Zuckerberg's Meta Endgame Is Monetizing All Human Behavior (vice.com) 88
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Motherboard, written by Janus Rose: During a tech demo in 2016, CEO Mark Zuckerberg described VR as "the next major computing platform" -- a space where all our social interactions will play out with new levels of physical presence thanks to headsets and motion-controllers. As I wrote at the time, this could only mean one thing: Zuckerberg wants to build virtual environments where all human behavior can be recorded, predicted, and monetized. At the time, the company told me it had "no current plans" to use physical motion data like head and eye movements as a means of predicting behavior and serving ads. Since then, it has made logging into Facebook a mandatory requirement for users of its Oculus headset -- a requirement it was recently pressured to remove. And earlier this year, the company announced its inevitable entry into VR-based advertising, inspiring enough backlash to cause one Oculus developer to abandon its plans for VR ads altogether.
While the bait-and-switch is a familiar and unsurprising move for The Company Formerly Known As Facebook, the announcement of Meta proves that there is no stopping Zuckerberg's plans to mine every human interaction in the world for data that can then be monetized. The brand shift notably comes at a time when the company is under intense scrutiny for its role in spreading disinformation and violence around the world, reinvigorated by revelations from whistleblower Frances Haugin. With Meta, it's safe to assume the predictive algorithms at work will be functionally the same as its predecessor. Data is collected about human behavior, which is then used to build profiles on users and automatically prioritize content they are more likely to interact with. Facebook itself proved the effectiveness of this manipulation with an "emotional contagion" experiment it secretly conducted on users in 2012, which showed that changing a user's feed to show positive or negative content altered the types of content they were likely to post.
This type of algorithmic manipulation forms the core business model of Facebook and countless other apps and social platforms. [...] Researchers have found that this algorithmic "nudging" is possible in embodied virtual spaces too, where the collection of intimate data about physical body movements provides new ways to influence human behavior on a large scale. Companies like RealEyes and Affectiva have marketed AI that they say can predict human emotions by analyzing body language and facial expressions -- a claim that is fiercely contested by AI experts but being widely deployed anyway. In one notable study, researchers determined that AI-controlled digital avatars can be used in virtual spaces to push people into accepting certain political views. In other words, Meta represents a massive investment into the very kind of algorithmic manipulation for which Facebook has been repeatedly maligned.
While the bait-and-switch is a familiar and unsurprising move for The Company Formerly Known As Facebook, the announcement of Meta proves that there is no stopping Zuckerberg's plans to mine every human interaction in the world for data that can then be monetized. The brand shift notably comes at a time when the company is under intense scrutiny for its role in spreading disinformation and violence around the world, reinvigorated by revelations from whistleblower Frances Haugin. With Meta, it's safe to assume the predictive algorithms at work will be functionally the same as its predecessor. Data is collected about human behavior, which is then used to build profiles on users and automatically prioritize content they are more likely to interact with. Facebook itself proved the effectiveness of this manipulation with an "emotional contagion" experiment it secretly conducted on users in 2012, which showed that changing a user's feed to show positive or negative content altered the types of content they were likely to post.
This type of algorithmic manipulation forms the core business model of Facebook and countless other apps and social platforms. [...] Researchers have found that this algorithmic "nudging" is possible in embodied virtual spaces too, where the collection of intimate data about physical body movements provides new ways to influence human behavior on a large scale. Companies like RealEyes and Affectiva have marketed AI that they say can predict human emotions by analyzing body language and facial expressions -- a claim that is fiercely contested by AI experts but being widely deployed anyway. In one notable study, researchers determined that AI-controlled digital avatars can be used in virtual spaces to push people into accepting certain political views. In other words, Meta represents a massive investment into the very kind of algorithmic manipulation for which Facebook has been repeatedly maligned.
Two Words: (Score:5, Insightful)
There's two works that describe Zuckerberg/Facebook/Meta: Privacy Rapist.
Re: (Score:2)
This. This. And This.
Re: (Score:2)
There's two works that describe Zuckerberg/Facebook/Meta: Privacy Rapist.
The endgame is that the ads people see are more likely to match their interests.
It is a bit silly to equate that with rape.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
There's two [words] that describe Zuckerberg/Facebook/Meta: Privacy Rapist.
The endgame is that the ads people see are more likely to match their interests.
It is a bit silly to equate that with rape.
And how you do think they'll "match [your] interests" - that's right, by tracking you. They've even gone so far as creating "shadow profiles" for everyone, even those without any accounts for their services, and have tried forcing people to sign into their services to use products that technically don't need any login to function (so it's clear why they want you to log into them).
Given their past and present behavior, I think "privacy rapist" is an apt and correct description.
Re:Two Words: (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
>The endgame is that the ads people see are more likely to match their interests
That hasn't been shown. Past interests?
I suggest that rather people interests are multiple and rarely if ever include being manipulated to other's profit.
Re:Two Words: (Score:4, Interesting)
What these ad companies don't get is that they are a bit late. Let's say I'm looking for a new fridge. Because I currently am. I'll be looking around various pages showing fridges, I may even consult pages that test and rate fridges. And eventually I will buy one.
Next I know is that my inbox is flooded with ads for fridges. Get the clue, advertisers: I JUST BOUGHT ONE! I don't need another one!
Re:Two Words: (Score:5, Informative)
It is a bit silly to equate that with rape.
'Rape' has more than 1 definition:
rape: [dictionary.com] an act of plunder, violent seizure, or abuse; despoliation; violation: the rape of the countryside.
Re: (Score:3)
That's not yet a field, son, that's just fucking dirt.
Re: (Score:2)
Ads are nothing. Ads are a REASON to gather absolutely every bit of data about people. It's 100% about control and influence. Any metaverse must be based on a completely open protocol with no single influence big enough to swing it. Anything else is the worst of slavery because anything one builds INSIDE it will be property of the owner, and people WILL build their identity and lives there, from work to leisure to anything else. Current communist regime would look like a walk in a Disneyland park during fir
Re:Two Words: (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Sure as hell not looking like paradise.
I have a feeling people in 2100, assuming the AI permits them, reading Orwell and Ellison, and dreaming of such utopias, while hoping the enforcer drones don't pulverize them and their families for thoughtcrimes because of a brief rebellious facial expression.
Re: (Score:2)
There's a great Nikola Tesla quote on the subject "There is a difference between progress and technology. Progress benefits mankind. Technology does not necessarily do that.".
The current version of the internet, and the "you must log into every device/service" mentality being pushed (purely so you can be tracked), is very much heading into the realm of technology.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's 100% about control and influence.
No, it really isn't.
It is about profit.
Corporations don't care about control and influence. They care about money.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Corporations don't care, but the people at the top do care. Look how Apple seemed to run a 100% scorched earth campaign with their patents, and they definitely were not in it for the profit, but apparently to deny those patents from everyone else. Microsoft scored patents... but allowed companies to use them.
If Apple were just out for profit, they would be making an enterprise tier of Macs, because one sale of 1000 devices is a lot easier to deal with than 1000 individual users.
Re: Two Words: (Score:4)
But the people behind those corporations might care about power, too. In which case they'll happily indulge in their control & influence wet dream, if it happens to also pad their bottom line (and it always does).
So at times it then becomes difficult to discern between what's the endgame and what's just an incidental benefit. Even for the perpetrators themselves.
Re: (Score:2)
Control and influence help with generating profit. So yes. They do care.
Re: (Score:2)
Money is just a means to control and dominate others. Being rich isn't enough, the sociopaths who run the world require that most folks be poor and desperate.
As an example, in countries with low wealth inequality, very few beautiful young women marry disgusting rich old men. When people feel secure, they will not allow themselves to be taken advantage of. So those addicted to power over others will always seek to enact austerity measures, to make people poorer and more desperate.
It's a long standing philoso
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Two Words: (Score:4)
It is a bit silly to equate that with rape.
So it's not rape if you get fucked against your consent by a person with traits you're interested in? Hm Interesting take. I'm pretty sure that's wrong, but interesting.
Ads siphon away my most valuable resources: attention and cognitive potential. There's only so much of that available per person, per day.
Re: (Score:2)
There's two works that describe Zuckerberg/Facebook/Meta: Privacy Rapist.
The endgame is that the ads people see are more likely to match their interests.
It is a bit silly to equate that with rape.
It is a bit silly to confuse means with ends.
I could say the endgame is "shareholder value" which is more accurate than your statement yet still not at all relevant.
Re: (Score:2)
Shareholder value is the intermediate game, not the end. The end game is and always has been domination, having power over others, being able to force them to bend the knee. Every hierarchy works that way. Money is just a means to and end. it's as much about making the poor even more desperate as it is about getting more money yourself. being rich won't get your dick sucked if everyone else is also rich. The rich need the poor to remain poor, because people who are not desperate would never want to suck dis
Re: (Score:2)
The rape is what lets them match ads with people's interest.
It's like saying you should be happy about the kids you have due to the rape.
Re: (Score:1)
>> There's two works that describe Zuckerberg/Facebook/Meta
Maximum Revenue?
I thought the 21st century agreed on a religion of It's Just Good Business, are we having second thoughts?
Re: (Score:2)
>> There's two works that describe Zuckerberg/Facebook/Meta
Maximum Revenue?
I thought the 21st century agreed on a religion of It's Just Good Business, are we having second thoughts?
Doh! Damn autocorrect. At least it didn't screw up the post title.
Re: (Score:2)
So I can't call them Meta Stasi anymore?
Would be sad, it's a delicious way to describe their next stage of the cancer they are by combining their new name with the old name of the surveillance organization of the GDR.
Re:Two Words: (Score:5, Interesting)
Yeah. Its *scary* how much shit they know about people. I still get chills thinking about the time I uploaded a photo of me and some friends and it correctly identified a couple of people I know that dont, nor ever have, had a social media account of any sort. as suggested tags. All I can work out is that at some point someone, possibly me possibly not, uploaded a photo with him and mentioned his name.
And with the increasingly advanced state of natural language processing these things are reading our conversations and starting to understand what people are saying and then boxing up and filing away those little atoms of knowledge to build shockingly comprehensive databases about literally everyone whos ever touched a computer in the past decade.
The thing we need to remember though, is with these social media networks we are not the customer, we are the product. Advertisers are the customer. And it doesnt matter what we think about the product, its not us buying it. Only the advertisers opinion matters. And the advertisers want as much data as is physically possible about us.
This does however also suggest the real way to get at these companies. They dont give a flying fuck if we disaprove. But if the advertisers disaprove, then they take notice. Years of complaints about the bullying culture in corners of youtube did nothing to make them budge. One advertiser removing their business was all it took to make Youtube flip out and finally make changes.
If you want to change social media, you HAVE to go after the advertisers. And you do that by letting the marketing companies know that you intend on creating PR nightmares for their clients unless they intervene on social media privacy and do something about it. Because bad PR scares marketing PR companies more than death itself.
Re: (Score:1)
All I can work out is that at some point someone, possibly me possibly not, uploaded a photo with him and mentioned his name.
So screw the algorithm. Upload lots of unrelated pictures and label them as being him and say all sorts of things that are not him but phrase them as if they are.
Re: (Score:3)
There's two works that describe Zuckerberg/Facebook/Meta: Privacy Rapist.
Another 2 words: Algorithmic Manipulator
Re: Two Words: (Score:1)
Praise the Sun he used the fruits of his rape to fortify elections, though. Can you imagine a world where Biden wasnâ(TM)t elected?
Duh. (Score:2)
Film at eleven.
How much data you can get from fursonas? (Score:3)
Because those second life like things are pretty much only used by furries and anime people.
If meta does not allow that, it will get it's lunch eaten by the existing services.
Re: (Score:2)
only used by furries and anime people.
Do you realize how much money people spend on furry outfits and anime?
Re: (Score:2)
Yes.
But getting money thru honest business with a store and stuff is just not the facebook style.
Re: (Score:2)
Lots of money in virtual land. [youtu.be]
I saw this show (Score:2)
It was called Made for Love. Ray Romano was great.
Aliens have arrived (Score:2)
And the world is doomed.
How are they monetizing all the people (Score:2)
who never have, or never will use anything to do with BookFace?
Or those who just drop out, and never log in?
Re: (Score:2)
basically it amounts to illegal surveillance but they do an end-run around the typical privacy laws by tricking people you know into uploading data for you, then they just fill in the blanks with AI and sell it in bulk to organized crime and foreign governments
Re:How are they monetizing all the people (Score:5, Informative)
Facebook creates Shadow Profiles [wikipedia.org] from folks
who never have, or never will use anything to do with BookFace?
. . . and monetizes on that info.
Re: How are they monetizing all the people (Score:3)
A thought comes to mind: in theory, the GDPR would allow you to request to see any shadow data they have of you, and request to delete that.
Never tried thsat, though. Should probably do, just for the kicks.
Remember when you ready Ready Player One (Score:2)
But you were like, damn I wish the bad guy won; he would have made SO much more money.
BOYCOTT FACEBOOK (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Just stop using them. Tell friends that you are not on Facebook. Close your account. Don't use Instagram. Don't use Snapchat.
This is what I do (though I never signed up).
One can hope telling ppl has an effect, but something needs to be done about Facebook itself. It started with privacy transgressions and quickly escalated to using that data to manipulate people in terrible ways.
Re: (Score:2)
No need from the looks of it (Score:1)
Usage from teenagers and 20-somethings has been decreasing for years. I doubt this trend will change and FB may gradually become irrelevant. Instagram and snapchat are losing popularity with the youth as well.
Tiktok and twitch are on top for now. Discord for communication.
Re: (Score:2)
Just stop using them. Tell friends that you are not on Facebook. Close your account. Don't use Instagram. Don't use Snapchat.
ITYM Whatsapp: it's part of the facebook group. Snapchat is a separate publicly traded company.
But either way, I can tell my friends whatever I like, doesn't mean I'm going to have much of an impact. I use whatsapp because of a few friend groups and the odd tradie.
Re: (Score:2)
Go one step further: Fill it with garbage.
As a statistician, there is one thing that is worse than getting no data: Poisoned data. Where someone deliberately goes and poisons your data source by adding bogus information that cannot be separated from actual data.
The only thing you can do with that in such a case is to throw it out altogether.
Re: (Score:2)
"The only thing you can do with that in such a case is to throw it out altogether."
Or use more algorithms to separate the junk data from the good stuff. It takes a lot of effort to make bad profile data that "cannot be separated from actual data." Most people don't have the knowhow, energy, or inclination to put in the effort anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
If they have to waste resources on getting their data back in order, fine by me.
Personal liberty (Score:2)
The only thing you can do is warn people clearly and loudly. Beyond that there's not much you can do for the idiots dumb enough to enter into this that world.
Zuckerberg's Meta Endgame Is Monetizing All Human (Score:2)
Eat shit and die, Zuck (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This. This. And This.
Re: (Score:2)
This is one of those people who are still alive for the sole reason that they ain't even worth a second of jail time.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm pretty sure demons have a more friendly face.
Zuckerberg is an android. Prove me wrong.
Setup a Pi-hole and block all domains you wish (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Can you really do wildcards with Pi-hole? Because you sure can't do that on macOS!
Surveillance Tech (Score:2)
Wait what exactly do we accuse Facebook of? That they adopt the Google full spectrum surveillance business model? That they don't give the state the full power to censor online speech? I don't mind too much demonizing Facebook but there is a large component of attention diversion to this hate frenzy.
Re: (Score:2)
Wait what exactly do we accuse Facebook of? That they adopt the Google full spectrum surveillance business model? That they don't give the state the full power to censor online speech? .
That they deliberately and knowingly push people into extremist positions, and cause teenage suicides in bucket loads.
Facebook values controversy, and sets out to generate it because controversy creates engagement. Happy people don't spend nearly as much time on FB as angry ones, so angry people see more adverts and make more money for Zuck.
Re: (Score:2)
Same issue. Polarization and addiction is the contemporary business model for all of media, including the NYTimes, but you only associate it with facebook. The polarization democrat/republican in the US is championed by the media.
The main concern with facebook is politics wants to control what people say.
Re: (Score:2)
Same issue. Polarization and addiction is the contemporary business model for all of media, including the NYTimes, but you only associate it with facebook.
I was more NOT associating it with Google, which was the connection you made. Google's evil is a different sort.
The polarization democrat/republican in the US is championed by the media.
Yes. Facebook is part of the media. But ignoring them because of that is like not having speed limits on roads because horses can't run at 70mph. Or allowing everyone to carry guns because there's only so much damage you can do with a flintlock.
The main concern with facebook is politics wants to control what people say.
No, I think the main concern is that normal people don't want Facebook to destroy society and kill people. I'm happy to control what people say if they are
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry for the delay I don't have much time.
Google is the founder of the full surveillance business model in the topic title. Facebook adds addictive tendencies and scale issues but that is not essential to their business model. It's mere optimisation.
The desire to control facebook is simply antidemocratic. Crowds are fickle and can be nasty. The are also communities , collective organisation and activism.
The idea about democracy is the nasty mob behavior is real enough but it is still up to the mobs how soc
Re: (Score:2)
Uhh, polarization is championed by the political parties, how do you think they'd otherwise maintain their base? The news ending up being a bit biased is an aftereffect of political partisanship.
Media companies are generally influenced by people in government and people who are filthy rich due to ownership or information sharing/release, as journalists are not omnipotent creatures and can pretty much only report on information that is made public, and people only make information public that's in their best
Re: (Score:2)
Polarisation is championed by political parties and media. The business models have shifted to what is called silo-ing: the international reference and agenda setter NYTimes has given up on trying to be fair and reasonable, just cater to the democratic part of the public. Almost no republicans will trust anything from the NYTimes anymore but democrats put high trust in it. This was not the case 20 years ago. Well, not for them at least, Fox started it in the nineties to only appeal to white males over fift
Re: (Score:2)
Tucker Carlson is actually a good example of the opposite. He's no longer purely a far right racist republican but will occasionally bring on stuff which nobody else will.
Tucker Carlson, who's spent the last several months railing about Critical Race Theory destroying our children, and then admitting a couple of nights ago [businessinsider.com] that he doesn't actually know what it is? His show is exactly a far right clown act, packaging up a bunch of nonsense alongside healthy servings of Trump Support and Own The Libs so that it goes down easier.
Also big tip on that Sidney Powell nonsense I referenced earlier: he continued to rant and rave about election fraud after making the mistake of asking
An army of drones (Score:2)
Facebook Everywhere (Score:3)
Do you ever feel like you live in a society that youâ(TM)re not part of?
I work for a major-ish tech company, medium-sized team, and live in a relatively large family, and larger extended family. Nobody I deal with on a daily basis even mentions Facebook. Yet whenever I go online, itâ(TM)s as though everyone uses it, all the time,
I know itâ(TM)s popular, and that many people have accounts, itâ(TM)s just weird how, for some folks, itâ(TM)s nowhere near as ubiquitous as the general population.
Actually, I do have a Facebook account, sort of. I signed up many years ago under my legal name, which is uncommon, though by no means rare. Facebook suspended it until I verified my name, which I never did. Instead, I created a new account with an obviously fictitious name, which is also quite vulgar.
Iâ(TM)ve had this account for about 10 years, and never had a problem with it. Obviously, itâ(TM)s read-only, or used to interact with business Facebook accounts,
Iâ(TM)m not trying to be one of those cooler-than-thou people who pretends that Facebook is beneath me. Iâ(TM)m sure I do plenty of things that others would consider a waste of time (Slashdot?), and I don;t look down on people who use it. I just donâ(TM)t fully get it though. I mean, we already had AOL, then MySpace, and a bunch of things that gave you a homepage without having to know HTML.
Facebook doesnâ(TM)t seem to do anything particular interesting or unique, imho. It feels like AOL 2.0, except maybe a little creepier with the tracking stuff. Whatâ(TM)s the big appeal?
Is it just the ubiquity that has everybody hooked on it? The fact that most people they know are on it?
P.S. Even though itâ(TM)s not my thing, I bet Facebookâ(TM)s software can handle iPad apostrophes. Hey Slashdot, perhaps you should ping them for technical advice? Then again, I donâ(TM)t mean to rush you. Itâ(TM)s only 2021. Weâ(TM)ve only had web boards for about 30 years. These things take time Iâ(TM)m sure.
Re: (Score:2)
Ever consider that maybe the problem is that the iPad apparently can't produce standard ASCII apostrophes? 99% of the posts here have no problem with apostrophes, only
Re: (Score:2)
Ever consider that maybe the problem is that the iPad apparently can't produce standard ASCII apostrophes? 99% of the posts here have no problem with apostrophes, only those that are "Sent from my iPhone".
It can produce normal apostrophes, but it's now turned off by default. The funky apostrophe is due to the "smart punctuation" feature which is using a left or right apostrophe instead of a simple vertical apostrophe. Like most things labelled "smart", it's not. This can be turned off in settings.
COVID (Score:2)
Well if I have learned one thing from the lockdowns, it’s that I don’t need more virtual reality, zoom meetings, team chats, FaceTime calls.
They tried, and failed, to rename social distancing, to physically distancing and I guess it was the right name for what happened anyway.
FB/Meta be damned (Score:1)
Monetization (Score:2)
Another Life.. (Score:2)
Tell me Mets's logo does not match these space ships
Tell me both the Aliens and Meta are not evil and want to take over the world.
Evolution keeps creating leeches. (Score:2)
The answer seems to be that he comes up with creepy ways to turn people against each other and themselves. But since that's not a legitimate profession, the question stands.
the real reason zuck is making meta (Score:2)
He ran out of hot girls to rate, so he's making a virtual space where anyone can be a hot girl, thus creating more hot girls to rate.
Meta isn't going to run everything. (Score:1)
Matrix Prequel (Score:2)
Before inducing seizures (Score:2)
Except, in Facebook's case, it's not just ads, but also shit that makes good people feel awful, bad people into sadistic trolls, and crazy people into mad hatters.
Zuck isn't the only purveyor of VR (Score:1)