Hacker News Reader

Comment by Smithalicious | Hacker News Reader

This undifferentiated torrent of anger is diluting the message. I am not naive so I also expect the zuckerverse to be a laughingstock at best and very sinister at worst, but let them actually build it first. By being so critical before it even exist you are only sending the message "we will hate it irrespective of what it actually is because we hold a grudge".

Furthermore I think the "metaberg is a nefarious spy" messaging should be separated from the "living in VR is toxic even in concept" messaging, because I believe the former but explicitly not the latter, and I want to be able to be critical about the implementation of this while still being excited about the concept (and hoping it can be implemented humanely on top of open protocols)

View on HN

I'm all for saying you can't criticize a product that doesn't exist yet, but the company put our a propaganda video specifically so people would get excited for a product that doesn't exist yet and encourage investors to stay onboard with their plan to bet the farm on it. No one asked or required Facebook to reveal their vision at this particular time. As a result. I'm not particular sympathetic to the idea that they need protection from undifferentiated anger. I'm even inclined to say that they announced early specifically so that the anger at them could burn out before they have a product that merits the anger.

>but let them actually build it first. By being so critical before it even exist you are only sending the message "we will hate it irrespective of what it actually is because we hold a grudge".

Facebook has already put out positive messaging around what they're building. Is your point that positive messaging, promises, etc. are acceptable to be made but not criticism? That sounds like it'd unfairly skew the conversation to me.

If Facebook had to similarly "stay quiet" until they launched, then sure that's fair. But if your point is that Zuccerberg should be able to talk about how the Metaverse will redefine our connections and usher in a new digital life without criticism, then I strongly disagree.

> let them actually build it first

Not if the point of the criticism is "this should not be built by this company". It doesn't matter if the first version looks innocuous, if you can't trust that the next version will be.

More to the point, something this important shouldn't be built by any one or two or three companies, no matter who they are.

The question is simple: Are they building it with end-to-end encryption? If not, it deserves all the criticism. Security/privacy has to be part of the design and cannot be bolted on post-facto.

I think Zuckerverse has shown that privacy doesn't exist in it. They could implement e2e but it'll be implemented in a way to so they can still sell away your privacy.

We don't know. Note that the whistleblowers that are in the news currently are against e2e encryption.

The one thing that's more annoying than Facebook are the whistleblowers of Facebook (like that frances haugen character, which I'm fairly certain is a spook). Such a cheap and condescending group of people who think they know more than the rest.

I would like to learn more about this, could you provide a source?

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28999844

It doesn't even compute in my brain that one can be against e2e. I guess it's an opinion like any other, but I can't relate at all.

> let them actually build it first.

Why can't you criticize something based on leadership's ongoing behavior until after the project is done? That doesn't make any sense.

I'm disappointed to Niantic about second point. https://nianticlabs.com/blog/real-world-metaverse/

Reply on news.ycombinator.com