Metaverse

[Mjl]

As the adage says, “With great power comes great responsibility”.

I think it’s fairly obvious that Zuck has shirked that responsibility on multiple fronts.

Well, there's awful handling of the responsibility, like gab or telegram. Then there's not-good-enough like Facebook and Twitter. But the problem becomes, what should they do?

[Cascadia]

Mjl being on Team Zuck (aka Team Rich White Guy) is right on brand.

This is the same guy who wanted us to believe that Kroger was going to go bankrupt if they gave a raise to their lowest paid employees. Love his fat bonus though.

[ousdahl]

As far as what should they do, here’s a thought:

ditch the algorithm as they know it.

Just make the feed an actual feed of posts from accounts a user follows, in real time, like it used to be; rather than some collection of posts based on what an algorithm decides is “most relevant” or “most viral.”

But that’s the problem: FB’s algorithm is their bread and butter. It’s the product they’re selling! Much more so than any real user experience. To ditch the algorithm would be to ditch the very thing that made Zuck so rich.

There’s been no shortage of attempts by FB interests to pry some power away from Zuck too, but thus far Zuck has been adamant about keeping it all to himself

[ProudBoy]

As the adage says, “With great power comes great responsibility”.

I think it’s fairly obvious that Zuck has shirked that responsibility on multiple fronts.

Well, there's awful handling of the responsibility, like gab or telegram. Then there's not-good-enough like Facebook and Twitter. But the problem becomes, what should they do?

Better, that’s what they should they do. Zuck was presented point blank with the shortcomings of his platforms. The algorithms he approved were amplifying misinformation. What little tools were in place were being circumvented by private groups, even further magnifying the problem.

It’ll never be perfect, but you seem of the opinion that he and his team have done everything they can. I just don’t think that’s true.

[ousdahl]

This is more anecdotal, but FB does seem to be kinda arbitrary in their content moderation.

I can only imagine how difficult it is.

But at the same time, it seems to miss the point a lot. The algorithm does not get context.

One account I follow got banned for posting pics of “I saw this swastika graffiti painted in a subway car, so I covered it up.” And apparently all the algorithm got out of that was “swastika”…and next thing ya know, Zucked!

Meanwhile, everything from fake news pizza joint Cankles sex parties, to “hey guys let’s organize an actual insurrection on the 6th” type stuff apparently still goes viral just fine.

[ousdahl]

As the adage says, “With great power comes great responsibility”.

I think it’s fairly obvious that Zuck has shirked that responsibility on multiple fronts.

Well, there's awful handling of the responsibility, like gab or telegram. Then there's not-good-enough like Facebook and Twitter. But the problem becomes, what should they do?

More to the point of power - they could always just disperse that power, rather than concentrate it?

Capitalism in many ways is the economics of dictatorships. And in many ways, Zuck has behaved like just that.

I know, though, how Mericans tend to feel about dispersing economic power, which is to say, letting not just owners but workers too own more of the means of production, and…eek.

[Mjl]

I think these platforms need regulation. If Facebook and YouTube did away with the algorithms that make the content you want appear, there's nothing to stop someone else from doing it.

It's tough to go from "this seems wrong, make it good" to what defines good and bad. Do they need to make sure misinformation doesn't appear? How do they define what is misinformation? Hire tens of thousands of unbiased fact checkers to look at every post? Good luck with that.

Do algorithms that guess what would interest a user need to be made illegal? That would really suck for YouTube, from a user perspective.

What about making a law to disallow algorithms to feed people anything political? In that case the social media companies need to make it so every post needs to be looked at by a person whose one responsibility is to mark the content as either political or not, and anything marked political doesn't show up as a suggestion.

The problem with any regulation here is it's going to be expensive for the companies to implement. The big ones can handle that fine - but that's the problem. It creates barriers to entry and makes the industry less competitive, and the giants become monopolies.

[Mjl]

As the adage says, “With great power comes great responsibility”.

I think it’s fairly obvious that Zuck has shirked that responsibility on multiple fronts.

Well, there's awful handling of the responsibility, like gab or telegram. Then there's not-good-enough like Facebook and Twitter. But the problem becomes, what should they do?

More to the point of power - they could always just disperse that power, rather than concentrate it?

Capitalism in many ways is the economics of dictatorships. And in many ways, Zuck has behaved like just that.

I know, though, how Mericans tend to feel about dispersing economic power, which is to say, letting not just owners but workers too own more of the means of production, and…eek.

It's literally the opposite. Zuckerberg was a random college student who took initiative to make something and was personally rewarded for doing so. What dictatorships have enabled that kind of thing?

[pdub]

Mjl being on Team Zuck (aka Team Rich White Guy) is right on brand.

Breaking down things into absolutes is something a simpleton does.

Easier to segment and create an enemy than to actually argue nuance.

[Mjl]

And siths

[ousdahl]

The giants are already monopolies.

Perhaps there’s a free market approach?

rather than explicitly regulate the companies themselves, have gummint crack down on the antitrust issues. Rather than actual innovation, FB has gotten away with a buy-or-bury scheme for a while now.

I’m not sure it’s a stretch to suggest consumers are a little disenchanted with the current product. Or, maybe consumers love FB precisely cuz the algorithm is so good at telling them just what they wanna hear, objective truth be damned.

Either way, maybe more market options would be beneficial.

[ousdahl]

It's literally the opposite. Zuckerberg was a random college student who took initiative to make something and was personally rewarded for doing so. What dictatorships have enabled that kind of thing?

It’s not a perfect analogy. And you seem to take it as the economy within a dictatorial gummint, rather than comparing the company to a dictatorship itself.

Either way, Zuck has exhibited all sorts of dictator tendencies - the buy or bury strategy rather than welcome competition, telling concerned minority shareholders to pound sand, and such.

Maybe the company would mitigate their troubles by allowing a few more voices to speak up. Take the analogy as, if democracy is a more effective gummint than dictatorship, then maybe allowing more than Zuck and Zuck alone to decide the fate of FB and the metaverse could be effective too.

[pdub]

While I'm sure Zuck has megalomaniac tendencies, much more than the average Joe, I dont think he siloed himself off to advice.

He has teams upon teams of people working for him that help him and his company continue to dominate the social media market. He cannot do this alone.

[Mjl]

It's literally the opposite. Zuckerberg was a random college student who took initiative to make something and was personally rewarded for doing so. What dictatorships have enabled that kind of thing?

It’s not a perfect analogy. And you seem to take it as the economy within a dictatorial gummint, rather than comparing the company to a dictatorship itself.

Either way, Zuck has exhibited all sorts of dictator tendencies - the buy or bury strategy rather than welcome competition, telling concerned minority shareholders to pound sand, and such.

Maybe the company would mitigate their troubles by allowing a few more voices to speak up. Take the analogy as, if democracy is a more effective gummint than dictatorship, then maybe allowing more than Zuck and Zuck alone to decide the fate of FB and the metaverse could be effective too.

He has a board he has to answer to, so not sure why you think he has total control. You also seem to suggest he's the only one making money from the thing that he started, which is very much not true. Facebook has made thousands of people millionaires directly.

And if every CEO is a dictator (again, they have boards, and they have employees that can easily emigrate, so they're not, but whatever), then yes, I am 100% for Dictatorship, where anyone can be a Dictator.

[ousdahl]

Oh!

So yeah Zuck has a board he has to answer to. And the board has apparently been calling for more independent oversight, and less of the total control by Zuck.

But Zuck, with a 58% majority shareholder vote and a corporate structure favorable to pretty much just him, has repeatedly shot down such proposals. So what’s the board to do?

He seems to think the problems can be solved less with actual introspection and cultural overhaul; and more with things like, a name change.

It seems he, and apparently the investors too, think all of company’s troubles are NBD as long as they’re still making money, I guess.

[ProudBoy]

This is the sort of metaverse benefit I was referencing. Apologies - I couldn’t find a version on YouTube.

https://www.linkedin.com/posts/orçun-yi ... 80545-i6_7

[jfish26]

This is insane.

https://defector.com/what-the-hell-is-t ... ered-with/