It's a long essay, but is also a ell written introduction to
Facebook's VR world (and Zuckerberg's lovechild), the Metaverse. It's
less about the technical aspects, and more about what it's actually
like to really use it, especially regarding the social aspects.
https://nymag.com/intelligencer/article/mark-zuckerberg-metaverse-meta-horizon-worlds.html

And, okay, the article does come across a little bit like 'old man
discovers chat room', because a lot of the behavior he describes is
exactly the sort you find on most social platforms. Still, this
behavior* can be chilling to those unaware of it. And nothing about
the Metaverse cures this problem. In fact, the immediacy of VR and the
absolute lack of any real content only makes it worse.

Which is, generally, the whole point of the article; how pointless and
sophomoric the whole experience is. It's an Internet Chat room open to
the general public, which both limits the intimacy and functionality.
The former means all conversations will be superficial small-talk;
everyone is a stranger to one another. And despite Facebook and
Zuckerberg's fervent assertions to the contrary, VR is nowhere near a
replacement for real life; your actions are strictly curtailed to what
the developers scripted into the program (and let's not even get into
how primitive Facebook's metaverse is visually to begin with). There's
a rather humorous description of the author researching various porn
resulted VR games, and its hard to imagine anyone beyond the most
sex-starved teenager having any interest in it.

Worse are how Facebook attempts to gameify and monetize all social
interactions; where you can earn points (that buy you cheap bonuses
like T-shirts) for 'the many small acts of goodwill people perform for
one another every day'. It unconsciously trains the mind to put
monetary value to acts that should be reflexive, and its haunting to
imagine how it may subtly be pervading the real-life actions of people
immersed in Facebook's virtual world.

The author himself is obviously not technically adept; geeks have more
forbearance for the limitations of VR, often blinding themselves to
its shortcomings and focusing only on its potential. Still, people
like the author are exactly the sort of people that the Metaverse need
to attract if it hopes to be in anyway successful, and it's amusing to
read the reactions of an 'ordinary person' trying to immerse
themselves in its strange culture.

If you have the ten minutes or so, I recommend giving it a read.

* sometimes described as the 'greater internet fuckwad theory', where
the anonymity and distance offered by internet communications often
brings out antisocial behaviors

On 17/03/2023 16:59, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
>
> It's a long essay, but is also a ell written introduction to
> Facebook's VR world (and Zuckerberg's lovechild), the Metaverse. It's
> less about the technical aspects, and more about what it's actually
> like to really use it, especially regarding the social aspects.
> https://nymag.com/intelligencer/article/mark-zuckerberg-metaverse-meta-horizon-worlds.html
>
> And, okay, the article does come across a little bit like 'old man
> discovers chat room', because a lot of the behavior he describes is
> exactly the sort you find on most social platforms. Still, this
> behavior* can be chilling to those unaware of it. And nothing about
> the Metaverse cures this problem. In fact, the immediacy of VR and the
> absolute lack of any real content only makes it worse.
>
> Which is, generally, the whole point of the article; how pointless and
> sophomoric the whole experience is. It's an Internet Chat room open to
> the general public, which both limits the intimacy and functionality.
> The former means all conversations will be superficial small-talk;
> everyone is a stranger to one another. And despite Facebook and
> Zuckerberg's fervent assertions to the contrary, VR is nowhere near a
> replacement for real life; your actions are strictly curtailed to what
> the developers scripted into the program (and let's not even get into
> how primitive Facebook's metaverse is visually to begin with). There's
> a rather humorous description of the author researching various porn
> resulted VR games, and its hard to imagine anyone beyond the most
> sex-starved teenager having any interest in it.
>

There does seem to be an element of that but for me it reads more like
the cynical style of humour that is common in the British Isles. As the
Publand Lord said, the reason that unlike Americans we don't have a
dream is because we're awake!

> Worse are how Facebook attempts to gameify and monetize all social
> interactions; where you can earn points (that buy you cheap bonuses
> like T-shirts) for 'the many small acts of goodwill people perform for
> one another every day'. It unconsciously trains the mind to put
> monetary value to acts that should be reflexive, and its haunting to
> imagine how it may subtly be pervading the real-life actions of people
> immersed in Facebook's virtual world.
>

Now it's my turn to get into the whole old man mode. Unfortunately it
seems to be something that is far more common in society as a whole. The
move to treat more everyday interactions not like a social contract but
instead as a commercial one. Western individualism has positives but it
can also lead to to an attitude of self-entitlement and this idea that I
can in no way be inconvenienced even if that means inconveniencing you.

One of my personal bugbears (among many), people who try and push their
way into traffic. If the traffic is relatively slow moving I'm more than
happy to let someone out of a junction because, well why wouldn't you as
it's the nice thing to do. Where I have a problem is when people 'push'
themselves out of a junction and just expect you to stop. That's a
situation that means I'll go out of my way to not let them in.

> The author himself is obviously not technically adept; geeks have more
> forbearance for the limitations of VR, often blinding themselves to
> its shortcomings and focusing only on its potential. Still, people
> like the author are exactly the sort of people that the Metaverse need
> to attract if it hopes to be in anyway successful, and it's amusing to
> read the reactions of an 'ordinary person' trying to immerse
> themselves in its strange culture.
>
> If you have the ten minutes or so, I recommend giving it a read.
>
>
>
>
>
> * sometimes described as the 'greater internet fuckwad theory', where
> the anonymity and distance offered by internet communications often
> brings out antisocial behaviors

It could be rose tinted spectacles but it does feel that the standard of
online discourse has been in steady decline for many, many years. It's
the main reason I choose to cull a lot of my social media engagement at
the end of last year. The art of being able to have a civilised
conversation where each person considers the other's point of view seems
to be a dying one. It's been replaced by if I act like an arsehole to
you then you'll stop speaking to me and I can think I won an argument.
Nope it just makes you look like an arsehole.

On Sat, 18 Mar 2023 11:25:02 +0000, JAB <noway@nochance.com> wrote:

>On 17/03/2023 16:59, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:

>> * sometimes described as the 'greater internet fuckwad theory', where
>> the anonymity and distance offered by internet communications often
>> brings out antisocial behaviors

>It could be rose tinted spectacles but it does feel that the standard of
>online discourse has been in steady decline for many, many years. It's
>the main reason I choose to cull a lot of my social media engagement at
>the end of last year. The art of being able to have a civilised
>conversation where each person considers the other's point of view seems
>to be a dying one. It's been replaced by if I act like an arsehole to
>you then you'll stop speaking to me and I can think I won an argument.
>Nope it just makes you look like an arsehole.

It doesn't help that so many Internet communications these days
consist of one or two lines. It's all good to be pithy and concise but
if you only speak in sound bytes then you'll never be able to
communicate your ideas effectively. Which leads to misunderstandings
by others, who also - limited to one or two sentence communiqués -
can't adequately make you understand their point of view.

Whereas, if both sides took the time to sit down and write out their
arguments, not only might people see where they are coming from, but
also see them as real people with real issues rather than just
somebody making a one-off quip. But no, nowadays, it's all "TL;DR" and
we all jump to the next outrage (or cat video).

But admittedly, I may be a bit biased. You may have noticed over the
years that I have a tendency towards loquacity. Don't blame me, I was
brutally taught not to make one-line "me too" responses in the early
days of Usenet; some of those scars still haven't healed.

TL;DR: the death of long-form communications is destroying society.
;-)

On 18/03/2023 14:59, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
> On Sat, 18 Mar 2023 11:25:02 +0000, JAB <noway@nochance.com> wrote:
>
>> On 17/03/2023 16:59, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
>
>>> * sometimes described as the 'greater internet fuckwad theory', where
>>> the anonymity and distance offered by internet communications often
>>> brings out antisocial behaviors
>
>> It could be rose tinted spectacles but it does feel that the standard of
>> online discourse has been in steady decline for many, many years. It's
>> the main reason I choose to cull a lot of my social media engagement at
>> the end of last year. The art of being able to have a civilised
>> conversation where each person considers the other's point of view seems
>> to be a dying one. It's been replaced by if I act like an arsehole to
>> you then you'll stop speaking to me and I can think I won an argument.
>> Nope it just makes you look like an arsehole.
>
> It doesn't help that so many Internet communications these days
> consist of one or two lines. It's all good to be pithy and concise but
> if you only speak in sound bytes then you'll never be able to
> communicate your ideas effectively. Which leads to misunderstandings
> by others, who also - limited to one or two sentence communiqués -
> can't adequately make you understand their point of view.
>
> Whereas, if both sides took the time to sit down and write out their
> arguments, not only might people see where they are coming from, but
> also see them as real people with real issues rather than just
> somebody making a one-off quip. But no, nowadays, it's all "TL;DR" and
> we all jump to the next outrage (or cat video).
>
> But admittedly, I may be a bit biased. You may have noticed over the
> years that I have a tendency towards loquacity. Don't blame me, I was
> brutally taught not to make one-line "me too" responses in the early
> days of Usenet; some of those scars still haven't healed.
>
>
> TL;DR: the death of long-form communications is destroying society.
> ;-)
>

One of the problems I find is the amount of people who aren't capable of
arguing in good faith. So if someone is arguing in good faith I have no
problem in giving longer replies. The issue is if you dealing with
someone who doesn't do that, as long replies just allow them to pretty
much change the subject. Giving them a sentence or two just gives them a
lot less room to manoeuvrer.