I mean, in his defense he might be pretty normal by lizard standards, I don't know. Calling him weird just seems unnecessary in that context.
>He of course wants every human interaction to be monetizable by Facebook, total control of our dopamine channels, ...
I agree. It'd be a much better future for everyone if he'd just throw his advertising biz in the garbage. Apple is going to kick Meta's ass in the long run just by virtue of their privacy stance—which isn't all that great to begin with, but it sure does beat "our intent is to sell every iota of information we collect on you."
I think you're discounting (ha) the allure of free/cheap to people who don't have disposable income. Which is to say, most people.
People in the US are willing to spend extra on the Apple phone. There's already drama over the stupid blue text/green text thing, imagine a world where you know that your social interactions with a Facebook user are snooped on. I think it could lead to some significant ostracization. Private party -- no Facebookers.
Reality shaping is like that - but coercive and in reverse. How much do I need to nudge your perceptual world with ubiquitous, desirable lizard-brain augmentations before you stop believing in reality?
Ideally, one would attempt to tie the user’s livelihood to the platform to keep them engaged.
I also agree it is far from perfect but pretty good. Used to be on android but it was easier to use the same devices as my wife.
I don't think iPhones signal much (in the US at least) -- they have like 50% market share here.
Thinking about it, those diamond-lacking iPhones look quite shabby, already!
Laziness, apathy and network effects are perhaps equally powerful forces. After all, I continue to use Google and Instagram despite my knowing how the sausage is made there.
That's not true. That's why credit exists. Selling poor people shit they can't afford with terrible terms is a long-standing American tradition.
When a debtor is unable to pay (often times through no fault of their own), the creditor eats the cost because their margins are good enough to allow for it. That effectively represents a wealth transfer between corporations providing the services and the corporations providing the credit.
Obviously this happens with mortgages, cars, and other extremely high value things. IRS debts, student loan debts...
But what about credit cards? Don't they have mechanisms other than tanking your credit report? And if not, why don't poor indebted people simply default all the time to remove debt?
That said, I was mostly talking credit cards, since that's what most tech services would fall under in a zero-money consumer situation.
>And if not, why don't poor indebted people simply default all the time to remove debt?
Some do, but having your credit ruined for seven years sucks for most people. Likewise the courts don't exactly smile upon those who run up huge debts with the intention of defaulting.
"You're forgetting the poor people"
You might also be against the latter, fine! That’s a perfectly reasonable position to hold. But don’t muddy the waters by calling it something fundamentally different.
https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-46618582
"In total, it said the social network had special arrangements with more than 150 companies to share its members' personal data. Most of these, it said, were other tech firms, but the list also included online retailers, car-makers and media organisations, including the NYT itself, among others."
Suffice it to say Facebook's track record with PII is pretty terrible. At some point the word sell really becomes a matter of semantics.
Facebook is and always has been deep in adtech, which is fundamentally slimy. It's no surprise that led to a history littered with data privacy blunders.
>Again you are bumping the waters.
On the contrary, my chemistry knowledge is too poor to do such a thing.
https://techcrunch.com/2021/08/05/apple-icloud-photos-scanni...
Content scanning is just an assumed part of every major tech platform these days. That of course doesn't necessarily make it right, but it still places Apple's privacy stance significantly ahead of Meta.
My understanding is that while this is certainly superior to your data being actually sold, privacy is nonetheless adversely affected in fairly significant ways.
> Apple delays plans to roll out CSAM detection in iOS 15 after privacy backlash
https://techcrunch.com/2021/09/03/apple-csam-detection-delay...
Instead of the baseline being they probably are privacy first, now it is "carefully inspect every announcement to see if they are backtracking yet again"
I don't really envy their position; if I built a business that sold hardware and software and found out that customers were using my product to distribute child porn, I would probably be willing to abandon lesser principals too.
No they should not.
Imagine Oculus becoming Meta without the Facebook baggage – a hardware-focused company with a major services play, but no adtech business.
I think this was called Magic Leap. I don't know, I think I still prefer Rony Abovitz awkwardly dancing around in a space suit rather than Zuck.
It would be much greater if he actually cared for society and would fix what he did with facebook, addicted mobile/facebook games and fake news.
But hey now the poor can have a 1-2k high quality VR Headset with full immersion to see others in a VR Chat while living in a dumpster.
---
On a more non emotional side: Of course i like the idea of a high quality VR Headset but i'm not sure what FB thinks what this will do for FB. Those millions/billions they invested in their Metaverse will not become something great.
I'm still very confinced that VR is a novelity and nothing people will just be in all day long. Why would they?
Lets compare it to others:
Apple key notes are about new hardware, new usability.
Google IO has a ton of diversity, doing things for society. They talk about taking good pictures of people with all type of skin tones. They talk about 24/7 sustainability, better and easier security, protecting their users, skin mold detection and they have android.
What is Meta talking about? How to put all of us into a VR world with probably a ton of monetarization. Awesome \o/ the poor who can't afford their own house/home are then sitting in a cheap/bad flat, sitting in a chair with a VR Headset on?
And of course there will be a handful people playing around with this, but you know Second Live is also probably still running...
Google is one of the few companies were their Keynotes are so boring because they actually fix real life boring shit which affects us all.
As said, imagine we would spend our energy in our society to actually bring poeple back together.
Social hubs just in a way that people want to go there. Imagine what you could build up with that money