2 ms·

Meta alone could have solved like 50% of famines/heavy malnutrition currently happening in the world if they used their metaverse budget to do something useful.

Meta alone could have solved like 50% of famines/heavy malnutrition currently happening in the world if they used their metaverse budget to do something useful. And they'd still be so rich they wouldn't know what to do with the leftovers. No one "needs" to push for that bullshit metaverse, the real world isn't shitty enough, yet, apparently they're dead set and achieving that, for people to wish to live in a computer.

cloudflare728 1y ago
You don't understand how money works. They are not burning money, they are employing people like you directly or through 3rd party partner companies. The beneficiaries can decide themselves how to spend money. They can live a good life or help others.
- lm28469 1y ago
  Ah yes, they're just redistributing the money, the trickle down economy right ? They're basically a non profit humanitarian association at that point
  - cloudflare728 1y ago
    Profit or loss is out of the equation. Somehow Facebook getting a huge amount of money. They are distributing that money to a million people (directly or indirectly to employees, share holders, employees of 3rd party partners). Some people are getting billions and some are getting $100s. Instead of handful of people in Facebook management deciding to be humanitarian, you now have a million people deciding what to do with their portion. It is that simple.
- throw-10-8 1y ago
  Still living in the 80's? Seems like you are the one with an outdated model of how money works. Over the last couple decades it has been moving up at an ever increasing rate instead of down.
- stubish 1y ago
  Money buys labour. That labour could be in service to ending world hunger. That labour could be in service to creating bullshit. Both approaches leave workers with money in their pocket, letting them engage in that game of prisoners dilemma we call charity.
reassess_blind 1y ago
It would be interesting to see how much of a difference a lump sum of $50 billion would make, or not make, to long term world hunger. It’s a lot of money, but the WFP has spent more than that in the past 10 years on the problem. A lot of the issues with world hunger aren’t easy solved by throwing more money at it. Politics, logistics, corruption etc. It can’t be solved without money either, of course. Not to say that money couldn’t be better spent elsewhere than the metaverse.
- hansmayer 1y ago
  If you take money for what it should be - a measure of work invested towards achieving a result, then yes, I suppose we could get a lot done with people employed out of that 50B working towards the goal of ending the world hunger. Heck, I'd even argue building a moon base with that money would have been a better investment than the crap the "magnificent 7" is pushing on us.

cloudflare728 1y ago

You don't understand how money works. They are not burning money, they are employing people like you directly or through 3rd party partner companies. The beneficiaries can decide themselves how to spend money. They can live a good life or help others.

lm28469 1y ago
Ah yes, they're just redistributing the money, the trickle down economy right ? They're basically a non profit humanitarian association at that point
- cloudflare728 1y ago
  Profit or loss is out of the equation. Somehow Facebook getting a huge amount of money. They are distributing that money to a million people (directly or indirectly to employees, share holders, employees of 3rd party partners). Some people are getting billions and some are getting $100s. Instead of handful of people in Facebook management deciding to be humanitarian, you now have a million people deciding what to do with their portion. It is that simple.
throw-10-8 1y ago
Still living in the 80's? Seems like you are the one with an outdated model of how money works. Over the last couple decades it has been moving up at an ever increasing rate instead of down.
stubish 1y ago
Money buys labour. That labour could be in service to ending world hunger. That labour could be in service to creating bullshit. Both approaches leave workers with money in their pocket, letting them engage in that game of prisoners dilemma we call charity.

reassess_blind 1y ago

It would be interesting to see how much of a difference a lump sum of $50 billion would make, or not make, to long term world hunger. It’s a lot of money, but the WFP has spent more than that in the past 10 years on the problem. A lot of the issues with world hunger aren’t easy solved by throwing more money at it. Politics, logistics, corruption etc. It can’t be solved without money either, of course. Not to say that money couldn’t be better spent elsewhere than the metaverse.

hansmayer 1y ago
If you take money for what it should be - a measure of work invested towards achieving a result, then yes, I suppose we could get a lot done with people employed out of that 50B working towards the goal of ending the world hunger. Heck, I'd even argue building a moon base with that money would have been a better investment than the crap the "magnificent 7" is pushing on us.