aierou

Many people fear that a corrupt or authoritarian regime might misuse data to cause harm. However, the reality is that such regimes tend to carry out harmful actions regardless of the data they collect. Data can make their efforts more efficient, but the real danger lies in the regime's intent, not necessarily the data itself.

I disagree with this sentiment. Form factor has been the driving force behind the adoption of computing devices throughout history—look at the PC or the smartphone. Each one marked a new era. Glasses seem like the preeminent form factor for a computing device, short of a direct neural interface.

The smartphone enabled always-available computing. Glasses will enable always-on computing.

Crypto literally cannot be stopped, turned off, banned, or otherwise censored. That is its entire purpose and design.

Whether that is good or bad is a different question.

(Yes, crypto can be regulated. Of course it can. The point is that it will continue to exist irrespective of regulation.)

Moreover, Wikipedia relies heavily on news articles as sources. It goes without saying that news outlets are not well known for holding neutral positions.

Frankly, it needs to be in the very first sentence of the article. Acronyms Seriously Suck.

There is ongoing research that would allow you to dress up your avatar however you would like.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZAcavi6aOGY

Meta only lost income and credibility from that scandal, unless you believe the data breach was conspiratorial.

No, dude. Conclusions cannot be made based on feelings. Where exactly is that step in the scientific method? It certainly doesn't sound like the rigorous skepticism that should be applied to what is observed.

I am appalled at the willingness to make huge logical leaps on the basis of emotions or morality in this thread.

At an even higher level, Apple and Google devices are what allow hateful and abusive content to be created. Should they bear some responsibility and prevent us from creating such content?

We've moved on to a different moral panic

Selling 20 million Quest 2 headsets is a pretty good outcome for the so-called Metaverse fiasco.

Let's not so eagerly prescribe the use of nascent technology.

That is plainly what they are trying to accomplish with VR.

Does AI/ML not unlock value for the Metaverse? Also, the layoffs are set to prioritize recruiting, management, and business personnel. That seems to go against the idea that they are switching to an MBA-led approach.

On what would we base this regulation? A hazy feeling of discomfort?

> the FUD about surveillance and manipulation should apply everywhere

We're already here.

> and be regulated everywhere

This is where we need to be.

I would estimate maybe 1 in ~7 billion odds

(statistical liberties taken)

I thought of a few interesting (speculative) use cases:

- Treat photosensitive epilepsy by filtering incoming visual stimuli

- Improve vision for cases not treatable with typical lenses

- Use eye-tracking to assist with communication for people with various disabilities

- Teleoperate robots in dangerous conditions

- Perform live translation with AR subtitles

- Learn everything there is to know about anything you look at - plants, animals, places, things

- Block ads/brands in real life

- Enhance learning of instrument/sport/activity

- Record and re-experience major life events in 3d space

- Communicate with true telepresence

Newspaper—

wait, radio—

wait, tv—

wait, social media is going to control the world.

It sounds like a joke, but despite public opinion, Meta is one of the top AI research groups in the world.

> everybody jumping from the bridge should be a strong indicator of what to do.

Not jump from the bridge?

Regulators could kill several birds with one stone and allow alternative app markets on iOS devices.

Bad actors already have access to the data, right? Would it not be better to legalize/regulate it? I'm not convinced that we can put the genie back into the bottle.

What basis do you have for this claim? Screens strapped to faces seems immediately preferable, if only for discrete viewing. Why do you think phones won out against televisions?

No. These problems would certainly exist even if Facebook never did. Like I said, Facebook could be dismantled by regulators today. It won't do anything.

Do you think Facebook or other social media are the main contributors to the acceleration of those things? Why?

Just as with Facebook it seems I am guilty until proven innocent. If you want to believe that they intentionally enabled genocide in a foreign country with politics that neither of us could likely begin to understand, then fine. I have been more than clear, and yet you ask for more. How can I offer explanation to the decline of a regime? Is it not obvious that mental health has been in decline for decades? Or that economic inequality is ever-growing? The average lifespan is in decline. Houselessness is on the rise. You balk at genocide? Our government regularly commits genocide on the scale of the holocaust [1] [2] [3], _with intent_.

Who should be held accountable for all of this? Facebook? What a joke. If they are truly guilty, regulators have all the power in the world to hold them accountable.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indonesian_mass_killings_of_19...

[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide_of_indigenous_peoples...

[3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_invasion_of_Pana...

How about we start with the claim from the recent leaks that they cause depression or body image issues? The leaked document in question [1] should be considered for further research, but it is hardly evidence of this claim.

There is also a popular claim that Facebook contributed to genocide. Here's an article [2]. Facebook hired an investigator that concluded that their involvement was without their knowledge. Tragic and reckless, sure. Intentional? I doubt it. I think it's an issue of scale and navigating complex regulatory and social structures.

Shadow profiles are another hot topic. The big issue is that, if you agreed to let Facebook read your contacts, it linked your friends phone numbers to distinct 'profiles' in the background. Presumably these could also be tied to their advertising profiles.

Cambridge Analytica was a company that abused a bug in API access (allegedly unbeknownst to Facebook - this exploit was available to all 3rd party apps) to collect information not only about willing participants, but their friends as well.

As for VR, there are numerous claims and hesitancy about privacy abuse through tracking and sensing technologies that are essential to VR development. I appreciate some hesitancy, but it is a bit sensationalized.

Beyond all of this, there are lots of claims of monopoly abuse. There is actually an FTC lawsuit that could lead to a landmark antritust case, but that is yet to be seen. I don't really think they have a monopoly as there are numerous competitors.

I apologize as I don't have links for everything, but that's an overview of my thoughts. I think Facebook is simply navigating the regulatory and social landscape in a way that any novel company or platform would be required to navigate. I think we often forget that this technology is new and will experience growing pains, even if at such massive scale. I think a lot of the blame for the fraying of U.S. democracy, the decline in mental health, and other social issues are incorrectly attributed to things that have brought change in the past few decades. More realistically, I think the U.S. (where most of the claims are relevant) is simply declining after several hundred years of abusive reign as the world's superpower.

[1]: https://about.fb.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/Instagram-Te...

[2]: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/06/technology/myanmar-facebo...

My intentions were clear in my first post - legislation will be the deciding factor. This back and forth is meaningless.

I am interested in the virtual reality space, and started posting because I was frustrated by the spread of misinformation/propaganda. Ironically, there is a lot of misinformation about Facebook. I'm sure my contributions are mostly meaningless, but it has at least been interesting to follow discussions.

Evidence is a horribly abused term. Do you really believe any of this would admissible in a court of law?