Hacker News Reader

Many of the interpretations you have, and the intents and beliefs you claim Zuckerberg holds, are not evident in the article.

You're coming across as someone with an intense confirmation bias.

It's important that Facebook and other tech giants not be allowed to harm society in the coming decade. But an intense and emotional overreaction only makes that position seem less credible to the uninformed.

> But an intense and emotional overreaction only makes that position seem less credible to the uninformed.

But haven't those same companies already proven themselves to not be credible by their actions? What happens when everyone doesn't have this reaction, we get complacent and it's too late because they've already taken control? That's not confirmation bias, that's critical thinking.

> Many of the interpretations you have, and the intents and beliefs you claim Zuckerberg holds, are not evident in the article.

This is like listening to Pooh bear saying he's going to eat less honey this year because he wants to lose weight without ever reading any of the books.

couldn't agree more.

when i read Zuck's post, I thought to myself he has a solid vision on how to compete with the Chinese companies that have huge overlaps with how he thinks mobile will be used in the coming decade.

Any future avatar based communication system (VR/AR) needs to be open source and auditable if it’s going to mediate a large portion of human affairs and interaction. It also needs to be actually decentralized, the way the web and Internet are.

We are working on it at Mozilla: hubs.mozilla.com

More info here: https://github.com/mozilla/hubs-cloud/wiki/The-Web-Emergent-...

Why is this requirement particular to AR/VR, or is it just a desire to attach this requirement onto a big tech trend?

Judging from his post the author believes AR/VR can provide a sense of “presence” that will recreate how we interact socially on the net.

I remain skeptical, but this has been a recent argument coming from oculus devs and others in the VR/AR community.

Did you even read the link he posted?

VR communication systems are a toy/gimmick like second life was. I have spent some time with VRchat and see no reason why it would end up becoming a primary method of communication over IM/social media. Its a good way to mess around and have some fun but its less convenient than existing methods.

It seems highly likely 5-10 years from now you will be able to wear a device that is comfortable and unobtrusive that can deliver the presence of any other connected user to you instantly, including body language and full spatial awareness. In such a world where these devices exist, it would be pretty stunning to think people would not use them regularly for such purposes.

There are a few things that make it less convenient. One of them like you pointed out is the size and comfort issues but there are other issues. VR/AR chats require your full attention / real time communication. Most communication has left phone calls and moved to asynchronous communication methods. Another is limitations of the space, people spend a large % of there communication time on public transport, instant messaging translates well to this since it requires no listening or making noise and requires minimal space. Full body tracking and spacial awareness is useless when you are sitting down.

I think if people really wanted to primary communicate with facial/avatar awareness, we would see everyone using video calls over social media and IMs.

I think VR/AR communication has some place in the future but I do not see it becoming a serious/primary communication tool.

I'm confused, are you arguing that video calls are not a primary communication tool? If avatar based comms became as common as video calls I'd consider that a primary tool.

Besides, the idea is not that this would meaningfully displace existing media (except perhaps video for some use-cases), but provide a fundamentally new medium for communication that has no present day analog other than face-to-face. Much like current tools, you'd use it when it is the ideal context and situation for it to be maximally useful.

Video calls and other media have distinct tradeoffs, and are objectively worse than face-to-face along a variety of dimensions.

The argument is simple, if you believe:

- people value face-to-face over existing digital communication tools for certain contexts

- VR and AR based communication meaningfully approaches face-to-face in certain ways that existing tools do not

- VR and AR technology will eventually get to a point where it is ubiquitous

Then it seems that tech will be used for those purposes. Either of the latter two assumptions could be wrong, but early research [1] supports the argument of first, and based upon the tech track the second seems highly likely.

[1] https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3173574.3173863

That’s true today. Is it true 10 years from today?

If AR/VR becomes built into a form factor similar to reading glasses today I suspect we will see a lot more avatar based chatting.

For what purpose though? Front facing cameras are in every device now and IM/voice chat is still more common. I guess it depends if you are communicating for function or for social/entertainment purposes. I just don't see the added value of avatar communication other than the novelty of being a video game character or a fox person

The value of avatar based communication, vs video in particular, is about:

- social presence: the feeling of being together and of unmediated communication

- shared spatial awareness: the ability to have a shared reference frame of physical reality

these are the two key features of face to face communication that digital communication tools have largely failed to replicate. (as studied by academic research)

I also conjecture there's a third:

- ability to dynamically spawn and manipulate contextual mixed media in a shared spatial environment (videos, images, 3d models, data, etc)

These three characteristics combined are met already today to some degree by modern day video games, but VR/AR seems likely to be the key tool to knock down much of the barrier regarding social presence due to its ability to transmit many more forms of non-verbal communication between people than existing tools.

> It also needs to be actually decentralized, the way the web and Internet are.

The more you look at the web/Internet, you’ll notice it’s not as decentralized as most people believe

agree, but it's the best example we currently have of a global scale decentralized digital network. (crypto assets aside, which aren't really a good analog to what i'm talking about here) would be happy to make a better one tho!

I don't understand your attitude towards him. When I read his post, I didn't feel this way at all.

It seems the problems you have with is rooted on the nature of big corporations. Basically all the big companies are doing those things, especially regulatory capture.

How is replacing Mark Zuckerberg and Sheryl Sandberg with anybody else will give you a Utopia Facebook?

> How is replacing Mark Zuckerberg and Sheryl Sandberg with anybody else will give you a Utopia Facebook?

Not to speak for the OP but the idea is that you don’t replace them, you just remove them. And use decentralised, open source solutions instead.

In the world as it is today, the only way that is going to happen is if someone like Facebook or Google sponsors a decentralised solution. Projects like Matrix/Riot are technically great, but that alone is not going to make regular people adopt it. They want something that's easy to use and where most of their friends are. Don't get me wrong, I'd love to see a free (from corporate control) and decentralised chat platform gain as much adoption as email in the next decade, but realistically I can't see that happening.

Or just stop using Facebook and its products.

That just doesn’t work. If a local leather tannery is polluting my water supply, I can’t make my water clean by avoiding leather goods.

All hail false analogies.

I wish more people would do it (though I’ve been advocating for this for a long time). The network effects are still strong, and people are loathe to try another platform that may not serve the same needs.

I keep trying to push people away from WhatsApp (somewhat easily, I should say) because there are many alternatives. Instagram is tougher. The newer federated alternatives like Pixelfed aren’t there on features, and they don’t even have a mobile app yet! Facebook groups is another thing that doesn’t have a good enough replacement.

In certain cases Facebook remains the best option to reach people. I’m not talking about personal messages or interactions, but about things of value to larger communities focused on social good.

They're invaluable for democracy. Right now, there are a number of anti government, pro democracy protests taking place in my country. All of them are being organized and spread via Instagram and WhatsApp

Why could those not be on Signal and be actually safe due to real end-to-end encryption and no spying from Facebook?

https://www.forbes.com/sites/parmyolson/2018/09/27/facebook-...

Presumably because Signal doesn't have the install base to make that realistic.

I do hope that the people taking real risks are doing their most sensitive communication on something better like Signal.

But for mass reach using another tool seems necessary as of now.

You can't organize a protest if no one knows about it. In order to get the word out, you have to use platforms that everyone already has access to.

They are disastrous for democracy.

It's more nuanced than that.

Did WhatsApp and Facebook help elect right-wing autocrats? Yes.

Are WhatsApp and Facebook also helping protestors against right-wing autocrats organize and protest? Also yes.

It looks to me like the balance is very, very far to the right.

True. You can convincingly argue that Facebook et al are a net negative for our society

That's about as practical for me as giving up my local water utility as an inner-city dweller. I mean I definitely could. I can get large bottles of potable water delivered quite cheaply, and I guess I could setup a system so that that's what came out of the taps.

But what I really want is for the government to intervene so I don't need to give up my local water utility, by guaranteeing minimum levels of service, and providing solid regulation.

I don't see which Facebook product you can't live without.

Facebook? Who needs it!

Whatsapp? Signal!

Instagram? I don't know... Read something?

How are their services like water?!

There are lots of communities and events that are organized through Facebook. Also lot of my friends are on Facebook and they organize gatherings etc through it.

Could you create an empty account with no personally identifiable info and use that to see events? Before deleting FB I deleted the app from phone and used browser only. If I went back it would be as a zero value profile.

This is already jumping through hoops. If my friends organize birthdays they do it through private FB events and group chats, meaning I would have to still readd all the friends I have. And at that point I am sure my new account could be correlated and linked to my old account.

Some groups like my local housing community I would have to explain who I am and give a huge spiel about how I deleted my Facebook account and I am actually X.

Don't participate in communities and events organized through Facebook and discourage others from doing the same.

So I am going to skip birthdays to prove a point? Or just lose knowledge about my local housing community and what is going on? See what I mean?

Yes. It is worth the sacrifice. Tell your friends to send you an SMS invite to birthdays.

Hah. Like that would ever happen.

I have a friend who refuses to use Facebook. About twice a year I remember to send her updates.

Then when I see her I have to go over all the updates everyone else already saw on Facebook. I literally pull out my phone and show her my feed.

It’s really frustrating and inefficient. I only do it because she’s a really good friend.

> It’s really frustrating and inefficient. I only do it because she’s a really good friend.

Yeesh. I'm glad my friends don't regard me this way. IMHO, your comment is a perfect example of why one should quit Facebook.

They said they are willing to put effort in for their friend. What is wrong with that?

The fact that they regard their friend's lack of Facebook use as a frustrating chore that requires effort.

You can internally think doing something is frustrating, but the more frustrating things you are willing to do for the friendship the more it shows you value that friendship. And it does require effort, there is no argument about that.

Oh no. You have to talk to your friends and give them personal accounts of your experiences! What a travesty.

/S

Well the argument was whether one can do reasonably as well without Facebook. So the point is there are quite many inconveniences caused by that. This is why it would be preferable that Facebook was regulated properly.

It is not as simple as asking to send an SMS. I will be missing out on a lot of information, bonding opportunities, picture sharing and I will be that annoying dude making others jump through extra hoops as well.

I am personally not going to make that sacrifice.

I could also live in complete isolation in the woods and without friends. I just do not want to live like that being constantly paranoid.

Incoveninece is the price of change.

> It is not as simple as asking to send an SMS

It is. Inform your friends that you don't use Facebook and ask them to treat you the same way they would treat any other friend that doesn't use Facebook: reach out and communicate through any of the other myriad ways available to everyone.

> I am personally not going to make that sacrifice.

That's fine, but any objections you have to Facebook's behavior ring hollow since you recognize the problem but are unwilling to do anything about it. You are thus part of the problem.

> I could also live in complete isolation in the woods and without friends

Silly hyperbole. This is not the end result of not using Facebook.

I can still object and demand government to do something about that. This is my legal right. If I quit Facebook it is not going to solve the problem on a higher level except alienate me from other people.

This is not a silly hyperbole. It would be a solution to avoid sharing your data with anyone. There are also other entities that could abuse your data.

SMS might not be the safest thing either.

Sorry, the comparison of Facebook to drinkable water is totally absurd. Social media is entertainment, you don't need it to survive, not even close.

Social media is my primary means of communications with my friends and family, and wider support network, which I absolutely need to survive.

Yes, I could find another way to contact my support network. I could also find another way to get drinkable water. I'd rather there was simply regulation though.

This is the guy who exploited floods that killed thousands of people in order to promote Facebook VR.

Do you remember when he did that BBQ ad saying he wanted to tour America and hear opinions? It looks like he might be trying to edge his way into a political career again.

I like him because his uncanny valley appearance and single-minded morally-neutral totalitarianism make me feel like I'm living in some high-quality vintage science fiction.

He seems to be doing his part to make the world feel just a bit more cyberpunk, and for that I both thank him and hate him.