Facebook Inc.

(06-10-2021, 10:41 PM)Wildreamz Wrote: Hi D123,

There has been many discussions of this around the internet, including on this forum, if you scroll back a few pages. As an example, you can refer to post #171 (https://www.valuebuddies.com/thread-1649...#pid160529) where I compared the privacy policy of Whatsapp with it's various competitors: iMessage and Signal.
...

Lastly, I would also like to post a question back to you: Where do you rank Facebook, in terms of social media operators? Are there any major social media operator today, that operates in even greater bad-faith than Facebook?

I realize now that my questions were perhaps too broad and all-encompassing to be answered in a forum post. Experts have been studying these questions for years and countless pages of reports written about the topic, only to end up in the current unsatisfying state of inconclusiveness. Apologies for raising expectations.

A few points to note:

1. Your example of YouTube Kids is but one of many examples and counter-examples that can be raised. Just search "Youtube Kids criticism" and you'll see what I mean.

2. Frances Haugen is just the latest face of a long line of accusations, leaks and investigations into Facebook's behaviour. To be honest, I don't think she raised anything really new.

3. And to your final questions, IMO answering this question calls for objective measures to evaluate subjective matters, which is hard. For example, before we can say one company is better than another at removing harmful content, we first need to define what harmful content means, which is very difficult at the edges. 

Facebook is the public face of many criticisms of social media platforms such as them not regulating content enough, regulating content too much, harvesting too much data, not sharing enough data etc., but Facebook is by no means the only one having the same struggle. It's natural of course to target them because they have the largest number of users in this group of products and as such, criticisms would hit hardest in the eye of the public. 

Finally, by one measure, they have spent US$13bn and employed 40,000 content moderators to work on "safety and security" since 2016. We don't know if this is the most any company has ever spent on this issue, but looking at the size and revenue of peers like Pinterest, Twitter and Snapchat, we can safely say this is not the least. 

I do not think Facebook has conclusively done the best job in addressing all the criticisms of social media - it's too hard for me to figure out. But likewise, I think all those who are adamant that they are the worst of the bunch might be jumping to conclusions.

(10-10-2021, 04:47 AM)D123 Wrote: 1. Your example of YouTube Kids is but one of many examples and counter-examples that can be raised. Just search "Youtube Kids criticism" and you'll see what I mean.

The point of bringing up YouTube Kids is not to say it is perfect, and have "solved" social media, but to highlight concrete examples that of features they have included to block/demonetize abusive content, reduce addiction/abuse etc. Even if no one legislate and ask for them. Does Facebook/Instagram have similar safeguards for kids?

2. Frances Haugen is just the latest face of a long line of accusations, leaks and investigations into Facebook's behaviour. To be honest, I don't think she raised anything really new.

Frances Haugen brought up new evidence that Facebook, internally had a Safeguard to prevent amplifying misinformation/conspiracy/contentious content on Facebook, which they switch ON during last years election, and switch OFF after the election, which led to the Jan 6th insurrection. 

3. And to your final questions, IMO answering this question calls for objective measures to evaluate subjective matters, which is hard. For example, before we can say one company is better than another at removing harmful content, we first need to define what harmful content means, which is very difficult at the edges. 

My first example was an objective measure; Whatsapp and Messenger demanded much more personal data/metadata compared to iMessage and Signal. They could easily do away with most without affecting user experience, and make Messenger a completely end-to-end encrypted service by default. But Facebook choose not to do so. The fact that they have tremendous leverage over users, and abuses it is a display bad-faith.

..

Finally, by one measure, they have spent US$13bn and employed 40,000 content moderators to work on "safety and security" since 2016. We don't know if this is the most any company has ever spent on this issue, but looking at the size and revenue of peers like Pinterest, Twitter and Snapchat, we can safely say this is not the least. 

Absolute numbers may be misleading, as Facebook also has much larger audience and reach; also absolute amount spent says nothing about how effective it is. Perhaps you can check the Top 10 trending on Facebook, vs Top 10 trending on Twitter/YouTube (which is public) to get a better idea of how effective their moderators are.

..

I think all those who are adamant that they are the worst of the bunch might be jumping to conclusions.

While I keep seeing bad-faith action by Facebook, I dare not say they are the worst. Gab and Parler is probably worse. I do keep observe obvious bad-faith actions; enough to deter me from investing in the company. YMMV.

Peace.

Facebook plans rebrand with new name, says The Verge

Reuters
October 20, 2021 2:54 PM +07

Oct 20 (Reuters) - Facebook Inc (FB.O), under fire from regulators and lawmakers over its business practices, is planning to rebrand itself with a new name that focuses on the metaverse, the Verge reported on Tuesday.

The name change will be announced next week, The Verge reported, citing a source with direct knowledge of the matter.

The move would likely position the flagship app as one of many products under a parent company overseeing brands such as Instagram and WhatsApp, according to the report. Google (GOOGL.O) adopted such a structure when it reorganized into a holding company called Alphabet in 2015.

Facebook said it does not comment on "rumor or speculation."

More details in https://www.reuters.com/technology/faceb...021-10-20/

While Facebook is busy thinking up a new company Name..

Snap shares plunge 25per cent as Apple privacy changes hit ads business
https://www.channelnewsasia.com/business...ss-2260586

Quote:The results for Snap, which is the first of the major social media companies to report earnings, cast a shadow over Facebook Inc and Twitter Inc, which release third quarter results next week.

Snap's results also knocked Facebook shares down 6per cent, Twitter down 7per cent and Alphabet fell 3per cent on Thursday.

The Apple privacy updates were rolled out broadly in June and prevent digital advertisers from tracking iPhone users without their consent.

---

If your business model relies on you getting away with increasingly intrusive and excessive user surveillance, you will get push-back at some point.

The right thing to do for users (stakeholders) is for Facebook to collect less and less data over time as their business mature; turns out (unsurprisingly), it is also the right thing to do for shareholders (also stakeholders).

(ex-Facebook investor)

Meta's core biz is immensely FCF generative with a strong competitive advantage. The only problem is that it is trying to reinvent itself with high capex in an uncertain future. Of course, history is littered with tech companies that saw the future but didnt invest in it (eg. Kodak), and those who did (eg. Apple). The back mirror shows a solid company with great moats but the front mirror, as always, is more hazy than ever.

Has Mark Zuckerberg rebranded Facebook, or rebranded VR? What is the metaverse? And can any company decide to build the future anymore?

The trouble is, tech history is full of companies that dominated one generation trying to seize the next - they tend not to make it. The incumbents very rarely create the future, and the future very rarely comes from a centralised, $10bn project.

Indeed, one might suggest that the problem with ‘the information superhighway’ was the word ‘the’ - it came with a presumption that there would be one, single, centralised project, probably built by companies like AT&T and Disney. When people say ‘our company is going to build the metaverse’ I get the same feeling - many of the ideas inside that will probably happen, but not as one project, and not with one name.

https://www.ben-evans.com/benedictevans/.../metabrand

The metaverse doesn't look like a thing for boomers and millennials. It doesn't even seem possible for Gen Z. But it could be possible for the next generation after Gen Z.

I've already lived in the metaverse, and it was a little sad

Alex and misterwrong have something in common. Neither is here to be the real versions of themselves, working real jobs, tied to real constraints and obligations. If the real-verse had everything they wanted, they wouldn't need a meta one.

https://www.businesstimes.com.sg/technol...little-sad

On the contrary, I think many Gen Z is already living in the Metaverse: Minecraft, Roblox, Zepeto (Naver), Vtubers, Twitch, Discord, Fortnite etc..

The Metaverse has actually little direct relations with VR/AR, it's more about having a digital identity, and the mindset of being deeply invested-in and engaged-with purely online interactive worlds/communities.

Can also see it as the next evolution of Social Media. As people spend more time with their friends on interactive virtual worlds, there is no need for passive-consumption, privacy-intrusive social media platforms.

VR/AR could be an extension of virtual worlds, if the hardware technology matures and costs come down; but it is definitely not the pre-requisite.

(vested in Roblox)

Virtual world is interesting to explore with unexpected stuff and outcome. Mundane stuff like work is not.

After a while in Sims you can log off. But you can't log off life

Entertainment is needed but to blend it with work I'm doubtful

In the past year, corporate activities have transitioned from physical interactions to Zoom/Teams/Webex, to Figma FigJam/Mural, to virtual teambuilding games/virtual escape rooms, to virtual events/virtual booths.

Virtual activities in work settings have become more varied, interactive, and immersive. The trend towards the virtual "Metaverses", even in the corporate world, is real and accelerating.

Hi Wildreamz,
In your opinion, what would be the metaverse that Facebook (or Meta) is going to create?

Currently, Facebook has some hardware (Oculus), some communications (in the form of Messenger/whatsapp), digital currency/wallet (diem/Novi) and of course not forgetting its flagship Instagram/FB platform. It could probably do some acquisitions into entertainment (creative studios and game developers) or even corporate communication (ZOOM rooms, glassdoor etc).

It would be interesting to see what spans out from the point of view as an outsider, but also immensely uncertain for the future of Facebook (Meta) from the point of view as a shareholder. As Jeff Bezos like to say, it is always easier to look for things that will not change.

@specuvestor, SIMS was a novel concept in our times but it's stale now. That was what I was alluding to in my previous post. We are probably too old (and stale) to imagine what the future metaverse will look like!