Meta Reportedly Unhappy With How Much Money Its VR Division Burns
Meta Reportedly Unhappy With How Much Money Its VR Division Burns
Meta reportedly told its VR/AR teams to cut spending by a fifth, but the team is still expected to pump out Quest Headsets and AR glasses.
You're viewing part of a thread.
Welcome to the classic social media 100m dash. Become a popular dunk target on socials > get people to call such and such choice as a dealbreaker > stop doing such and such > it is now "not enough", or "they'll enshittify it later" or "a slippery slope".
Which fine, whatever. I'm not saying Meta are "good guys" (no corporation is, honestly). What I will say is a) that is not a particularly productive or functional way to engage with pretty much anything, especially when there is no comparable alternative to a product, and b) this is a remarkable incentive to NOT acknowledge criticism. I mean, if I'm Meta and I see this often, what is the incentive to not just force everybody to EULA away as much as possible? People will give me crap for it regardless, so I may as well get to sell some sweet, sweet data.
FWIW, I'm skeptical of the ability of Meta to turn around the VR market as a whole, I don't like many of their privacy and content moderation practices and I no longer use Facebook, Instagram or Threads. But hey, I do have a Whatsapp account because it's pretty much mandatory to exist in society, and I do have a Quest headset, which I agree is the best price to performance you can buy and works flawlessly with PC VR both wired and wirelessly.
I don't need to log into my computer monitor, why should I log into my VR goggles?
Don't give them thanks for only half vacuuming your personal privacy, keep bitching until they do it right.
I mean, in this case because it's a standalone device, so... for the same reason you log in to your PlayStation. Also, you already had to log in to it when this was a Oculus thing, the "I don't want a Facebook login" complaint only became a talking point after they transitioned from the Oculus login over to the Facebook login, so the intellectual honesty in moving the goalposts based on this argument seems dubious.
In any case, I could see you getting uppity about logging in to use it wired. Maybe. There are a ton of hardware settings and configuration that are handled within the Quest's software directly, so I bet that would be way less trivial to deploy than people imagine. There is certainly no way I can envision where this thing would be usable wirelessly without a software login. You need to run an app to link to your PC, be it the Oculus or the Steam Link app. For security reasons alone you don't want a logless device that streams what's on your desktop monitor at will.
EDIT: Also, for the record, there are a bunch of monitor manufacturers that do ask for a login. Hi, ASUS Armoury Crate, you suck and have always sucked.
You didn't have to log into PlayStations back in the day btw.. It just worked. Idk how it is now. (I switched to playing free games on PC and use my gaming budget to gamble on the stock market instead.)
My point is: Login doesn't need to be a requirement for standalone devices.
Hold on, the last time you didn't have to log in to use a PS console was... what, 2005? And you are seriously claiming in public with a straight face that you don't use any gaming services that need a log in on PC? So... you use none of them? Not Steam, not Gog, not Epic, not Xbox, not EA Play or whatever Origin is called... none of those.
Well, I mean, bully for you, but I'm gonna guess that Meta is after a different demographic than... you know, people who don't buy videogames on their videogame systems. Login absolutely has been a requirement for standalone gaming devices for the past twenty years, with no meaningful exceptions.
Specifically, though, what VR device do you use with no login? Because last I checked, all the places that deliver VR software have their own. The Oculus app does. Steam does. PSVR does. Apple sure does.
So... what type of mythical beast are you to be using this rawdog VR device with no login involved? Are you just beaming I Love Lucy to an HMD using the power of imagination?
Wow, the old "the others are doing it too!!" defence.
So lame.
You're just a corporate bootlicker lol 😆, did you buy their VR set or what?
Yes, the old "standard practices for the past 20 years should probably not be the reason you stay away from one product over another if both products are doing the same thing".
The bootlicking is off the charts.
For the record, I did buy one of their headsets. I also bought one of Valve's and one of Sony's. Turns out this VR thing has been going on for a while and I find it quite interesting.
I did make a login with all three of those companies.
I will just say that I don't think Steam et al. are equivalent to logging onto your device. The account I use on my computer is... just that, a local account for my computer. So, if the Quest requires some sort of authentication, why can't it be local too?
I have the same argument with consoles as well, but at least with the Xbox One, login still isn't required unless you're playing digital games. You can play all the disc games you like without any account.
This is not right. The Steam login is very much an online login, you can't create an account offline or a local-only account. Your login status is used for DRM and rich presence, among other things. Steam does allow a temporary offline mode for travel and so on, but it's not just a local account. This applies to the Steam Deck as well.
I'm pretty sure you do need an account on Xbox to play at all, including physical media. I don't think a local account will do, but I could be wrong on that one, there's been some argument about how to use consoles in Antarctica and whatnot, so the details are fuzzy.
Also, pretty sure the current Oculus account system works the exact same way. You can definitely play offline as well. You made me go check because at this point it's borderline gaslighting and yeah, you can absolutely turn off the Quest's Wi-fi and play offline.
The reason you kinda remember it working differently than the Xbox and all the others is probably the half-remembered outrage from the one year when it did work differently that everybody forgot to get over because Meta is Meta and dunking on Meta is never not fun.
Which is fair enough, but for Carmack's sake, if you do want an affordable HMD you can use both standalone and with your PC don't hesitate just because of a half-remembered grudge, it's okay to at least research it and give it a fair shake.
No no, I was saying the account for my computer is local only. Steam, being a separate application, makes sense to have a separate login.
And I don't remember anything differently... I don't really have a horse in this race, just playing devil's advocate.
Fair enough, substitute "the general consensus" there. I don't mean you as an individual specifically. You all. English really needs an official plural for the second person pronoun.
Your computer having a local account is fair enough, although MS is trying to kill that too and I genuinely am not sure if it's mandatory on Macs. In any case, the comparison here is with gaming consoles or, yeah, with Steam itself, in that the Quest isn't a display device, it is a full-on integrated platform. There's a store in there, it's digital only, so you can't really do much with it without a login, just like you can't do much with a PSVR or an Index without a login.
Again, people are displacing the old rage about there being a unified Facebook login tied to your real name, which was fair, with there being a login at all, which was never the point. Oculus required a login before Facebook stepped in and there is currently a separate login for Quest devices.
Hold on, the last time you didn’t have to log in to use a PS console was… what, 2005?
Oh, SW RotS on PS2 with friends at summer, and SW BFII, and Gran Turismo
When PS meant something.
EDIT: 2007-2008 rather, but still
Hey, I miss being young, too, but if I'm going to argue for the good old days of actually having friends over to play games I'm not gonna do it over the budget VR headset. People didn't get mad when Xbox Live happened and now this is the world we have.
If I ever encounter a monitor begging me to log in, that is going directly back where it came from the very same day.
Cool. Look after the ones you have now, then.
I read some of your other comments. Your mouse wants you to log in? I think part of the problem is you.
But I am worried about, for example, finding a TV that isn't a piece of shit. It does seem to be creeping in more and more product categories.
I wish people would quit buying that shit. Collective refusal to log in to our monitors would eventually end the begging. Too bad some people are desperate for RGB lighting I guess.
The problem is indeed me in that I use an ergonomic Logitech mouse because RSI is a bitch.
And that mouse absolutely demands that you use Logitech's annoying peripheral controller software, which also insists on updating with game button profiles every time you reboot your PC. Welcome to the future.
Hey, I agree that it's bad and annoying and quite ridiculous for a mouse or just to use RGB lights. I really hope that MS's centralized RGB management will replace most of it. My current keyboard already supports it and it's great to have it right in the OS settings instead of being bloatware.
But my point isn't that endless superfluous apps are a good thing, it's that being big mad about a software and gaming platform requesting you to log in to it is at best anachronistic and at worst not a thing you want, given you are using your credit card and streaming your desktop through it.
It sucks that Logitech is one of the few competitors in that space, yeah. I've got a vertical mouse. I'm not going to install their garbage software, and luckily it behaves itself normally out of the box. I honestly should have returned it though.
I have a Steam account, sure, having a login to associate purchases with makes sense. A peripheral, though, absolutely not. I'm viewing the VR headsets in more of the monitor category. It shouldn't be connected to the wifi on its own to be able to forward the desktop. It should be like a GPU, drivers in the kernel and a software layer that exposes a more uniform API for developers.
It's exhausting. I just bought a monitor and there were all sorts of "smart" monitors I had to filter out. Even then I had to look all inputs to make sure it had a regular C14 power connector so I don't have dumb power brick garbage all over.
?
FWIW, I use a Logitech G502 Hero mouse and a G512 Carbon keyboard and I do indeed use their "G Hub" applet to reconfigure the buttons and RGB shit, and all. I have never, not once, ever created or signed into an account to use it and this has not precluded me from using any feature I've ever wanted to. I have no idea why Logitech even offers the option to create an account to use for their app other than probably some idiot with an MBA at Logitech read about it and got the idea from his 2014 copy of "Techbro for dummies."
Yeah, but that's my point. People rage at Meta for requiring a Facebook login out of pure reflex. The Quest isn't a peripheral, it's a standalone computing device. It boots into an OS when you turn it on, using it with a PC is an added feature.
Nobody complained about this specifically when Apple did it with the Vision. Nobody complains about needing to log in to use the PSVR headset on a PlayStation.
If you are more than superficially interested in this space you may remember that the reason why there's all this residual rage is that when Oculus got acquired they already had a login system and there was a lot of back and forth and backtracking from Meta, first saying the Oculus login would stay in place and then enraging people by putting the Quest under their unified "login with Facebook" login manager.
That was legitimate. They were doing things they said they wouldn't do, it was impractical to sync to an account bearing your real name as a demand of the EULA, and this wasn't the first time Oculus had reneged on promises.
At this point, though, a couple of hardware generations down the line, years after they reversed that policy and with a well established ecosystem that works pretty much exactly the same way an Xbox does? This is purely reflexive "Meta bad" stuff that is disconnected to whether the login requirement makes sense, is convenient, does anything untoward or any other practical consideration.
I'm just sitting here with my WMR headset which works perfectly well for all my games and software without needing an account from anybody. The only bugbear is that it's tied to Windows (for now), but what else is new?
Yeeeeah, how much did that cost?
Cause I know this is a huge mess of a thread, but the point was whether the Quest is a good entry level headset. Last I checked the Quest 2 starts at 250 bucks. Is there a WMR device for under twice that?
Also, do you have a Steam account or are those games and software being delivered by mail?
I don't think the Quest is the only option that makes sense, but it's certainly the entry point no-brainer, even if that's relying on Meta spending a ton of money to keep people within their ecosystem.
Show me these monitors you speak of that force you to log in before they work.
E: I'll interpret your downvote and lack of answer as "there aren't any"
I did not downvote you and I genuinely just saw your post now, chill your bits. Some of us have a job or a life beyond refreshing social media constantly (and I'm already pretty bad on that front).
So to your question, I didn't say "force you to log in before they work", I said "ask for a login". Which my ASUS display in fact does to deliver updates and control lighting. In fairness, their dumb app also covers the keyboard, mouse and motherboard RGB, but account login it has. So does my Logitech mouse, by the way. My other Alienware monitor is interesting, because it doesn't have a login, but it does ask to collect your data, including it scrubbing your games library and constantly monitoring your controller with no opt-out for some reason. I think I would have preferred a login. Still better than Armoury Crate, though.
And of course that assumes we're only talking about PC monitors. Every single one of my TVs requests a login as part of the first time setup process, whether you use them stand-alone or as a PC output. The trophy to most annoying spyware on that front has to go to LG, whose WebOS device allows me to log out after creating an account if I want, but then it will stop updating some of my apps, so each time Max decides to change its name or Disney wants to change the background on its Disney Plus app I have to manually log in, update, then log out again. Fun!
So you brought up an optional piece of software with an email log in and treated it the same as enforcing a log in. Cool.
Asus having software you can optionally use to control your display and other Asus peripherals/components is very different to enforcing a Meta/Facebook account to use a display.
That is not the same and the comparison is ridiculous.
If Facebook said that accounts were completely optional and only used to access their store or whatever then there would be zero issue.
But that's not what they do. You have to log in and create an account just to have an HDMI signal and basic gyroscope functionality.
No, I made a passing comment about how the comparison the OP made isn't particularly effective and, in the social media 200m obstacles you have decided to create a tangent nitpicking that caveat to death because you think it scores points instead of being an obnoxious stalemate.
So no, it's not "the same", what it is is relevant to note that pretty much every piece of hardware you buy does at least request that you log in to a service and, of course, the part you're actively ignoring, which is that all dedicated hardware and software platforms in the market, VR or not, do require a mandatory login.
So can we get back to the point or do you want to keep litigating your deliberate misrepresentation indefinitely? I see you have plenty of time, given you got so antsy about waiting 30 minutes for a response.
No.
In reply to someone complaining that a head mounted display forces you to have a Facebook/Meta login in order to use it at all, you brought up that "a bunch" of monitors also "ask" that you do the same.
But:
-
asking is not the same as forcing.
-
monitors don't do that anyway, your argument is a lie.
I have never seen a monitor's OSD popping up and pestering you to sign in.
all dedicated hardware and software platforms in the market, VR or not, do require a mandatory login.
That is not true either.
I honestly don't put it past Samsung. Their TVs already do. I have an old monitor, and I'm currently using what will probably be my last smartphone from them. They make good hardware, but I'm tired of them insisting on knowing everything I do to use it.
They do not ask you to login to use your monitor.
Yet. Their TVs, on the other hand, will do everything in their power to go online. Their phones just had an update to their software where the privacy policy is basically "We need access to all your data if you want to use anything beyond the base functionality." So, given the trends, no, I don't put it past them.
Yes.
That's why I didn't just say that monitors also ask for your login and that was just a minor postcript throwaway at the end of the post.
But by all means, please do provide a counterexample of a standalone software or hardware platform that doesn't request a login. I am waiting with bated breath. Can't wait for somebody trying to actually define this grudge beyond amorphous rage to see the scope of what's being requested.
So yeah, please, do go on.
Yes.
No.
That's why I didn't just say that monitors also ask for your login
Yes you did. Scroll up.
that was just a minor postcript throwaway at the end of the post.
I'm sorry, does your lie being at the end of a post rather than at the start somehow mean it doesn't count?
But by all means, please do provide a counterexample of a standalone software or hardware platform that doesn't request a login. I am waiting with bated breath.
Stop moving the goalposts. You said they force you. Now you're saying request.
Don't you remember saying that they force you? Here's your quote:
"all dedicated hardware and software platforms in the market, VR or not, do require a mandatory login."
And for that I could name a bunch of examples. You don't have to make a Google account to use an Android phone. You don't have to make a Nintendo account to play on a Switch. You don't need an account to play play Blu-rays on a Blu-ray player. My smart TV doesn't need a Google account or a Sony account. You don't need an account to watch YouTube. Etc. Those are all hardware, software, or both ecosystems.
How aren't you understanding that asking (or in the case of monitors, not even asking - to be very clear, you lied about that) for a login and requiring it aren't the same?
Nobody has an issue with Facebook/Microsoft/Google asking you to sign in. But they absolutely have a problem with it being enforced. Particularly when it's for something as basic as displaying an HDMI signal.
Well, we do know that you want to litigate the misrepresentation indefinitely.
So you're lying about what I said. Which always weirds me out because... well it's still there, you can look at it. Here's what I said:
EDIT: Also, for the record, there are a bunch of monitor manufacturers that do ask for a login. Hi, ASUS Armoury Crate, you suck and have always sucked.
You will notice the word "have" is not in fact in that piece of text (well, except for "you have always sucked"). The word "ask" is in that piece of text. If you have questions about the meaning of those words please feel free to look them up.
Now, about your other absurd lie.
You HAVE to make a Google account to use the Google Play store, which is the platform (Android is just the OS). You HAVE to make a Nintendo account to use the eShop, although I do give you partial credit on that one, if you stick to physical media only you can still play some games on it.
Meanwhile, you DO need an account to use, in no particular order: Steam VR, PSVR, Playstation in general, Xbox in general, Apple Vision Pro, an iPhone, GOG, EA Play, and since you're willing to include services beyond gaming and software, also Kindle, Amazon Prime Video, HBO Max, Netflix, Disney Plus, Paramount Plus, the LG, Samsung and Sony free streaming services, Plex, Spotify, Tidal and so, so many more.
Oh, and Lemmy.
So if Microsoft MAKES you log in to use an Xbox and Sony MAKES you log in to use a PlayStation and Steam MAKES you log in to use... well, Steam and Steam VR, then why are you singling out Meta?
That's rethorical, by the way, it's because this was a legitimate issue back in 2020 when they briefly enforced a Facebook log in for both new and existing users and people were legitimately mad for a bit, and then they changed policy after all the backlash but people didn't want to stop being mad at them for other reasons so here we are. Having to endure the absurd dance of somebody pretending that a company with a closed platform containing a store and a digital distribution service would require a login to operate just like everybody else.
-
b) this is a remarkable incentive to NOT acknowledge criticism. I mean, if I'm Meta and I see this often, what is the incentive to not just force everybody to EULA away as much as possible?
how incredibly fucking dishonest. profit motive is more than enough incentive for them to continue to do what they've already been doing for close to two decades.
"don't boycott exceptionally shitty companies or you're responsible when they just get worse" is possibly the worst take i've seen so far on lemmy.
That would sure be a bad take. Let me know when somebody makes it.
In the meantime I continue to argue that if you boycott people on the basis of their reputation without reversing that stance when they reverse their behavior then you're not "boycotting" anything, you're just removing yourself from the pool of possible customers altogether.
My issue isn't with the notion of boycotting companies, my issue is with the moving of goalposts when the companies do cave to the pressure just to extend the online ragefest. I get that it'd be easier to argue with the imaginary opponent in your head, but if you want to argue with me instead I'd appreciate addressing the actual issue.
They haven't reversed any behavior.
There is no circumstance that justifies having any account with anything Facebook owns, and stealing other company's names to try to trick people into thinking they're a different company doesn't change that.
Well, thanks for passing judgement on... let me check here... two billion people, as it turns out.
They have, in fact, reversed the policy that required linking your Quest account to a live Facebook account, though. That is a fact, perceived moral failings of a significant chunk of humanity or not.
Okay, but what does any of that have to do with Meta?
In the meantime I continue to argue that if you boycott people on the basis of their reputation without reversing that stance when they reverse their behavior then you’re not “boycotting” anything, you’re just removing yourself from the pool of possible customers altogether.
Dude, Meta has been and continues to be fucking terrible. If you don't understand why then i guess you've been living in your closet in a VR headset for the last two decades.
No, I understand the ways in which Meta is terrible.
I also understand the ways in which they're not because I'm an adult who is capable of holding semi-complex concepts in my mind.
Meta sucks, their role in social media has been a massive net negative for society and they are at best in denial about that, and at worst a deliberate bad actor.
But they're also a huge corporation, so if their dumb chat app is the standard for communication or their VR headsets are great and dirt cheap I will interact with them, just like I interact with Apple, Microsoft, Netflix and a bunch of other corporations I fundamentally disagree with on key issues.
I hate this notion that money is support. It is not. That is a stupid ass ultracapitalist fallacy to make people feel good for ineffectually buying one brand of cereal over another. I don't take a political stance on Meta by not buying their cheap stuff, I do so by supporting political actors who are willing to break apart oligopolistic media companies and regulate their role in society.
I hate this notion that money is support. It is not.
Lol, that's not a "notion" at all, it's reality.
Even with the case of them providing a cheap headset, they're betting (and they're often correct, and always correct in aggregate) that you will make it up to them in other ways (e.g. your data, software purchases, etc.).
Well... yeah. They didn't invent that scheme, that's been how most gaming systems are deployed since the Sega of the 90s at least.
And yes, it's a "notion" that is extremely anglocentric and intrinsically capitalist. It assumes that money is self-expression and speech and puts the onus of holding corporations accountable on individual consumers as opposed to regulators. It's half a step away from "ban plastic straws" in the list of ineffectual guilt dispersal schemes meant to avoid addressing any real issues.
Hate to break it to you, but corporations behaving semi-functionally as opposed to destroying everything they touch is not down to your brave refusal to purchase superfluous consumer products for your own entertainment. You're no superhero for not buying a thing you don't need anyway. It's governments that are supposed to have the power to hold them to account, not some magic hand bullcrap where the forces of the free market tend to a morally superior outcome. Can't believe this is so widespread on supposedly leftie circles.
You’re no superhero for not buying a thing you don’t need anyway.
And you're no superhero for writing several thousands of words on lemmy about how we should make completely optional purchases of products from companies we hate and that make us angry.
You're just a corporate apologist.
I have never needed to use WhatsApp. Do I not exist in society?
It depends on where you live. Over here my last Covid vaccine appointment was given over WhatsApp and the guys that came to install fiber in my apartment did the whole thing over WhatsApp as well. Every single chatgroup I have with friends and family is on WhatsApp. I've tried to surface the notion of Telegram and Signal being things at points and it's an absolute no-go. People don't say "I'll text you", they say "I'll WhatsApp you".
My mom calls it "sending a Whats" and I have never hated anything more in my life.
So yeah, very regional, but in the places where it's the default, it's the default hard, both on Android and iPhone. People in the US Apple bubble severely misunderstand to what extent Meta won the social media race. I don't like it, but it is what it is.
Over here my last Covid vaccine appointment was given over WhatsApp and the guys that came to install fiber in my apartment did the whole thing over WhatsApp as well
"I don't have WhatsApp"
If you want to roleplay this, then you may get a look, considering it comes preinstalled in both iPhones and pretty much every Android phone.
People are still aware of phone numbers existing, so they'll figure it out. But like having an email address or a mobile phone, the default assumption is you have a WhatsApp account associated to your phone number and it makes a number of things more convenient.
I "roleplay" it all the time with phone numbers, names, emails, etc.
Enter fake ones or just refuse and they say "okay".
Yeeeah, we're not hearing each other.
I don't want to not have people reach me through the most convenient means.
I would very much prefer that not to compromise more of my privacy than absolutely necessary, for sure. But I do want a service like WhatsApp that everybody I know is also using. That's a good thing. If Line was the thing everybody uses I'd be on Line. Back when it was MSN Messenger (because that's what we had, ICQ was never a thing), I was on that.
I don't aim to not use WhatsApp, I expect regulation to make it safe, just like it does for food and medicine and roads and everything else.
I don't aim to not use WhatsApp, I expect regulation to make it safe
That's a naive and ignorant position. That's never going to happen.
As long as you continue to not push against this sort of thing, it will continue to be pushed upon you.
There are federated, interoperable, and open-source alternatives. Make them use them.
Ah, yes, that's why I keep my walls unpainted. Can't trust big paint with the not putting lead in that. Never going to happen.
You're not pushing back against anything, you're arguing about Meta's nichest product on the nichest social media of them all. At some point one will have to assume the arguing is the point, more than enacting any change.
Between regulation of the techbro oligarchy or... whatever this thread is, I know where my money goes. The opposite is straight up libertarian talk.
Ah, yes, that's why we can trust the big banks not to tank the global economy, because the government regulates them and because they'll punish anyone who tries. They certainly wouldn't just fill their pockets and reward them instead while punishing absolutely no one responsible, right?
Libertarian talking points again. Every instance of a government failing to do their jobs is an indictment on the concept of governments.
There are two things you need for effective governance: effective people in government and effective design of government.
If you don't have those, your only priority is to get those (so get to it, Americans). If you do have those, your job is to oversee them doing their job.
Neither of those tasks particularly requires getting into spats with random Internet people in obscure corners of social media to flaunt how much you dislike anything associated with a particular brand you've chosen as an arbitrary avatar for a specific issue. One could argue for an organized boycott, but that's not what's happening here, and if it was it'd be the most ineffectual example of one on record.
But hey, I do have a Whatsapp account because it’s pretty much mandatory to exist in society,
I've never encountered a situation in which I've needed to use WhatsApp for anything. Today i guess i learned that i don't "exist in society" or something. 😆
Go find the other response I gave to someone else who made that exact joke.
TLDR, I'm guessing you're American and just don't realize to what extent WhatsApp has entirely replaced texting in many, many places around the world, regardless of whether you use Android or iPhone.
Who cares?
Why does a texting app have a network effect for you? Is SMS completely unavailable on people's phones in your country? Or are you just afraid of seeming a little bit different from the pack?
SMS is still expensive in other countries, internet access is cheap and WhatsApp is free. For example, it's the only way my mom can keep in contact with her family in South America.
See this makes a bit more sense than the weirdo wall of text I got.
It was three sentences, don't be dramatic.
Your response was paragraphs of bullshit.
The sheer drama. I will keep all three sentences in a single paragraph next time. Honestly, full stops don't deserve the hate.
Can you count?
Because, see if you can follow this logic, sometimes my mom wants to tell me things. Also my doctor. And my government. And the plumber. And delivery guys.
It's not a "pack", it's a society and a family. And it's not about "being different", it's about not having to explain to every single person in my life that they need to talk to me through a different device than they use for literally everything else.
Nobody I know has sent a SMS since the 2010s. You do not realize how detached from reality that sounds. I just checked my phone, the last time I received a legit SMS that wasn't an automated notification was February 2022, when a seller from an eBay-like service wanted to ask me a thing about a delivery.
So you're saying sms does work on your phones, but it's not commonplace so...guess if everyone's using Satan's butthole app instead might as well join the pack?
You have no idea how delusional you sound, this is like oh nobody makes phone calls anymore, instead they call through evilcorp ringytimes in my country so i guess i just have to give them all my personal information and offer up my first born, and it's actually the fault of you guys...who don't use this that evil corp requires that!
Oh, they call through Whatsapp, yeah. About 50% of the time, I'd say.
No, for real. A lot of my audio calls are through WhatsApp as well, they just show up as normal calls, and since that goes through wifi a lot of people on prepaid phones prefer that, especially if they have relatives in other countries that would trigger roaming charges. After a while it becomes habit.
You really, really, REALLY don't have a picture of the scale of penetration into society of this particular application. I'm not shocked, I've seen it before. The slow realization is kinda funny, actually. If it makes you feel better, I keep hearing "blue bubbles" as something that full-on political parties have opinions about and I don't see the point, either.
There's not going to be any slow realization for me. Nobody in my country uses this shit at all and even if they did I still wouldn't.
Part of the problem with your point of view is that you think everyone gives a shit about controlling or intends to control the behavior of these companies through purchasing and usage patterns. Maybe some people do intend that. I don't, and I'm sure there are others that don't either.
I don't purchase this shit from these corporations or use their bullshit because it improves my life not to.
Okay, so does that mean if it improves your life to do so by, say, allowing your friends and family to get in touch with you without needing a tutorial first each time, you would use their services?
Because I have big news about what that would mean if you were to live somewhere else.
Look, I'm gonna try to be as gentle as possible here, but your argument that you don't care because you're too American to be concerned about how people do things elsewhere is not as good of a look as you may have thought it was when you wrote it. And your claim that your performative anger isn't about making a point, but rather to "improve your life" doesn't quite line up with your ardent defense of the idea that you express or withdraw support by using money.
That's fine, we can move on from this tangent, but hey, at least respect my intelligence a teensy bit. Not even that much, just the bare minimum.
And your claim that your performative anger isn’t about making a point, but rather to “improve your life” doesn’t quite line up with your ardent defense of the idea that you express or withdraw support by using money.
Performative anger? WTF are you even talking about?
Money just is a form of support, and that's not a notion. They even call payment to your children fucking "child support".
your argument that you don’t care because you’re too American to be concerned about how people do things elsewhere is not as good of a look as you may have thought it was when you wrote it.
It isn't an argument. It's reality. Also i frankly don't give a shit what it looks like.
I’m not reading anymore of this thread, but go move to the EU and request all the data those companies you mentioned have on you. You will see a truly staggering amount of your day to day info from some of them. Facebook and google are just advertising companies trying to get their thumbs in every pie they can convince enough people to buy into. Part of that is designing their products to require phoning home. The issue isn’t signing in. Signing in is just the trojan horse to make sure every bit of data they pull from you is tied to the right advertising account ID. They shouldn’t be allowed to continue to do that, even if they have enough money to lobby for its legality. Even if every single company on earth was freely doing it to the same degree people should still push for a change.
The business world is truly a slippery slope. Google made unethical digital advertising into a major market, and now even if they close shop somebody else will come fill the gap. The only way to put the power back in people’s hands is to regulate them out of existence but that will never happen if most people don’t even know it’s happening because you can’t even fucking complain about it on the internet without a hundred reply thread jfc
No, hold on, get it right, the 100 post thread is about somebody defending something tangentially related to them. Thread was nice and short with just complaining, it was when somebody pointed out that the requirement people were complaining about had been removed that the massive dogpile started.
And yes, by the way, I do know what data these companies have on me. I pulled all my Google data just last week, all 50 gigabytes of it. I agree that regulation is the answer to this. Absolutely. Everybody knows that, nobody is finding that via a rant about factually incorrect anecdotes about Meta's VR headset, of all things.
But also, I have an Android phone. With a Google account on it. Do you not have a phone? Nobody is saying to not complain about abusive data mining or breaches of privacy, but you don't have to performatively pretend to never engage with them or that the reason they get away with it in absence of regulation isn't that they do make things people want or need.
This conversation boils down to whether it's a moral imperative to turn your chosen cause into your entire personality at the expense of reality and beyond any nuance whatsoever. And honestly, in the current sociopolitical context, and despite being just about the most superfluous demonstration of this imaginable... man, it's such a bummer.