Every year or so, a new Facebook scandal emerges. These blowups follow a fairly standard pattern, at least in the U.S. First, new information is revealed that the company misled users about an element of the platform—data sharing and data privacy, extremist content, ad revenue, responses to abuse—the list goes on. Next, following a painful news cycle for the company, Mark Zuckerberg puts on a sobering presentation for Congress about the value that Facebook provides to its users, and the work that they’ve already done to resolve the issue. Finally, there is finger-wagging, political jockeying, and within a month or two, a curious thing happens: Congress does nothing.
It’s not for lack of trying, of course—much like Facebook, Congress is a many-headed beast, and its members rarely agree on the specific problems besetting American life, let alone the solutions. But this year may be different.
Many of the problems highlighted by these documents are not particularly new. Regardless, we may finally be at a tipping point.
For the last month, Facebook has been at the center of a lengthy, damaging news cycle brought on by the release of thousands of pages of leaked documents, sent to both Congress and news outlets by former Facebook data scientist Frances Haugen. The documents show the company struggling internally with the negative impacts of both Facebook and its former-rival, now-partner platform, Instagram. (Facebook’s attempt to rebrand as Meta should not distract from the takeaways of these documents, so we will continue to call the company Facebook here.)
In addition to internal research and draft presentations released several weeks ago, thousands of new documents were released last week, including memos, chats, and emails. These documents paint a picture of a company that is seriously grappling with (and often failing in) its responsibility as the largest social media platform. In no particular order, the documents show that:
- The size of Facebook’s corporate bureaucracy leaves employees with competing priorities and overlapping responsibilities, as the “left hand” often doesn’t know what the “right hand” is doing (or is incentivized to do).
- The company continues to struggle with effective content moderation, due to the scale of the user base, fear of political blowback, piecemeal enforcement, lack of local cultural and language expertise, and internal programs like “cross check” that classify some users differently from others.
- Recommendation engines continue to direct users to extreme and extremist content, especially in countries like India, Iraq, and Ethiopia, where little effort has been made to understand and appropriately address local issues.
- Changes to the news feed intended to improve “meaningful social interactions” have generally failed, increasing both misinformation and polarization.
- Internal research about features may point in different directions than the company publicly admits, such as in the case of Instagram’s effect on young women, and decisions are sometimes made that appear to conflict with the outcome of that research.
- The company has a growth at all costs mindset that dangerously prioritizes engagement and increasing time spent on the platform over everything else.
- Employee pushback to internal decisions is often significant and frequently ignored.
Many of the problems highlighted by these documents are not particularly new. People looking in at the black box of Facebook’s decision-making have come to similar conclusions in several areas; those conclusions have simply now been proven. Regardless, we may finally be at a tipping point.
When Mark Zuckerberg went in front of Congress to address his company’s role in the Cambridge Analytica scandal over three years ago, America’s lawmakers seemed to have trouble agreeing on basic things like how the company’s business model worked, not to mention the underlying causes of its issues or how to fix them. But since then, policymakers and politicians have had time to educate themselves. Several more hearings addressing the problems with Big Tech writ large, and with Facebook in particular have helped government develop a better shared understanding of how the behemoth operates; as a result, several pieces of legislation have been proposed to rein it in.
Now, the Facebook Papers have once again thrust the company into the center of public discourse, and the scale of the company’s problems have captured the attention of both news outlets and Congress. That’s good—it’s high time to turn public outrage into meaningful action that will rein in the company.
But it’s equally important that the solutions be tailored, carefully, to solve the actual issues that need to be addressed. No one would be happy with legislation that ends up benefitting Facebook while making it more difficult for competing platforms to coexist. For example, Facebook has been heavily promoting changes to Section 230 that would, by and large, harm small platforms while helping the behemoth.
Here’s where EFF believes Congress and the U.S. government could make a serious impact:
Break Down the Walls
Much of the damage Facebook does is a factor of its size. Other social media sites that aren’t attempting to scale across the entire planet run into fewer localization problems, are able to be more thoughtful about content moderation, and have, frankly, a smaller impact on the world. We need more options. Interoperability will help us get there.
Interoperability is the simple idea that new services should be able to plug into dominant ones. An interoperable Facebook would mean that you wouldn’t have to choose between leaving Facebook and continuing to socialize with the friends, communities and customers you have there. Today, if you want to leave Facebook, you need to leave your social connections behind as well: that means no more DMs from your friend, no more access to your sibling’s photos, and no more event invitations from your co-workers. In order for a new social network to get traction, whole social groups have to decide to switch at the same time – a virtually insurmountable barrier. But if Facebook were to support rich interoperability, users on alternative services could communicate with users on Facebook. Leaving Facebook wouldn’t mean leaving leaving your personal network. You could choose a service – run by a rival, a startup, a co-op, a nonprofit, or just some friends – and it would let you continue to connect with content and people on Facebook, while enforcing its own moderation and privacy policies.
We need more options. Interoperability will help us get there.
Critics often argue that in an interoperable world, Facebook would have less power to deny bad actors access to our data, and thus defend us from creeps like Cambridge Analytica. But Facebook has already failed to defend us from them. When Facebook does take action against third-party spying on its platform, it’s only because that happens to be in its interests: either as a way to quell massive public outcry, or as a convenient excuse to undermine legitimate competition. Meanwhile, Facebook continues to make billions from its own exploitation of our data. Instead of putting our trust in corporate privacy policies, we’d need a democratically accountable privacy law, with a private right of action. And any new policies which promote interoperability should come with built-in safeguards against the abuse of user data.
Interoperability isn’t an alternative to demanding better of Facebook – better moderation, more transparency, better privacy rules – rather, it’s an immediate, tangible way of helping Facebook’s users escape from its walled garden right now. Not only does that make those users’ lives better – it also makes it more likely that Facebook will obey whatever rules come next, not just because those are the rules, but because when they break the rules, their users can easily leave Facebook.
Facebook knows this. It’s been waging a “secret war on switching costs” for years now. Legislation like the ACCESS Act that would force platforms like Facebook to open up are a positive step toward a more interoperable future. If a user wants to view Facebook through a third-party app that allows for better searching or more privacy, they ought to be able to do so. If they want to take their data to platforms that have better privacy protections, without leaving their friends and social connections behind, they ought to be able to do that too.
Pass a Baseline, Strong Privacy Law
Users deserve meaningful controls over how the data they provide to companies is collected, used, and shared. Facebook and other tech companies too often choose their profits over your privacy, opting to collect as much as possible while denying users intuitive control over their data. In many ways this problem underlies the rest of Facebook’s harms. Facebook’s core business model depends on collecting as much information about users as possible, then using that data to target ads – and target competitors. Meanwhile, Facebook (and Google) have created an ecosystem where other companies – from competing advertisers to independent publishers – fell as if they have no choice but to spy on their own users, or help Facebook do so, in order to squeak out revenue in the shadow of the monopolists.
Stronger baseline federal privacy laws would help steer companies like Facebook away from collecting so much of our data.
Stronger baseline federal privacy laws would help steer companies like Facebook away from collecting so much of our data. They would also level the playing field, so that Facebook and Google cannot use their unrivaled access to our information as a competitive advantage. A strong privacy law should require real opt-in consent to collect personal data and prevent companies from re-using that data for secondary purposes. To let users enforce their rights, it must include a private cause of action that allows users to take companies to court if they break the law. This would put tip the balance of power away from the monopolists and back towards users. Ultimately, a well-structured baseline could put a big dent in the surveillance business model that not only powers Facebook, but enables so many of the worst harms of the tech ecosystem as well.
Break Up the Tech
Facebook’s broken system is fueled by a growth-at-any-cost model, as indicated by some of the testimony Haugen delivered to Congress. The number of Facebook users and the increasing depth of the data it gathers about them is Facebook’s biggest selling point. In other words, Facebook’s badness is inextricably tied to its bigness.
We’re pleased to see antitrust cases against Facebook. Requiring Facebook to divest Instagram, WhatsApp, and possibly other acquisitions and limiting the companies’ future mergers and acquisitions would go a long way toward solving some of the problems with the company, and inject competition into a field where it’s been stifled for many years now. Legislation to facilitate a breakup also awaits House floor action and was approved by the House Judiciary Committee.
Shine a Light On the Problems
Some of the most detailed documents that have been released so far show research done by various teams at Facebook. And, despite being done by Facebook itself, much of that research’s conclusions are critical of Facebook’s own services.
For example: a large percentage of users report seeing content on Facebook that they consider disturbing or hateful—a situation that the researcher notes “needs to change.” Research also showed that some young female Instagram users report that the platform makes them feel bad about themselves.
But one of the problems with documents like these is that it’s impossible to know what we don’t know—we’re getting reports piecemeal, and have no idea what practical responses might have been offered or tested. Also, some of the research might not always mean what first glances would indicate, due to reasonable limitations or the ubiquity of the platform itself.
EFF has been critical of Facebook’s lack of transparency for a very long time. When it comes to content moderation, for example, the company’s transparency reports lack many of the basics: how many human moderators are there, and how many cover each language? How are moderators trained? The company’s community standards enforcement report includes rough estimates of how many pieces of content of which categories get removed, but does not tell us why or how these decisions are taken.
The company must make it easier for researchers both inside and outside to engage in independent analysis.
Transparency about decisions has increased in some ways, such as through the Facebook Oversight Board’s public decisions. But revelations from the whistleblower documents about the company’s “cross-check” program, which gives some “VIP” users a near-blanket ability to ignore the community standards, make it clear that the company has a long way to go. Facebook should start by embracing the Santa Clara Principles on Transparency and Accountability in Content Moderation, which are a starting point for companies to properly indicate the ways that they moderate user speech.
But content moderation is just the start. Facebook is constantly talking out of both sides of its depressingly large mouth—most recently by announcing it would delete face recognition templates of users of Facebook, then backing away from this commitment in its future ventures. Given how two-faced the company has frankly, always been, transparency is an important step towards ensuring we have real insight into the platform. The company must make it easier for researchers both inside and outside to engage in independent analysis.
Look Outside the U.S.
Facebook must do more to respect its global user base. Facebook—the platform—is available in over 100 languages, but the company has only translated its community standards into around 50 of those (as of this writing). How can a company expect to enforce its moderation rules properly when they are written in languages, or dialects, that its users can’t read?
The company also must ensure that its employees, and in particular its content moderators, have cultural competence and local expertise. Otherwise it is literally impossible for them to appropriately moderate content. But first, it has to actually employ people with that expertise. It’s no wonder that the company has tended to play catch-up when crises arrive outside of America (where it also isn’t exactly ahead of the game).
And by the way: it’s profoundly disappointing that the Facebook Papers were released only to Western media outlets. We know that many of the documents contain information about how Facebook conducts business globally—and particularly how the company fails to put appropriate resources behind its policymaking and content moderation practices in different parts of the world. Providing trusted, international media publications that have the experience and expertise to provide nuanced, accurate analysis and perspective is a vital step in the process—after all the majority of Facebook’s users worldwide live outside of the United States and Europe.
Don’t Give In To Easy Answers
Facebook is big, but it’s not the internet. More than a billion websites exist; tens of thousands of platforms allow users to connect with one another. Any solutions Congress proposes must remember this. Though Zuckerberg may “want every other company in our industry to make the investments and achieve the results that [Facebook has],” forcing everyone else to play by their rules won’t get us to a workable online future. We can’t fix the internet with legislation that pulls the ladder up behind Facebook, leaving everyone else below.
For example: legislation that forces sites to limit recommended content could have disastrous consequences, given how commonly sites make (often helpful) choices about the information we see when we browse, from restaurant recommendations to driving directions to search results. And forcing companies to rethink their algorithms, or offer “no algorithm” versions, may seem like fast fixes for a site like Facebook. But the devil is in the details, and in how those details get applied to the entire online ecosystem.
The Facebook leaks should be the starting point—not the end—of a sincere policy debate over concrete approaches that will make the internet—not just Facebook—better for everyone.
Facebook, for its part, seems interested in easy fixes as well. Rebranding as “Meta” amounts to a drunk driver switching cars. Gimmicks designed to attract younger users to combat its aging user base are a poor substitute for thinking about why those users refuse to use the platform in the first place.
Zuckerberg has gotten very wealthy while wringing his hands every year or two and saying, “sorry. I’m sorry. I’m trying to fix it.” Facebook’s terrible, no good, very bad news cycle is happening at the same time that the company reported a $9 billion dollar profit for the quarter.
Zuckerberg insists this is not the Facebook he wanted to create. But, he’s had nearly two decades of more-or-less absolute power to make the company into whatever he most desired, and this is where it’s ended up—despised, dangerous, and immensely profitable. Given that track record, it’s only reasonable that we handicap his suggestions during any serious consideration about how to get out of this place.
Nor should we expect policymakers to do much better unless and until they start listening to a wider array of voices. While the leaks have been directing the narrative about where the company is failing its users, there are plenty of other issues that aren’t grabbing headlines—like the fact that Facebook continues collecting data on deactivated accounts. A focused and thoughtful effort by Congress must include policy experts who have been studying the problems for years.
The Facebook leaks should be the starting point—not the end—of a sincere policy debate over concrete approaches that will make the internet—not just Facebook—better for everyone.
POV: Facebook’s Change to Meta Blurs Lines Even Further
COM’s Michelle Amazeen worries if people will know the difference between real-world and virtual experiences
When Facebook announced it was changing its name to Meta in October, the 2008 Pixar movie WALL-E was the first thing that came to my mind. The sci-fi movie is about a robot left on an uninhabitable Earth to clean up the garbage left behind by humans. Rampant consumerism and corporate greed have left Earth a wasteland, and humans have been evacuated to outer space. In this same way, I envision Facebook abandoning the real world for the virtual “metaverse”—shared online environments where people can interact. They leave behind unimaginable quantities of disinformation, amplified by their algorithms, along with harassment, hate speech, and angry partisans.
To move beyond my initial reaction and gain more insight into the implications of Facebook’s name change (and strategic plans) from a communication research perspective, I turned to two research fellows who study emerging media within the Communication Research Center (CRC) at Boston University’s College of Communication (COM).
Media psychologist James Cummings, a COM assistant professor of emerging media studies, indicates that a metaverse—if successful—would produce new issues in information processing and would place a new emphasis on theories of interpersonal communication—rather than just mass communication. As I feared, he also says it has the potential to augment existing media effects of concern related to social networking, namely misinformation, persuasion, addiction, and distraction.
First, Cummings explains there would be major implications for how billions of people select, process, and are influenced by media content. To be successful, the metaverse platforms will need to transform current modes of information processing and digital communication interactions into much more immersive, cognitively absorbing experiences.
“For instance,” he says, “the mainstreaming of consumer-facing immersive ‘virtual reality’ [VR]—which typically places high demands on users’ processing—will be coming in an age of media multitasking. Interfaces will need to figure out how to immerse users while still permitting them to access different information streams.”
Similarly, he says, mainstreaming “augmented reality” (AR) experiences will also mean requiring users to skillfully juggle attentional demands. People will suddenly be forced to multitask between virtual and real-world stimuli. These are common practices for hobbyists, but may present more challenges for a broader population of users.
Thus, Cummings suggests, if the metaverse is the ecosystem of devices and experiences that Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg envisions, users will be switching back and forth between different types of immersive experiences and stimuli, from reality to augmented reality to virtual reality. This scenario may present some new and interesting psychological experiences, in the effects of in-person (e.g., chatting with a friend in the same room), mediated (e.g., reading a news alert on your phone), and augmented messages (e.g., a holographic personal assistant)—all interdependent and blurring together.
Second, Cummings expects that a successful metaverse would mean exchanges with virtual content and people that are much more like face-to-face or interpersonal interactions. “This will require the designers of these platforms to master key elements of media richness theory and factors influencing users’ sense of spatial and social presence,” he explains. For instance, social networking in the metaverse may not only consist of the informational experiences we are used to today (e.g., reading text, watching videos, viewing pictures), but increasingly also perceptual experiences (e.g., a sense of being transported into the story, a feeling of being next to someone on the other side of the globe, noticing nonverbal behaviors).
Finally, Cummings indicates that immersive media are rife for a whole new breed of covert persuasion—such as “native advertising,” or ads that mimic their surroundings—to the extent that users confuse the perceptually plausible with the real. He’s particularly interested in seeing the impact of immersion on users’ perceptions of message authorship and authorial intent.
Indeed, back in the real world, native advertising has been widely adopted to covertly promote not only commercial products, but also political candidates. Candidates are increasingly relying upon “influencers” to post supportive messages on Facebook and other social media without consistently disclosing they are being paid to do so, blurring the critical line between what is real news and what is merely paid advertising. As I have previously addressed here, if the regulatory agencies that oversee advertising—both commercial and political—have not been able to keep up with the digital transformation of our media ecosystem, how will they be able to regulate the metaverse?
For Chris Wells, a COM associate professor of emerging media studies, the promise and pitfalls of the metaverse depend entirely on how Facebook rolls it out. For example, the radical network effects we see from social media rely to some degree on the extremely shortened forms of communication—short texts and short videos—that allow information scanning and selection on a very rapid scale. He indicates the pseudo-social presence of virtual reality would seem to reduce the number of people you can actually interact with. “How will the metaverse be organized and who will you be able to interact with?” Wells asks. Are people going to have coffee virtually? Virtual meetings? He suggests that a site such as Second Life may offer rudimentary evidence of the kinds of interactions that emerge when people engage with strangers in a massive virtual world.
Presumably, Wells suggests, Facebook will still have to provide a great deal of content moderation in the metaverse if people are to have any interactions outside tightly defined networks. “Given Facebook’s track record with their current platform,” he says, “this could well be an unmitigated disaster; but expecting this may lead them to tightly control who interacts with whom and in what ways.”
Second Life notwithstanding, Wells also questions who will actually want to engage in such a virtual space. “My read of the pandemic is that people don’t particularly want to keep sitting in their bedrooms and interacting through Zoom,” he says.
“Will wearing an Oculus headset make that a lot better? I’m not sure,” he adds. “But I also suspect that there are at least a lot of people for whom going to a virtual concert or playing virtual chess with a friend in the park are paltry substitutes for the real thing.”
Wells concedes that there are a lot of millennials and Gen Zs who spend a lot of time in their bedrooms on video games, with digital avatars, and so forth. One possibility, he says, is that the metaverse becomes a niche space for these sorts of folks.
As these metaverse developments take shape, CRC fellows are well positioned to monitor these emerging media uses and perceptual effects. The CRC has multiple Oculus virtual reality headsets that can be paired with our psychophysiological measurement tools. For as technology takes us to new realms, we have a responsibility back in reality to analyze and understand how humans are affected.
Michelle Amazeen is a College of Communication associate professor and director of COM’s Communication Research Center.
“POV” is an opinion page that provides timely commentaries from students, faculty, and staff on a variety of issues: on-campus, local, state, national, or international. Anyone interested in submitting a piece, which should be about 700 words long, should contact John O’Rourke at firstname.lastname@example.org. BU Today reserves the right to reject or edit submissions. The views expressed are solely those of the author and are not intended to represent the views of Boston University.
Facebook’s centralized metaverse a threat to the decentralized ecosystem?
Facebook has been planning its foray into the metaverse for some time now — possibly even several years. But it’s only recently that its ambitious expansion plans have catapulted the concept into mainstream headlines across the globe. Renaming the parent company to Meta was perhaps the biggest, boldest statement of intent the firm could make. Suddenly, major news outlets were awash with explainer articles, while finance websites have been bubbling with excitement about the investment opportunities in this newly emerging sector.
However, within the crypto sphere, the response has been understandably more muted. After all, decentralized versions of the metaverse have been in development around these parts for several years now. Even worse, the tech giants’ cavalier attitude to user privacy and data harvesting has informed many of the most cherished principles in the blockchain and crypto sector.
Nevertheless, metaverse tokens such as Decentraland (MANA) and Sandbox (SAND), enjoyed extensive rallies on the back of the news, and within a few days of Facebook’s announcement, decentralized metaverse project The Sandbox received $93 million in funding from investors, including Softbank.
But now that the dust has settled, do the company-formerly-known-as-Facebook’s plans represent good news for nonfungible token (NFT) and metaverse projects in crypto? Or does Meta have the potential to sink this still-nascent sector?
What is known so far?
Facebook hasn’t released many details about what can be expected from its version of the metaverse. A promotional video featuring the company co-founder and CEO Mark Zuckerberg, himself, along with his metaverse avatar, looked suitably glossy. Even so, it was scant with information about how things will actually work under the hood. However, based on precedent and what is known, some distinctions can be made between what Facebook is likely to be planning and the established decentralized metaverse projects.
Facebook has some form when it comes to questions over whether it will adopt decentralized infrastructure based on its efforts to launch a cryptocurrency. Diem, formerly Libra, is a currency run by a permissioned network of centralized companies. David Marcus, who heads up Diem, has also confirmed that the project, and by extension Facebook, is also considering NFTs integrated with Novi, the Diem-compatible wallet.
Based on all this, it’s fair to say that the Facebook metaverse would have an economy centered around the Diem currency, with NFT-based assets issued on the permissioned Diem network.
Announcing @Meta — the Facebook company’s new name. Meta is helping to build the metaverse, a place where we’ll play and connect in 3D. Welcome to the next chapter of social connection. pic.twitter.com/ywSJPLsCoD
— Meta (@Meta) October 28, 2021
The biggest difference between Facebook’s metaverse, and crypto’s metaverse projects, is that the latter operates on open, permissionless, blockchain architecture. Any developer can come and build a metaverse application on an open blockchain, and any user can acquire their own virtual real estate and engage with virtual assets.
Critically, one of the biggest benefits of a decentralized, open architecture is that users can join and move around barrier-free between different metaverses. Interoperability protocols reduce friction between blockchains, allowing assets, including cryptocurrencies, stablecoins, utility tokens, NFTs, loyalty points, or anything else to be transferable across chains.
So the most crucial question regarding Facebook’s plans is around the extent to which the company plans for its metaverse to be interoperable, and metaverse assets to be fungible with other, non-Facebook issued assets.
From the standpoint of the decentralized metaverse, it doesn’t necessarily sound like great news. After all, Meta’s global user base dwarfs crypto’s. But there’s another way of looking at it, according to Robbie Ferguson, co-founder of Immutable, a layer two platform for NFTs:
“Even if [Meta] decides to pursue a closed ecosystem, it is still a fundamental core admission of the value that digital ownership provides — and the fact that the most valuable battleground of the future will be who owns the infrastructure of digital universes.”
Centralization could be the most limiting factor
Based on the fact that Diem is already a closed system, it seems likely that the Facebook metaverse will also be a closed ecosystem that won’t necessarily allow direct or easy interaction with decentralized metaverses. Such a “walled garden” approach would suit the company’s monopolistic tendencies but limit the potential for growth or Facebook-issued NFTs to attain any real-world value.
Furthermore, as Nick Rose Ntertsas CEO and founder of an NFT marketplace Ethernity Chain pointed out, users are becoming weary of Facebook’s centralized dominance. He added in a conversation with Cointelegraph:
“Amidst [the pandemic-fuelled digital] transition, crypto adoption rose five-fold. At the same time, public opinion polling worldwide shows growing distrust of centralized tech platforms, and more favorable ratings of the very nature of what crypto and blockchain offer in protecting privacy, enabling peer-to-peer transactions, and championing transparency and immutability.”
This point is even more pertinent when considering that the utility of Diem has been preemptively limited by regulators before it has even launched. Regardless of how Diem could eventually be used in a Facebook metaverse, regulators have made it clear that Diem isn’t welcome in the established financial system.
So it seems evident that a closed Facebook metaverse will be limited to the point that it will be a completely different value proposition to what the decentralized metaverse projects are trying to achieve.
Meanwhile, decentralized digital platforms are already building and thriving. Does that mean there’s a risk that blockchain-based platforms could fall prey to the same fate as Instagram and WhatsApp, and get swallowed up as part of a Meta acquisition spree? Sebastien Borget, co-founder and chief operating officer of the Sandbox, believes that decentralized projects can take a different approach:
“Typically, big tech sits on the sidelines while new entrants fight for relevance and market share — and then swoops in to buy one of the strongest players. But that strategy only works if startups sell. So there has to be a different economic incentive, which is exactly why Web 3.0 is so powerful. It aligns the platform and the users to build a platform that stands on its own, where users have ownership over its governance — and ultimate success.”
A metaverse operated by tech giants?
Rather than attempting to dominate, Facebook may decide to integrate with established metaverses, games and crypto financial protocols — a potentially far more disruptive scenario. It could be seriously transformative for the crypto space, given the scale of Facebook’s user base.
Therefore, could there be a scenario where someone can move NFT assets between a Facebook metaverse and a decentralized network of metaverses? Sell Facebook-issued NFT assets on a DEX? Import a $69 billion Beeple to the Facebook metaverse to exhibit in a virtual gallery?
This seems to be an unlikely scenario as it would entail substantial changes in mindset from Facebook. While it would create exponentially more economic opportunity, regulatory concerns, risk assessments, and Facebook’s historical attitude to consuming competitors rather than playing alongside them are likely to be significant blockers.
The most likely outcome seems to be that Facebook will attempt to play with established centralized tech and finance firms to bring value into its metaverse. Microsoft has already announced its own foray into the metaverse, but perhaps not as a direct competitor to what Facebook is attempting to achieve. Microsoft’s metaverse is focused on enhancing the “Teams” experience in comparison to Facebook’s VR-centric approach.
But it seems more plausible that the two firms would offer some kind of integration between their metaverse platforms than either of them would rush to partner with decentralized, open-source competitors. After all, Facebook’s original attempt to launch Libra involved other big tech and finance firms.
Make hay while the sun shines
Just as Libra created a lot of hype, which ultimately became muted by regulators, it seems likely that the development of a Facebook metaverse can play out in the same way with regards to its impact on the cryptocurrency sector.
Regulators will limit Facebook’s ability to get involved with money or finance, and the company isn’t likely to develop a sudden desire for open-source, decentralized, solutions.
However, the one positive boost that Libra brought to crypto was publicity. Ntertsas believes that this, alone, is enough to provide a boost to the decentralized NFT sector, explaining:
“Meta’s plans will enable a surge in utility for NFT issuers and minters. NFTs can then be used as metaverse goods — from wearables to art, to collectibles, and even status symbols — there is an infinite use case and utility to NFTs and what they can become in the ever-growing NFT ecosystem.”
In this respect, there are plenty of opportunities for decentralized metaverse projects to muscle into the limelight with their own offerings and showcase how decentralized solutions are already delivering what Facebook is still developing. Borget urges the community to seize the moment:
“Now is the time for us to double down on building our vision of the open, decentralized and user-driven metaverse. We also have to invest time and money in explaining the benefits of our vision over what the Facebooks of the world have offered thus far.”
Facebook hackers target small business owners to scam money for ads
It took just 15 minutes for hackers to infiltrate Sydney single mum Sarah McTaggart’s Facebook page.
From there, they also took control of the account she uses to run her small business, wiping out 90 percent of the client base she has been building up for the past four years – almost in an instant.
Their target? The PayPal account she uses to buy Facebook ads for her business.
Ms McTaggart is among many small business owners who say they have had their Facebook pages hacked and fraudulent charges made on their PayPal or bank accounts as the scammers buy up ads with their money.
It was last Thursday evening when Ms McTaggart first noticed something was happening with her Facebook account.
“I was just watching TV and I opened up Facebook. I saw I had received and accepted a friend request from some guy in in the US who I didn’t send a friend request to,” Ms McTaggart said.
“Then, about five minutes later, Facebook sent me an email saying my account had been disabled because I had breached community standards,” she said.
The hackers had used a well-known technique, previously reported on by 9news.com.au, which involves changing the profile picture of the account they have hacked to that of a flag associated with the terrorist group ISIS.
The ISIS flag breaches Facebook’s community standards and automatically triggers an alert which causes Facebook to boot the user out of their account.
In another measure designed to keep her out, the hackers also changed Ms McTaggart’s age on her account, making her too young to own a Facebook account.
Ms McTaggart said she immediately took measures to to try report the hack to Facebook and prove her identity and age, but they were unsuccessful.
Next, the hackers took control of her business page.
“I woke up the next morning and I received an email from PayPal saying a payment of $320 had been authorised for Facebook ads,” Ms McTaggart said.
Ms McTaggart had previously used the PayPal account to buy ads for her dreadlock business – Better Off Dread – where she creates and maintains dreadlocks for clients as well as selling accessories.
The mother-of-one said she was devastated to lose access to both her personal and business page.
Her business, which is largely run out of Facebook, was her livelihood, Ms McTaggart said.
“It is so distressing. Close to 90 percent of my new business inquiries come through Facebook,” she said.
“Almost all of my communications with my clients is on Facebook, so disabling is my account has completely cut off my capacity to talk to any of those people.
“I’m booked out with clients until mid-January, and I have no way of confirming appointments with those people. They’ve got no way of cancelling if they are sick.”
Ms McTaggart said she was initially confident she would be able to get access to her accounts back.
“I was thinking of course this will get resolved,” she said.
But, after exhausting all of the suggestions offered by Facebook’s customer service department online, Ms McTaggart said she was left frustrated by Facebook’s lack of accountability, with no number available to call the social media giant directly.
“It just dawned on me gradually that this was quite a complex situation, and there is actually no way to speak to a human at Facebook,” she said.
PayPal had also refused to refund the $320 the hackers spent on ads, she said.
“PayPal won’t refund that as I had an advertising agreement in place with Facebook,” she said.
“And I haven’t been able to communicate with anyone at Facebook to get them to refund it.”
Ms McTaggart’s story is familiar to Ianni Nicolaou, a US real estate agent from Alabama.
Mr Nicolaou had his personal Facebook page and his business page hacked two months ago in August and has been unable to regain access to them both ever since.
“It’s awful. I’m a realtor and it’s absolutely necessary to use the platform these days,” Mr Nicolaou told 9News .com.au.
“I have a business page that I run advertisements through.
“I have invested money for my following, and now it’s gone – out of nowhere.”
After his accounts were hacked, Mr Nicolaou said he had also been hit with about A$1800 in charges made to the bank account linked to his Facebook business page.
“There were charges; charges after charges. They started at about $100 each and then kept getting bigger and bigger,” he said.
“What frustrated me the most is that there is no acknowledgement from Facebook. There is no-one to call at Facebook and say you have got fraudulent charges.
“I have literally tried everything but it is robots you are talking to.
“The way I feel is this is actually fraud. I can’t talk to a human who wants to help me but they are happy to take my money just fine.”
When contacted by 9news.com.au, Meta Australia spokesperson Antonia Sanda said its investigations team was working to restore both Ms McTaggart’s and Mr Nicolaou’s accounts.
“We want to keep suspicious activity off our platform and protect people’s accounts, and are working to restore these accounts to the rightful owners,” she said.
“Online phishing techniques are not unique to Facebook, however we’re making significant investments in technology to protect the security of people’s accounts.
“We strongly encourage people to strengthen their online security by turning on app-based two-factor authentication and alerts for unrecognised logins.”
Tips to stop your Facebook page getting hacked
- Take action and report an account: People can always report an account, an ad, or a post that they feel is suspicious.
- Don’t click on suspicious links: Don’t trust messages demanding money, offering gifts or threatening to delete or ban your account (or verifying your account on Instagram). To help you identify phishing and spam emails, you can view official emails sent from your settings within the app.
- Don’t click on suspicious links from Meta/Facebook/Instagram: If you get a suspicious email or message or see a post claiming to be from Facebook, don’t click any links or attachments. If the link is suspicious, you’ll see the name or URL at the top of the page in red with a red triangle.
- Don’t respond to these messages/ emails: Don’t answer messages asking for your password, social security number, or credit card information.
- Avoid phishing: If you accidentally entered your username or password into a strange link, someone else might be able to log in to your account. Change your password regularly and don’t use the same passwords for everything.
- Get alerts: Turn on two-factor authentication for additional account security.
- Use extra security features: Get alerts about unrecognised logins and turn on two-factor authentication to increase your account security.
WhatsApp will now make it easier for users to end conversations and send cute stickers, finds a new update in their beta version
POV: Facebook’s Change to Meta Blurs Lines Even Further
Twitter likely to roll out ‘Reactions’ feature soon
Facebook’s centralized metaverse a threat to the decentralized ecosystem?
Facebook hackers target small business owners to scam money for ads
Social Media Marketing Trends To Watch In 2022
Facebook and Instagram to launch Mena campaign to prevent child exploitation online
Facebook to shutter its facial recognition system, citing ‘societal – USA Today
Facebook connects its Workplace to Microsoft Teams • The Register
Why is Facebook shutting down its facial recognition system and deleting ‘faceprints’? – The Guardian
Samantha’s cryptic Instagram posts bother fans – The Siasat Daily
The RNC Is Raising Funds Off Trump’s New Social-Media Platform
FACEBOOK6 days ago
Upgrade Your Facebook Marketing Strategy for 2022
WHATSAPP3 days ago
WhatsApp may soon allow users to react to messages
INSTAGRAM6 days ago
How to Get More Exposure on Instagram
WHATSAPP5 days ago
WhatsApp now lets you create your own stickers
INSTAGRAM5 days ago
How many hashtags should you use to get the most ‘Likes’ on Instagram?
PINTEREST3 days ago
Getting the Most Out of Shopify
OTHER6 days ago
What is Social Listening, Why it Matters, and 10 Tools to Make it Easier
WHATSAPP6 days ago
WhatsApp Reportedly Working on Playback Speed Feature for Audio Messages, Spotted Beta – Testing on iOS