What a bunch of crock! It seems like it’d always remain too much to ask for Mark to understand things and look at the big picture for the good of everyone. IMO, this post yet again makes a good case for breaking up the company.
Most of this post is about how Facebook is looking for new ways to make money, and just a few sentences about large problems like diseases or poverty.
He carelessly uses words like “private” and “decentralized” in dishonest senses to mean that:
a) Facebook (the company) will provide you these solutions and misname them as private and decentralized
b) Facebook (the company) will still run on ads and profiling users.
Augmented and virtual reality — yet another way for Facebook to surveil people.
Asking for regulations as if he wants it. What he has wanted from the time Facebook has come under scrutiny by lawmakers is regulatory capture...getting laws passed in a way that prevents competitors from even trying, while Facebook can continue to claim that it’s doing its best with “independent” boards and committees and escape penalties and punishments.
Anyone wanting something better for the future can only hope that Mark Zuckerberg and Sheryl Sandberg get out of running Facebook the company in any manner by 2030, if we go by wishlists by decades.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Most of this post is about how Facebook is looking for new ways to make money, and just a few sentences about large problems like diseases or poverty.
He carelessly uses words like “private” and “decentralized” in dishonest senses to mean that:
a) Facebook (the company) will provide you these solutions and misname them as private and decentralized
b) Facebook (the company) will still run on ads and profiling users.
Augmented and virtual reality — yet another way for Facebook to surveil people.
Asking for regulations as if he wants it. What he has wanted from the time Facebook has come under scrutiny by lawmakers is regulatory capture...getting laws passed in a way that prevents competitors from even trying, while Facebook can continue to claim that it’s doing its best with “independent” boards and committees and escape penalties and punishments.
Anyone wanting something better for the future can only hope that Mark Zuckerberg and Sheryl Sandberg get out of running Facebook the company in any manner by 2030, if we go by wishlists by decades.