Hacker News Reader

Comment by ayngg | Hacker News Reader

I think the idea is that there are entities like facebook/ meta who believe that the metaverse is going to be a big thing, so if a "metaverse" is going to exist and see adoption, most people would much rather have it not be under the sole control of a corporation like facebook like most of the services on the web right now. Similarly, digital currencies are going to eventually become mainstream, and there are similar concerns about how central banks will implement them. In cases like these, having an second option that isn't controlled by some powerful institution could help democratize how they get implemented and used. If you dismiss it, then you are just leaving it to these large institutions to make the rules like they previously have, they have the power and resources to out compete, buy or snuff out any traditional competition.

View on HN

Yeah, but remember when Facebook decided to inflate engagement stats for video, and sent everyone on a wild goose chase trying to create videos for everything? That made journalism much more expensive to do, made the web worse (auto playing videos now everywhere) and was a complete and utter waste of everyone’s time, effort and money. That’s almost certainly happening again with the metaverse. You don’t have to play the game. You’re arguing that we should follow the advice of large institutions to invest in their crap, simply because if we don’t, they’ll have the crap all to themselves. I say let them keep it.

No that isn't what I am saying, I am simply saying that there appears to be trends in the way technology is going to be developed and used. Facebook wasn't the first to think of a metaverse, but they are a big player in how it will develop based entirely on how big they are. Money has already increasingly become digitized and will continue to trend that way long before any central bank digital currency gets developed.

The point is that nobody knows what the future tools of the internet will be, they can only see trends and act on those. Most are probably stupid and most will probably be useless, but innovation will inevitably happen. Its fine if you think places like facebook can have the metaverse to themselves, just like it is fine for people to think they shouldn't.

If Facebook were the only player in the metaverse, it would have no value whatsoever. They need other people to invest, because it is too big to build themselves, and it is therefore necessary for others to participate for there to be a market at all. Simply doing it because it’s a trend is incredibly vapid. If you don’t think it’s a good idea, don’t give them your investment. Your choices matter; your thoughts on whether a trend is worthwhile matter, because your participation determines its success. Take some responsibility.

I think there is a misunderstanding here, I'm not involved in any web3 stuff I am just discussing it. I think whether or not you or I think it is a good idea or not is irrelevant because the reality is that there are people that are working on things because they think they are good ideas, and there are people investing in those things similarly, even things you would consider ethically questionable. It happens and will continue to happen.

Facebook doesn't need to build it all themselves, they just have to make the platform that everyone else will want to build on, just like what all of the current tech giants have done for the past 20 years. The idea isn't about chasing trends (or even something specific like a "metaverse"), it is seeing where innovation in happening and hopefully avoiding further concentration of power in the future of the internet.

> could help democratize how they get implemented

Was there any democratic process when "Solidity" was designed? Unfortunately, it does not appear to me that the right experts have been involved and that there was peer review. It looks like it was thrown over a wall, much like JavaScript was.

cue xkcd “14 competing standards” comic.

one reason there are so many blockchains is because they are all taking different development approaches and tradeoffs.

> In cases like these, having an second option that isn't controlled by some powerful institution could help democratize how they get implemented and used. If you dismiss it, then you are just leaving it to these large institutions to make the rules like they previously have, they have the power and resources to out compete, buy or snuff out any traditional competition.

I thought the whole idea was it is "distributed" and non centralized. If big evil company takes over, can't you just fork? If it really was decentralized, why would i care about the direction the central commitee takes?

The big company isn't taking over, the big company is making the thing so they own it. The point was that having a similar distributed solution takes power away from the big company because it provides an option for users to choose if the big companies implementation becomes too onerous.

The points made are relevant. However, they are much more political/social points rather than technological. Technology could help to facilitate such social or political change but it is the smaller part.

Somehow the web3/crypto etc discussions tend to vastly overestimate the role of technology vs the role of societal choices.

Technological changes are often precursor to societal change. But its not necessarily easy to predict what that societal change will be. Very often it isn't what the techno-enthuiasts think it will be.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com