nitpick, that kinda voids their point entirely. Apple is a lot worse then most of their users believe - but even at their worst, they're leagues more privacy focused and less invasive then Google, Facebook and Microsoft are. But they're still getting worse every year, and the time when they were actually torchbearers for privacy have slowly faded over the years as MBAs have strengthened their hold on the company and Steve Jobs influence waned.
    - buran77 2y ago
      It's still of value to have companies that have different incentives even if they will still try to prey on you, if only because you get to spread your digital footprint among competing companies rather than allies. Going back to Apple, their stance on privacy is more geared towards their internal consumption (abuse?) than towards privacy violation-as-a-service for sale. That's not great but I'll take anything I can get. I know what I'm sharing with Apple is up for grabs by them to use "against" me. And I know the same is true for Google of Facebook, so no real difference here. The problem is the next level, where what I share with someone else is up for grabs by Google or Facebook, or the other way around. This huge web of data collection and sharing is the big problem, not the posts that I'm volunteering to give to FB or the emails I choose to host with Google. In other words, when you talk to me alone you choose to give me the information, you're aware I will use it in some way to shape my actions. If you tell me your phone broke, I'll offer to sell you my spare, and you won't turn red that I used the info. But if a stranger shows up at your door a minute later to sell you a phone we're suddenly having a different conversation. Same if you go to a pharmacy on the other side of town to buy some medication and the moment you make the payment I send you a text offering my regrets for your illness. "A lot worse" can mean very different things if you talk in relative or absolute terms, or if you think some practices are just as bad as others.
      - illiac786 2y ago
        I have a simple (simplistic maybe) way of ranking the tech giants for privacy: how much of their revenue is ads. Facebook is the worst (98% I believe), followed by google (~90% last time I checked). Apple is in the “least worst” category by this metric for now, but they are slipping.
- fsflover 2y ago
  > There is always a comment saying Apple is much worse than people think compared to Facebook or Google. But there are never any Sources I'm not sure about much worse. It may depend on your own threat model. But here you go: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25074959 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25074959 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41184153 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41184153 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40006508 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40006508 https://sneak.berlin/20231005/apple-operating-system-surveillance/ https://sneak.berlin/20231005/apple-operating-system-surveil... https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34299433 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34299433 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26639261 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26639261 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26644216 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26644216
  - paulcole 2y ago
    One of those links is a self-described conspiracy theory and another flat out says Google is worse. Personally, I don’t think Apple is bad at all relative to Google/Meta and I’m probably technically “wrong” but those links don’t do much to prove it.
    - fsflover 2y ago
      Perhaps you should be more specific about the links, then I could reply to you. > and another flat out says Google is worse This one I can guess. Google is worse indeed, except they do not advertise themselves as "Android is privacy". This is why Apple is worse.
      - paulcole 2y ago
        Did you not read your own links before posting them lol? > Mind you, this is definitionally a conspiracy theory; please don’t let the connotations of that phrase bias you, but please feel free to read this (and everything else on the internet) as critically as you wish. https://sneak.berlin/20231005/apple-operating-system-surveillance/ https://sneak.berlin/20231005/apple-operating-system-surveil... I will admit that this sentence was easy to miss, hidden deeply at the start of the second sentence of the piece. These links are just all Apple Does A Thing HN Dislikes and I just don’t think any of those things is particularly bad.
- boppo1 2y ago
  >Google and Facebook track you wherever you go on the internet I wonder if everyone's porn habits will one day leak
taneq 2y ago
Does Apple buy my transaction records from Mastercard to cross reference against my chat and email logs? (Serious question, I hope not though.)
- nox101 2y ago
  they don't need to buy the transactions. they have apple pay that integrates your cards into their system. then they push apple pay everywhere both offline and on. eventually they will own all the data
  - threeseed 2y ago
    Apple says that they don't tie transaction data to you personally. But that they do use it for marketing purposes alongside the obvious fraud prevention. https://www.apple.com/legal/privacy/data/en/apple-pay/#:~:text=To%20help%20improve%20Apple%20Pay,does%20not%20identify%20you%20personally https://www.apple.com/legal/privacy/data/en/apple-pay/#:~:te....
    - mrguyorama 2y ago
      That's one of those little white lies. Sure, they don't "tie your transaction data to you personally", but they absolutely do. Every purchase you've ever made on the internet has been deanonymized to a globally unique "Device ID". The companies that manage those device ids absolutely have your entire online interaction history, everything. It only takes about 30 bits of entropy to perfectly deanonymize everyone, and I know of many companies that have been doing it for at least a decade or more. And it works very very well.
  - happyopossum 2y ago
    > they have apple pay that integrates your cards into their system A feature which they've loudly and publicly said many many times they can't use for tracking your purchases, as they anonymize the data before it gets to them. Apple has a long history of not using user-generated data for their own use, sometimes to their own detriment.
Angostura 2y ago
As far as I know Apple’s first party tracking allows it to 1. Show ads for apps in AppStore 2. Show ads in the News app. What else are you thinking of?
threeseed 2y ago
Almost every single website and app in the world has some level of first party tracking. There is nothing at all wrong with it since you are a direct user of the product or service.
- manojlds 2y ago
  They do use it to show ads in App Store and News though?
- fsflover 2y ago
  Not FLOSS apps.
  - jodrellblank 2y ago
    https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/privacy-preserving-attribution https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/privacy-preserving-attr... How to turn off the opt-out thing in Firefox 128 which gathers data on your browsing and sends it to third parties.
    - fsflover 2y ago
      Technically, Firefox is not FLOSS, according to FSF.
      - jraph 2y ago
        This statement would need more details. Firefox is in the repositories of most Linux distros' main repositories, most of which only allow free software. With this option enabled, unfortunately. Now, even if technically true for the official distribution (because I don't know, the DRM part, or something like this, although technically, I believe it is not part of this distribution, it is downloaded by open source code on first use), this seems like a weak rebuttal.
        fsflover 2y ago
        https://www.gnu.org/distros/free-distros.en.html https://www.gnu.org/distros/free-distros.en.html

fleischhauf 2y ago

I wouldn't be so sure about google not being inherently about getting all your data. apple I'm not so sure.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

andreilys 2y ago

but those products that I pay for aren't vehicles for advertising and I don't think Google would ever try to make them that. Advertising is 80% of Google's business. If you think those things aren't being factored into their ads model.... Idk what to tell you.

teractiveodular 2y ago
Google very publicly commits that enterprise customers (GCP, Workspace) have their data firewalled off from ads. If you have evidence to the contrary, there are many, many companies and governments that would like to know.
- threeseed 2y ago
  A lot of enterprise companies use Google Analytics and run Google Ads. And it's always been very grey about exactly where that data ends up.

WA 2y ago

That is kinda like saying "I pay for FB ads and WhatsApp business, and these things doesn’t advertise at me". Google has "build an ad profile about every human being" in their DNA just like Facebook, employing similar creepy tactics with Gmail and Chrome.

greatwhitenorth 2y ago

[flagged]

phs318u 2y ago
> You are all clowns who don't live in the real world. From the HN Guidelines: "Be kind. Don't be snarky" https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

chipdart 2y ago

> Facebook just strikes me as a fundamentally different company. Even if I were to pay them for these glasses I would have no confidence that it wasn't just a gigantic suckhole being fed into their slush fund of data. I agree, and to that I would add the way they've been contributing, if not actively engaged, to push reality-denying propaganda from hostile third parties, including state actors.

gigel82 2y ago

Data collection is not only bad because of advertising; that's the most visible annoyance to us, but I'd argue that the kinds of data collection that Google (and especially Apple) enable can be orders of magnitude more harmful (things like client side scanning of content, location tracking even with the phone turned off and these all-knowing AI datasets that are just a query away from learning the most intimate things about you).

threeseed 2y ago
> client side scanning of content This only happens for photos that were going to be sent to iCloud where all photos are scanned server side. It's hilarious to me that this feature which is actually a privacy win for consumers got so heavily criticised.
- fsflover 2y ago
  There is no privacy win in this feature: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28309202 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28309202

camgunz 2y ago

I take a totally different position than you do. If I can't think of a technical reason Google can't get data from something, I assume they do. Why do you think otherwise? Google's full of exactly the same rapacious MBA types that Facebook is, and has the exact same obligations to its shareholders. They're essentially the same business (trap users in your services to mine their data and show them ads). I honestly see very little difference.

rbetts 2y ago
I find the MBA hate on HN so weird. The founders and leaders of these companies are technologists first. We need to look in the mirror - there's no dodge that software developers, not MBAs, have built these invasive, addictive, misleading, and dangerous products.
- westmeal 2y ago
  The MBAs tell them to build invasive, addictive misleading and dangerous products and they have to do it otherwise the software developer gets replaced with another one that will do the job.
- tremon 2y ago
  MBA's are almost never first-time founders. You can find them circling above these companies and positions only after a company has become successful, looking to extract more "value" out of an already-existing (and usually captive) userbase.
- camgunz 2y ago
  Sorry if "MBA" is distracting, rapacious is what I was hoping would be the main thing.

mrighele 2y ago

This looks to me like a consumer product, so it you should compare it to Google's similar products, not enterprise ones. Does Google stop tracking you when you pay for Youtube Premium ? When you buy a Pixel phone ? Like you, I do think that in general Facebook is an evil company, more than the others mentioned, but I don't think that if Google were able to produce a similar consumer device, they would track me any less

uldos 2y ago

The fundamentally different aspect is also at the user end - you need fb account to run these gadgets, spend money associated with this account and when someone tries to “hack” that account (because it is public), you loose it without a chance to ever get back the account or money. There is no way how to contact any living person for support, most you can get is their faq. I cannot imagine such situation with gmail.

lucideer 2y ago

Agree with the sibling commenter here, this stance baffles me. Google have been caught breaking the law on data collection enough times at this stage that there's absolutely no reason to ever assume they aren't being as invasive & insidious as they can be in their products. I think people seem to give Google a free pass because so much of their presence in our lives is implicit/invisible but they are so much more embedded than Facebook could ever be.

tim333 2y ago

People with the Meta Quest 3 seem happy enough. I've used Facebook for years and the worst that's happened is they've tried to show me some ads. I can live with the forces of evil knowing I've put up "hi mum, here's my hol pics" etc.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

olalonde 2y ago

I actively avoid Facebook URLs because I don't want to see all my unread Messenger/Facebook notifications.

marcosdumay 2y ago

I wouldn't buy something like this that I can not control. And yeah, I do expect that if Google sells it, there's a chance they will allow me to control it, but if it's Facebook, there's no chance at all. But in either case, the product is too intrusive to concede control to those companies.

hinkley 2y ago

My first thought was, “does Meta have a user base anymore that would be interested in this?” Who is their early adopter demographic? Someday old people will use VR for escape but only when they are the late adopters. Zuckerberg has lost his damn mind. But don’t tell him that, I want the full Willie Wonka experience.