# “Meta”



## Cmaier

Good luck with that, Zuck.


----------



## Renzatic

...oh god.


----------



## Deleted member 221

Was “Redskins” taken?

F Mark and F FB


----------



## Cmaier

In Hebrew, “meta” means “dead.”

So there’s that.


----------



## Scepticalscribe

Cmaier said:


> Good luck with that, Zuck.



Indeed.

But, fascinating, nevertheless.

Something tells me that the discarded name may have become a little too memorably toxic in the public eye and the public memory - not to mention some political establishments - for words.




Cmaier said:


> In Hebrew, “meta” means “dead.”
> 
> So there’s that.



And if that turns out to be true, I will wipe a tear from my eye, and suppress an unseemly snigger.


----------



## Eric

There's no polishing that turd, I don't care what you name it.


----------



## SuperMatt

Meat


----------



## Scepticalscribe

Eric said:


> There's no polishing that turd, I don't care what you name it.



Agreed.


----------



## Thomas Veil

From what I'm reading, it'll be the _company _name. Facebook, Instagram and all the other social media shitshows will continue to operate under their own names.

Sounds pretty much like when Google created Alphabet.


----------



## Cmaier

Thomas Veil said:


> From what I'm reading, it'll be the _company _name. Facebook, Instagram and all the other social media shitshows will continue to operate under their own names.
> 
> Sounds pretty much like when Google created Alphabet.



Yes but they are renaming the oculus products “meta”


----------



## DT

Congrats to whoever owned meta.com …


----------



## SuperMatt

DT said:


> Congrats to whoever owned meta.com …



I should buy meat.com for those who commit spellign erorrs.


----------



## Joe

SuperMatt said:


> I should buy meat.com for those who commit spellign erorrs.




Trump supporters


----------



## Cmaier

SuperMatt said:


> I should buy meat.com for those who commit spellign erorrs.




That’s why i bought spellign.com


----------



## fischersd

JagRunner said:


> Trump supporters



You're giving them too much credit.


----------



## DT

SuperMatt said:


> I should buy meat.com for those who commit spellign erorrs.




I had a couple of domains I sold way back in the day, no idea about current value, but in early 2000, $5K-10K for some, "who knows" domains was pretty sweet


----------



## Yoused

Cmaier said:


> In Hebrew, “meta” means “dead.”
> 
> So there’s that.



I recall that the highest paid writer in the word got something like a million dollars (back in the early '70s, that was pretty good money) for writing one word. The word was "Exxon" – he was hired to come up with a name that meant nothing in any language. Well, except for digital signaling, so I guess he sort of failed at his job.


----------



## thekev

Cmaier said:


> In Hebrew, “meta” means “dead.”
> 
> So there’s that.




Sometimes...dead is bettah. I think that holds for facebook.


----------



## Ulenspiegel

Cmaier said:


> In Hebrew, “meta” means “dead.”
> 
> So there’s that.



I have my visitation stones prepared...


----------



## Runs For Fun

This was a good read. Zuck is a monster








						Facebook's problem isn't its brand — it's Mark Zuckerberg
					

Facebook is trying to draw a line between its social media and its "metaverse" business — but with Mark Zuckerberg in charge that could be difficult.




					www.businessinsider.com
				




Changing their name isn't going to erase all of the negative views of Facebook that are really coming out strong now. Please just let Facebook die.


----------



## Eric

Nice!


__
		https://www.reddit.com/r/wallstreetbets/comments/qjw47o


----------



## chengengaun

> Shares in the company plummeted more than 20 per cent in pre-market trading on Thursday after Meta said it expected its first-quarter revenues to fall short of Wall Street forecasts because of the “increasing competition”. The tumble leaves Meta shares on track for their worst day since the group listed in 2012 and would mark one of the biggest one-day declines in a company’s market value on record.





> Whereas the Google owner has taken Apple’s recent privacy changes in its stride, Meta said it was still suffering from the new policies that make it harder to track users and target advertising.





> On top of “increased competition for people’s time”, Meta blamed the poor performance on “a shift of engagement within our apps”. It said people were watching more short-form videos that brought in less money than the advertising appearing in its feed.




FT: Investors wipe almost $200bn from value of Facebook owner Meta

https://on.ft.com/34cYLbW


----------



## Eric

chengengaun said:


> FT: Investors wipe almost $200bn from value of Facebook owner Meta
> 
> https://on.ft.com/34cYLbW


----------



## Cmaier

Apple privacy changes wipe $278 billion market value from 4 companies
					

A new report notes that since Apple announced privacy changes to iOS 14 last year, Meta, Snap, Pinterest, and Twitter have had $278 billion in market value wiped from their books.




					www.imore.com


----------



## SuperMatt

Cmaier said:


> Apple privacy changes wipe $278 billion market value from 4 companies
> 
> 
> A new report notes that since Apple announced privacy changes to iOS 14 last year, Meta, Snap, Pinterest, and Twitter have had $278 billion in market value wiped from their books.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.imore.com



It is my belief that Facebook’s popularity is fading. They are blaming Apple (and some in the press unquestioningly report such as fact), but this slide is not Apple’s doing. Even if people do think Apple’s changes made a difference, Meta claims such a change had a $10 billion effect, and the stock’s value dropped by 20x that… so investors have figured out it‘s a much bigger problem than “mean old Apple made it harder for us to get your private information for ads.”


----------



## SuperMatt

An interesting note about the stock crash. Many of Meta‘s employees are compensated with shares of stock in the company. They had a whole-company meeting to try and quell concerns from staff. A lot of people might quit now that they saw a 25% drop in their stock compensation in a day.


----------



## User.45




----------



## SuperMatt

I generally like the New York Times. However, one writer there that I feel gets a lot wrong is Brian X. Chen, a tech reporter. I believe he makes a lot of assumptions and often presents information to fit a preconceived narrative. It seems I’m not the only one...





__





						Facebook Blames Apple, So the New York Times Blames Apple — Pixel Envy
					

Here is a fascinating lesson in framing, courtesy Kate Conger and Brian X. Chen in a New York Times article headlined “A Change by Apple Is Tormenting Internet Companies, Especially Meta” (via Karl Bode): Apple’s vision of a more private web is not necessarily a more profitable one for internet...




					pxlnv.com
				






> Facebook should take a lesson from Pinterest and Snap in adapting to this (sic) changes rather than whining about them. The _Times_ should do better than treat them as a reliable narrator of the current ad climate.


----------



## User.45

One interesting thing and I think @Eric pointed it out that more and more sexually suggestive advertisement is popping up at FB. Usually that's a sign of a portal being in trouble. I have adblock on, so I don't even see timeline, but I turned it off a few times and I noted for a while since I'm more careful with the tracking stuff, the ad's have been increasingly off, but most recently, every single time I logged in, there was a female lingerie ad or last time I had a model wearing a T-shirt braless with nipples poking through. I've never ever seen an ad like that in my ca. 15 years on the platform.


----------



## Eric

__
		https://www.reddit.com/r/wallstreetbets/comments/sknt1m


----------



## Yoused




----------



## throAU

So, like 240bn knocked off meta's value in a day.


A good start.


----------



## Eric

We may be witnessing the fall of FB (Meta) as we know it.









						Mark Zuckerberg and team consider shutting down Facebook and Instagram in Europe if Meta can not process Europeans' data on US servers
					

If Meta is not given the option to transfer, store and process data from its European users on US-based servers, Facebook and Instagram may be shut down




					www.cityam.com


----------



## User.45

Eric said:


> We may be witnessing the fall of FB (Meta) as we know it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mark Zuckerberg and team consider shutting down Facebook and Instagram in Europe if Meta can not process Europeans' data on US servers
> 
> 
> If Meta is not given the option to transfer, store and process data from its European users on US-based servers, Facebook and Instagram may be shut down
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.cityam.com



It's as serious as if a robber threatened you with ritual suicide if you didn't let them rob you.


----------



## Cmaier

Eric said:


> We may be witnessing the fall of FB (Meta) as we know it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mark Zuckerberg and team consider shutting down Facebook and Instagram in Europe if Meta can not process Europeans' data on US servers
> 
> 
> If Meta is not given the option to transfer, store and process data from its European users on US-based servers, Facebook and Instagram may be shut down
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.cityam.com




”Sharing data between countries and regions is crucial for the provision of its services *and targeted advertising*, Meta stressed.”

Oh no! You mean if we don’t let you do this you won’t be able to show us creepy ads?!?! Well let me gut this privacy law immediately!


----------



## SuperMatt

Eric said:


> We may be witnessing the fall of FB (Meta) as we know it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mark Zuckerberg and team consider shutting down Facebook and Instagram in Europe if Meta can not process Europeans' data on US servers
> 
> 
> If Meta is not given the option to transfer, store and process data from its European users on US-based servers, Facebook and Instagram may be shut down
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.cityam.com



Europe: Please don’t throw us in the briar patch, Zuckerberg!


----------



## Runs For Fun

Eric said:


> We may be witnessing the fall of FB (Meta) as we know it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mark Zuckerberg and team consider shutting down Facebook and Instagram in Europe if Meta can not process Europeans' data on US servers
> 
> 
> If Meta is not given the option to transfer, store and process data from its European users on US-based servers, Facebook and Instagram may be shut down
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.cityam.com



Don't threaten me with a good time.


----------



## SuperMatt

Zuckerberg addressed the employees of Meta today... or should I call them *Metamates*?

https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1493658517571526656/


----------



## Runs For Fun

SuperMatt said:


> Zuckerberg addressed the employees of Meta today... or should I call them *Metamates*?
> 
> https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1493658517571526656/


----------



## Yoused

SuperMatt said:


> Zuckerberg addressed the employees of Meta today...



If Zuckhead is making mouth noises, it is all Meta-static.


----------



## Cmaier

I assume “meta” is short for “metastasize”


----------



## Scepticalscribe

Cmaier said:


> I assume “meta” is short for “metastasize”




Now, that is an angle that hadn't occurred to me.

Excellent.

And, now, this is the precise (and wonderfully apt) mental image that I shall gleefully summon whenever I hear any attempt by the foul entity formerly known as Facebook to use this utterly witless expression in lieu of their better known tainted (and compromised) name.


----------



## Yoused

Cmaier said:


> I assume “meta” is short for “metastasize”



I suspected it wae meant to evoke the image of wild animals going after each other in a garbage can (a zoo bin).



or is that just too obscure?


----------



## yaxomoxay

For those interested, Cal Newport discussed the Metaverse issue on today’s podcast.

Link her, starts at about minute 58:30. https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/deep-questions-with-cal-newport/id1515786216?i=1000551385024

He makes two points:
1) Classic Social Media has stopped his growth and is now going towards pure entertainment and fragmentation, which is something FB can’t really survive.

2) Based upon conversations with leading Silicon Valley people: Due to distributed cloud computing, and the advancement of technologies, we’re going towards a world in which one device (glasses or VR headset) is needed. If true, this would mean the end of all electronics as we know it today. No need for a TV (headset will create one for you), no need for a phone (headset will take care of it), no need for a computer (need a computer? The screen will be created in front of you by the headset) and so on. Cal explains it better in his podcast.


----------



## Renzatic

Cmaier said:


> Oh no! You mean if we don’t let you do this you won’t be able to show us creepy ads?!?!




God bless Big Brother. If it weren't for him watching everything I do, I might've had to go out of my way to order a new coffee maker.


----------



## Nycturne

yaxomoxay said:


> For those interested, Cal Newport discussed the Metaverse issue on today’s podcast.
> 
> Link her, starts at about minute 58:30. https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/deep-questions-with-cal-newport/id1515786216?i=1000551385024
> 
> He makes two points:
> 1) Classic Social Media has stopped his growth and is now going towards pure entertainment and fragmentation, which is something FB can’t really survive.
> 
> 2) Based upon conversations with leading Silicon Valley people: Due to distributed cloud computing, and the advancement of technologies, we’re going towards a world in which one device (glasses or VR headset) is needed. If true, this would mean the end of all electronics as we know it today. No need for a TV (headset will create one for you), no need for a phone (headset will take care of it), no need for a computer (need a computer? The screen will be created in front of you by the headset) and so on. Cal explains it better in his podcast.




Some interesting commentary there, although I remain somewhat skeptical that companies like Facebook are really looking that far ahead. Not when I see folks around me at work going "oooh" and "aaah" at the ability to create artificial scarcity and extract fees from scarcity they created themselves. So while Cal calls the Metaverse a smoke screen, I think he's being a bit too generous. The tech bros I see for the most part are right now distracted by what might be the next "gold rush", and wanting to sell shovels and picks to everyone. 

That said, the idea of AR as a "it can replace everything" device is interesting, but I have some skepticism. Certain tipping points have to be reached before it can do something like what smart phones have done, and it's at that phase where we don't know how long it will take before it stops being "5 years away". And this was the same sort of long-term vision showing up with Google Glass almost 10 years ago now, so this isn't exactly a new angle. Some of what Cal describes is rooted in research that requires a breakthrough or two (similar to self-driving vehicles), which makes these sort of timelines hard to guess. There's also the angle of it not being as good as the devices it will replace, but that's never really been an issue in the past. But it might leave rather large niches for existing technologies to continue on, much like how the smartphone still has yet to really kill the PC, despite folks thinking that we'd just be using docks to get a large screen experience for the folks that actually needed it. The PC market is shrinking, but also moving more upscale (with things like netbooks replaced by phablets and cheap tablets), but still also represents hundreds of millions of units per year. So I think that any claim that AR will outright kill smartphones, TVs, etc are too optimistic. 

I also kinda cringe at the idea of becoming even more dependent on cloud services to do my day to day, which is one thing Cal comments on, relying on cloud services and the like while the AR googles themselves present a window to those services. Be it entertainment, directions, computing with oomph, etc.


----------



## SuperMatt

Nycturne said:


> Some interesting commentary there, although I remain somewhat skeptical that companies like Facebook are really looking that far ahead. Not when I see folks around me at work going "oooh" and "aaah" at the ability to create artificial scarcity and extract fees from scarcity they created themselves. So while Cal calls the Metaverse a smoke screen, I think he's being a bit too generous. The tech bros I see for the most part are right now distracted by what might be the next "gold rush", and wanting to sell shovels and picks to everyone.
> 
> That said, the idea of AR as a "it can replace everything" device is interesting, but I have some skepticism. Certain tipping points have to be reached before it can do something like what smart phones have done, and it's at that phase where we don't know how long it will take before it stops being "5 years away". And this was the same sort of long-term vision showing up with Google Glass almost 10 years ago now, so this isn't exactly a new angle. Some of what Cal describes is rooted in research that requires a breakthrough or two (similar to self-driving vehicles), which makes these sort of timelines hard to guess. There's also the angle of it not being as good as the devices it will replace, but that's never really been an issue in the past. But it might leave rather large niches for existing technologies to continue on, much like how the smartphone still has yet to really kill the PC, despite folks thinking that we'd just be using docks to get a large screen experience for the folks that actually needed it. The PC market is shrinking, but also moving more upscale (with things like netbooks replaced by phablets and cheap tablets), but still also represents hundreds of millions of units per year. So I think that any claim that AR will outright kill smartphones, TVs, etc are too optimistic.
> 
> I also kinda cringe at the idea of becoming even more dependent on cloud services to do my day to day, which is one thing Cal comments on, relying on cloud services and the like while the AR googles themselves present a window to those services. Be it entertainment, directions, computing with oomph, etc.



Tech bros don’t think very far ahead.









						Bionic eye company going out of business, leaving patients "in the dark" | Boing Boing
					

Hundreds of recipients of retinal implants will be “in the dark” after the company makes them goes out of business—an outcome expected imminently after layoffs at Second Sight, which no…




					boingboing.net
				






> These three patients, and more than 350 other blind people around the world with Second Sight’s implants in their eyes, find themselves in a world in which the technology that transformed their lives is just another obsolete gadget. One technical hiccup, one broken wire, and they lose their artificial vision, possibly forever. To add injury to insult: A defunct Argus system in the eye could cause medical complications or interfere with procedures such as MRI scans, and it could be painful or expensive to remove.


----------



## SuperMatt

Interesting take on how fundamentally flawed Meta’s business model really is. Basically, they relied on the hope that their illegal invasions of privacy would never be challenged. Think of what is killing them. A single question to users: do you want to be tracked? 









						Meta Launders Its Reputation Through Small Businesses
					

Jeran Wittenstein, Bloomberg: Meta Platforms Inc. has tumbled out of the world’s 10 largest companies by market value, hammered by its worst monthly stock decline ever. Once the world’s sixth largest company with a valuation in excess of $1 trillion, the Facebook parent closed on Thursday with a...




					pxlnv.com
				




Toss them on the pile with MySpace and AOL.


----------



## User.45

yaxomoxay said:


> For those interested, Cal Newport discussed the Metaverse issue on today’s podcast.
> 
> Link her, starts at about minute 58:30. https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/deep-questions-with-cal-newport/id1515786216?i=1000551385024
> 
> He makes two points:
> 1) Classic Social Media has stopped his growth and is now going towards pure entertainment and fragmentation, which is something FB can’t really survive.
> 
> 2) Based upon conversations with leading Silicon Valley people: Due to distributed cloud computing, and the advancement of technologies, we’re going towards a world in which one device (glasses or VR headset) is needed. If true, this would mean the end of all electronics as we know it today. No need for a TV (headset will create one for you), no need for a phone (headset will take care of it), no need for a computer (need a computer? The screen will be created in front of you by the headset) and so on. Cal explains it better in his podcast.



I think #1 is correct.

#2 is just too vague. Such unifying device is nowhere near the horizon. iPhone's launch in 2007 comes closest to this and it still took a good 5 years for the tech to become what it originally promised to be. I remember having an HP PDA in 2001 that I controlled with my fingers just fine and had an absolute blast. In contrast, such tech candidate isn't even on the horizon. So if it took >10y for a simpler feat for PDAs to turn into truly smart phones and another 5-8 years to saturate the market,  it will take at least as much time or longer for that ultimate unifying device to emerge. And the present tablet/smart phone tech is still nowhere near challenging laptops for actual business/work tasks. 

So no, I doubt that Meta's survival in the present will depend on that unifying device.


----------



## SuperMatt

P_X said:


> I think #1 is correct.
> 
> #2 is just too vague. Such unifying device is nowhere near the horizon. iPhone's launch in 2007 comes closest to this and it still took a good 5 years for the tech to become what it originally promised to be. I remember having an HP PDA in 2001 that I controlled with my fingers just fine and had an absolute blast. In contrast, such tech candidate isn't even on the horizon. So if it took >10y for a simpler feat for PDAs to turn into truly smart phones and another 5-8 years to saturate the market,  it will take at least as much time or longer for that ultimate unifying device to emerge. And the present tablet/smart phone tech is still nowhere near challenging laptops for actual business/work tasks.
> 
> So no, I doubt that Meta's survival in the present will depend on that unifying device.



I don’t buy the idea that everybody is going to want a device constantly strapped to their face.

Also, thanks for mentioning the iPhone. It was announced after it was already designed and ready to be built, then it was actually available for purchase soon after the announcement. What compelling VR gear is Meta selling that you can buy now or in the next few months?


----------



## User.45

SuperMatt said:


> I don’t buy the idea that everybody is going to want a device constantly strapped to their face.



Strapping isn't even the issue IMHO. VR headsets are pretty good already, but the AR integration issue isn't solved at all. I got myself the original Oculus DevKit ~2013 and the tech improved so much in the next 2-3 years. But now I have my VR goggles in a box, because I'll never be able to use them with my kids around.

Perhaps the miniaturization challenge is similar to for VR/AR as it was for PC=>PDA=>Smart phone. But the GUI problem is infinitely more complex with AR than the challenge of just transforming a PC GUI to work with finger gestures. Add the challenges of both latency and bandwidth of interaction. You need to be able to tell the system what you want that matches the speed and complexity of what it can display and I have yet to see a human interface device that is up to the task.

It would probably require a direct brain-machine interface which is again pretty problematic and not on the computer tech side. The self-organizing capacity of real neural networks is absolutely shocking. Visual cortex prosthetics can interface with the brain and the brain can "just learn" how to control/process these. The real challenge is the risk of having a brain implant long-term that doesn't bleed, doesn't move and puncture the surrounding brain tissue, doesn't cut off the microcirculation causing strokes (infarcts), doesn't let toxins in (the blood-brain barrier is critical), doesn't cause local irritation that would cause seizures, doesn't get infected (in the context of bacteremia implants tend to serve as a breeding ground for bacteria), and does all of these for decades and decades. IMHO, these are the barriers and issues that a Musk-like person is ill-prepared to actually overcome. Getting the implants in is the easy(er) stuff.


----------



## User.45

So I just learned recently that Zuckerberg went to a private boarding school ($60K/yr) that a friend of mine went to. It's a place that almost guarantees a subsequent Ivy League education and they've told interesting stories about. It is my personal view that an Ivy League education can never compensate for what is missed by these kids in parental interactions. Which takes me to why this piece of biographic information about Zuckerberg made me suddenly understand his behavior much better.


----------



## SuperMatt

P_X said:


> Strapping isn't even the issue IMHO. VR headsets are pretty good already, but the AR integration issue isn't solved at all. I got myself the original Oculus DevKit ~2013 and the tech improved so much in the next 2-3 years. But now I have my VR goggles in a box, because I'll never be able to use them with my kids around.
> 
> Perhaps the miniaturization challenge is similar to for VR/AR as it was for PC=>PDA=>Smart phone. But the GUI problem is infinitely more complex with AR than the challenge of just transforming a PC GUI to work with finger gestures. Add the challenges of both latency and bandwidth of interaction. You need to be able to tell the system what you want that matches the speed and complexity of what it can display and I have yet to see a human interface device that is up to the task.
> 
> It would probably require a direct brain-machine interface which is again pretty problematic and not on the computer tech side. The self-organizing capacity of real neural networks is absolutely shocking. Visual cortex prosthetics can interface with the brain and the brain can "just learn" how to control/process these. The real challenge is the risk of having a brain implant long-term that doesn't bleed, doesn't move and puncture the surrounding brain tissue, doesn't cut off the microcirculation causing strokes (infarcts), doesn't let toxins in (the blood-brain barrier is critical), doesn't cause local irritation that would cause seizures, doesn't get infected (in the context of bacteremia implants tend to serve as a breeding ground for bacteria), and does all of these for decades and decades. IMHO, these are the barriers and issues that a Musk-like person is ill-prepared to actually overcome. Getting the implants in is the easy(er) stuff.



Clearly, none of this is “ready for prime time” nor does it appear it will be anytime soon, if ever. If this is Zuck’s plan for saving the company from its shrinking social media business, it is too little, too late.


----------



## User.45

SuperMatt said:


> Clearly, none of this is “ready for prime time” nor does it appear it will be anytime soon, if ever. If this is Zuck’s plan for saving the company from its shrinking social media business, it is too little, too late.



Considering human nature, a metaverse like system needs to offer something people can't do in the real world, let it be sexual, monetary, or violent. Since items #1 and #3 are off limits, they have to have metafluencers to create content that is much more abstract than the regular TikTok shit, and a monetization system that isn't yet in place. All in all, Zuck's in trouble.


----------



## DT

SuperMatt said:


> I don’t buy the idea that everybody is going to want a device constantly strapped to their face.




Oh, it won't be strapped __on__ your face ...


----------



## mr_roboto

P_X said:


> So I just learned recently that Zuckerberg went to a private boarding school ($60K/yr) that a friend of mine went to. It's a place that almost guarantees a subsequent Ivy League education and they've told interesting stories about. It is my personal view that an Ivy League education can never compensate for what is missed by these kids in parental interactions. Which takes me to why this piece of biographic information about Zuckerberg made me suddenly understand his behavior much better.



If you want even more biographic info on Zuckerberg and exactly why Facebook is as awful as it is, and you have the time to listen to a couple podcasts, and don't mind that the tone of Behind the Bastards is dark comedy, here you go:

Part One: Mark Zuckerberg: The Worst Person of the 21st Century (So Far)
Part Two: Mark Zuckerberg: The Worst Person of the 21st Century (So Far)

There's a followup two-parter as well, just in case you need more reasons to hate Mark Zuckerberg:

Part One: Mark Zuckerberg Should Be On Trial For Crimes Against Humanity
Part Two: Mark Zuckerberg Should Be On Trial For Crimes Against Humanity


----------



## DT

Swell ...


----------



## User.45

mr_roboto said:


> If you want even more biographic info on Zuckerberg and exactly why Facebook is as awful as it is, and you have the time to listen to a couple podcasts, and don't mind that the tone of Behind the Bastards is dark comedy, here you go:
> 
> Part One: Mark Zuckerberg: The Worst Person of the 21st Century (So Far)
> Part Two: Mark Zuckerberg: The Worst Person of the 21st Century (So Far)
> 
> There's a followup two-parter as well, just in case you need more reasons to hate Mark Zuckerberg:
> 
> Part One: Mark Zuckerberg Should Be On Trial For Crimes Against Humanity
> Part Two: Mark Zuckerberg Should Be On Trial For Crimes Against Humanity



Putin has entered the chat...


----------



## User.45

here we go. My facebook ads...

NSFW:





Except for the above, this time around they've done some good targeting for wrong reasons. I'm working on a study design using some supplements and after some very specific searches I was flooded with food supplement ads. Maybe the swimwear stuff came up because of this.


----------



## User.45

My new favorite! (I'm 6'3")


----------



## DT

P_X said:


> View attachment 12124
> My new favorite! (I'm 6'3")





Well, Peter Manning was 10 feet tall, so I guess it's all relative ...


----------



## SuperMatt

Meta is losing to competitors and hoping they can hype the virtual world to be “first” in some weird metaverse that I don’t think will pan out.

So in the meantime, they are shamelessly copying TikTok and calling it bold…



> Instagram will walk back some recent changes to the product following a week of mounting criticism, the company said today. A test version of the app that opened to full-screen photos and videos will be phased out over the next one to two weeks, and Instagram will also reduce the number of recommended posts in the app as it works to improve its algorithms.
> 
> *“I'm glad we took a risk — if we're not failing every once in a while, we're not thinking big enough or bold enough,*” Instagram chief Adam Mosseri said in an interview. “But we definitely need to take a big step back and regroup. [When] we've learned a lot, then we come back with some sort of new idea or iteration. So we're going to work through that.”



Big and bold: that’s what they call replacing the Instagram feed with a copy of TikTok. I think we could be looking at a massive collapse in just a few years.









						🚨 Instagram walks back its changes
					

Say goodbye to the full-screen feed, and at least some of those recommendations — for now. Adam Mosseri explains why




					www.platformer.news


----------



## Yoused

more sponsored content woven into your personal content









						Meta to double the dose of force-fed filler on Instagram, Facebook in 2023 [Updated]
					

Next year, TikTok-like content will dominate about a third of Meta user feeds.




					arstechnica.com


----------



## SuperMatt

Yoused said:


> more sponsored content woven into your personal content
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meta to double the dose of force-fed filler on Instagram, Facebook in 2023 [Updated]
> 
> 
> Next year, TikTok-like content will dominate about a third of Meta user feeds.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> arstechnica.com



The investors’ call is the thing to listen to. They don’t care about the users’ complaints unless there’s a mass exodus from their platform; it’s about the investors and advertisers. The recent “sorry we will leave Insta the way it was” is admittedly only temporary, and they will continue putting recycled TikTok videos into everybody‘s “feed” at an increasing rate as they told investors.


----------



## Nycturne

Yoused said:


> more sponsored content woven into your personal content
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meta to double the dose of force-fed filler on Instagram, Facebook in 2023 [Updated]
> 
> 
> Next year, TikTok-like content will dominate about a third of Meta user feeds.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> arstechnica.com




The Facebook feed is already stuffed full of this crud. Why not just drop the user content and label it the ad feed?


----------



## fischersd

SuperMatt said:


> ... I think we could be looking at a massive collapse in just a few years.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 🚨 Instagram walks back its changes
> 
> 
> Say goodbye to the full-screen feed, and at least some of those recommendations — for now. Adam Mosseri explains why
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.platformer.news



I hope so!  The thought of Zuckerberg curled into a ball while wailing "It's just not fair!!!" gives me warm tingles.


----------



## Runs For Fun

Study outlines privacy risks in metaverse virtual worlds
					

Forget mobile apps – headsets and smart glasses will be able to harvest so much data




					www.theregister.com


----------



## DT

Hahaha, $1499


----------



## Eric

Ouch!

$1.2 BILLION METAVERSE HORRIFIED BY REPORT IT ONLY HAD 38 ACTIVE USERS​








						$1.2 Billion Metaverse Horrified by Report It Only Had 38 Active Users
					

Metaverse project Decentraland, a sandbox environment that allows users to buy and sell virtual real estate, isn't exactly teeming with people.




					futurism.com
				




Metaverse project Decentraland, a sandbox environment that allows users to buy and sell virtual real estate, isn't exactly teeming with people. Despite billions of dollars in valuations, companies betting on a metaverse future simply haven't made much headway.

In fact, according to data aggregator DappRadar, the Ethereum-based world Decentraland only had 38 "active users" over a period of 24 hours — a confoundingly low number, especially considering the company has a market cap of a whopping $1.2 billion.


----------



## Yoused

Zuck announces the addition of pantyhose. Or something. Because, that will fix everything.



(Why do I get the feeling the company got the last 2 letters in its name in the wrong order?)


----------



## lizkat

Yoused said:


> Zuck announces the addition of pantyhose. Or something. Because, that will fix everything.
> 
> 
> 
> (Why do I get the feeling the company got the last 2 letters in its name in the wrong order?)




Hah, yeah.   From the cited piece in your post:



> Alongside announcements around the appearance and movements of the new full body avatars, Meta also announced that there will soon be an avatar store where people will be able to spend real money to buy accessories for their Meta avatar. There was notably no mention of NFTs.




Real money for avatar clothes and bling?  How about just use fake money to keep it all real.


----------



## Eric

Ouch.









						Meta's value has plunged by $700 billion. Wall Street calls it a "train wreck."
					

A year ago, Facebook's parent company was worth $1 trillion. But a risky bet on the metaverse has investors worried.




					www.cbsnews.com
				




Facebook parent Meta Platforms is making a huge investment in virtual reality, but its actual reality is looking like a real disaster. 

Meta shares tumbled 24% on Thursday to its lowest level in nearly four years following an earnings report that one Wall Street analyst described as a "train wreck." It's a far cry from the company's position nearly a year ago, when CEO Mark Zuckerberg on October 28, 2021, announced with great fanfare that Facebook was changing its name to Meta Platforms to emphasize its focus on the "metaverse."


----------

