None of those who have been raised to a lofty height by riches and honors is really great. Why then does he seem great? Because you are measuring the pedestal, along with the man.
— Seneca
Mark Zuckerberg announcing his vision for the metaverse was like imagining Trump doing the same for a second term—only worse. Far worse.
The fallout from a Facebook Part 2, after all, could exponentially outweigh Trump, and for a much longer time.
While the overall impact of their actions may be what distinguishes them, there is plenty that unites them. They both have blood on their hands and each denies this for his own continued self gain.
What’s astonishing about Zuckerberg right now is the gall of trying to reinvent himself. The ethical and societal violations committed by his company, under his full knowledge and stewardship, are unprecedented. It takes a special kind of pathology to ignore the criticism about this—let alone build a brand new company from the ashes of it.
What’s astonishing about our government is it has assisted Zuckerberg. It has permitted him a monopoly here at home which has grown into the most powerful and recklessly influential company in the world.
What’s astonishing about us is that we continue to use his platform, to the point that we’re now chatting about the Facebook version of the metaverse[1]Can we please stop capitalizing, and therefore unwittingly boosting, every tech invention (World Wide Web, Internet, etc.), as if it’s to be treated differently than the automotive industry or … Continue reading….To put it bluntly: We’re actually tolerant of his pitch for an urgent makeover and a second go at catastrophe.
Do we trust him?
Do I trust Mark Zuckerberg to collect and use data (including the next tier of it, such as facial recognition) to steer our social-cultural, commercial and political ship? This is a man whose company was founded—and for some strange reason we seem to too easily dismiss this point—on an act of alleged thievery, and whose early motto was “Move fast and break things.”
This is important because it provides a window into the ongoing possibility of putting his self interest before those of others—only now on a massive scale. And Facebook has continued to steal, and it has moved fast and broken things.
But here’s the thing: He now has a massive track record of this. The Wall Street Journal has done a must-read exposé of Facebook’s unethical inner workings, built largely on Frances Haugen’s revelations.
Called the Facebook Files, its chief finding is this: “Facebook Inc. knows, in acute detail, that its platforms are riddled with flaws that cause harm, often in ways only the company fully understands…. Time and again, the documents show, Facebook’s researchers have identified the platform’s ill effects. Time and again, despite congressional hearings, its own pledges and numerous media exposés, the company didn’t fix them. The documents offer perhaps the clearest picture thus far of how broadly Facebook’s problems are known inside the company, up to the chief executive himself.”
And now Zuckerberg wants to offer us his vision of the future? [[[QUOTE FROM VIDEO pitch (link to it too?) re TRUST and PROFIT]]] This would seem preposterous, if it were not true, which makes it therefore terrifying.
Do we want the Metaverse?
Do I want or need the Metaverse in my life? Will this new digital nation state make me, and my loved ones (my family and my community) better?
Zuckerberg’s metaverse is conceived as a massive virtual world, but it’s really a massive fantasy world. Think Fortnite on steroids with concerts and gaming activities like table tennis and surfing thrown in. (One need not have those skills to do those activities, and whatever my disdain about putting billions more people on the couch, we should consider in our analysis what the actual economic costs of treating more obese people will be. If the metaverse is going to be as big as Zuckerberg wishes those costs could be, well, unprecedentedly massive.)
I realize such a description may appeal to some. But before blindly buying into this offer—which includes promises from Zuckerberg that our privacy and our right to profit from our content are of the highest priority[2]Facebook’s abuse of our data is well-documented, and it’s worth remembering how the company has usurped profits of news media whose products they use and recycle—we should consider who we’ve become under the influence of Facebook/Meta, and who, in its next inception, it might further turn us into.
At a time when our compulsive use of tech has removed us from reality the latest pitch is a wish to remove us even further still.
Who are we?
Not long ago Walter Isaacson wrote an article titled The Internet is Broken. The piece, which went viral, could not have been more compliant and uncourageous. It said essentially that the web’s chief problem was merely anonymity and the bad actors it allowed for.[3]In it he writes: “I do not mean this to be one of those technophobic rants dissing the Internet for rewiring our brains to give us the twitchy attention span of Donald Trump on Twitter or … Continue reading
But Isaacson’s apologia misses the point. The problems of our now so-called Digital Age go way beyond anonymity. The problems cut to the core of who we are.
Our reality is increasingly a virtual one, mediated by Facebook, YouTube, Instagram, TikTok and Twitter. And social media, we’re told over and over again, can bring us together, from all parts of the globe. The smart phone and its apps make us smarter and our lives easier. Rolling out fiber optic cables and 5G to rural areas can save them.[4]This last point is infuriating in its assumption of our stupidity. It attempts to convince us that poor individuals, in this case poor farmers (talk about a trope!) can be lifted out of their … Continue reading
I don’t think any of this is true.
The sense of community that comes out of these media is merely with people who think like me. It’s not an enhancement of reality, but a further removal from it.
The insanity of the metaverse, regardless of who or which platform leads it, is its promise to remove us further still.
A different world?
But what if one wants a different world, based on a wholly different premise? And what if we gave this the thought it deserves?
I want to connect with all walks of life, to love my brothers and sisters in spite of or because of their different views, to find connection not in the narcissistic endeavor of agreement but in an acceptance of difference.[5]One of our neighbors, an elderly widow who’s lived on our block for 50 years, is an avowed Trump supporter. We look out for her as we would any neighbor and we’ve spent many a … Continue reading
I want to do more with less. Or merely more with what I already have. I don’t need tech–and its offering of a bland simulacrum of drug use–for that.
I want to walk out my front door and smell and touch things, to allow my real and random contact with them to not only awe me but to humble me, to be reminded of my own limited ways of thinking and how incomprehensibly miraculous and expansive what preceded me is—let alone what’s to come.
Put next to reality—assuming I get off my ass and merely inquisitively relate to it—the metaverse feels not like an expansion of anything, only a tech-infested tunnel.
Notes, etc.
| ↑1 | Can we please stop capitalizing, and therefore unwittingly boosting, every tech invention (World Wide Web, Internet, etc.), as if it’s to be treated differently than the automotive industry or the wind and solar industry or, well, the universe? |
|---|---|
| ↑2 | Facebook’s abuse of our data is well-documented, and it’s worth remembering how the company has usurped profits of news media whose products they use and recycle |
| ↑3 | In it he writes: “I do not mean this to be one of those technophobic rants dissing the Internet for rewiring our brains to give us the twitchy attention span of Donald Trump on Twitter or pontificating about how we have to log off and smell the flowers.” But here’s the thing: I don’t know about technophobic rants, but we do need anti-tech rants, in fact many more of them, and we do need to log off. If we don’t we’re kind of fucked. If we can agree that the tv has made us dummer, perhaps we can then agree that carrying a tv in our pocket, which is what the phone is tantamount to, is perhaps not the best idea for our well being. To be dismissive of this, as the tech-enamored Isaacson is, is naive if not reckless. |
| ↑4 | This last point is infuriating in its assumption of our stupidity. It attempts to convince us that poor individuals, in this case poor farmers (talk about a trope!) can be lifted out of their current state of poverty by tech. The American farmer has been disappearing for decades, with more than 100,000 farms lost last decade. Technology has increasingly replaced farmers, not helped them. And while the number of farms and farmers decreases, bankruptcies, and suicides, increase. |
| ↑5 | One of our neighbors, an elderly widow who’s lived on our block for 50 years, is an avowed Trump supporter. We look out for her as we would any neighbor and we’ve spent many a neighborhood Happy Hour learning the history of our neighborhood from her. She’s a treasure. |