I've spent 2k just on a monitor.
I'm more surprised that the quest is so cheap, but then I remember exactly what you said: the quest is not the product, I am the product.
Then I remember why I don't use Meta products anymore.
I'm more surprised that the quest is so cheap, but then I remember exactly what you said: the quest is not the product, I am the product.
Then I remember why I don't use Meta products anymore.
Unfortunately, I think socioeconomic pressures are also pushing people to compromise in ways that are not in their best interest, even if they do get it. In other words, they'll get the 'cheap' product that invades their privacy, sells their data, and shows ads to them, because they don't have the money for a product they own (see: television market).
An argument could be made that even thinking about the slave trade is inconsiderate when billions are shown ads on Facebook properties today.
Meta forced Oculus users to transition to a Facebook login after they had already bought the device.
They are a surveillance company who collects, correlates and sells personal information. They aren't going to stop at the VR boundary and suddenly change their mission.
Also the cliche of it’s not the product, you are is cute but played out. If you’re getting your bang for buck on it as a consumer (and I know I am), then moral arguments are useless. As with all things the market makes the ultimate decisions, not the individual.
Cute, cliche, and played out? If you dismiss it in three different ways are you magically correct?
It might be a losing battle in the face on increasing complacency and bad incentives, but it's not over no matter how many different ways you want to dismiss it.
I have one of these - a little overpriced but looks absolutely amazing.
You could use the same train of thought for Soylent Green.