The future of how we socialize online is being decided as we speak, and it’s very important to leave matters to the likes of Meta and other huge social companies. Just a look at the history of the Meta at the surface level is enough to understand its tendency to severely cross the mark.
Some companies like to use Web3 Principles Web2 debugging. And as the poster child of large centralized organizations, Meta – officially known as Facebook – gives us some of the most useful examples of these bugs.
Let’s touch three times that Meta has failed to build the future of online social experiences.
It is limited opening chart
In 2010, Meta—which was still operating like Facebook at the time—launched its own “Open Graph” protocol, providing developers with a network of connections between friends in order to encourage others to use its apps. It was a way for users to transfer their Facebook identities from one app to another, making it easier for developers to give those users a personalized experience. However, a few years later, the company changed gears to become ruthless in cutting friends, its newsfeed, and accessing other data to developers.
The main reason for this was to reduce competition, as Facebook was concerned about people reverse engineering their own social graphs and creating their own versions of Facebook. Therefore, it ended up killing a product that many in society nowadays call essential. It was way ahead of its time – until it stopped making sense.
Facebook felt it was arming its competitors by giving them this data, and with its central power, Facebook had the unilateral ability to cut that access dramatically.
Metaverse Instagram handle was taken from the user who logged it
Online social identities are very important to users – they represent who you are and carry the weight of your effort and time online. So, when Facebook rebranded itself as Meta, and got a new logo and image, the situation with social media handles was an unexpected problem.
An active Instagram user who already registered @metaverse as his username has been regularly sharing photos from this handle. Then, without warning, Meta banned her account. When this story came out, it resulted in some expected negative press for the social media giant.
Transparency and ownership are core values of the emerging decentralized model. The social platforms of the future will be designed in such a way that abuse of power is either operationally impossible or very easy to identify. What will be yours, and no program or administrator will be able to change it manually.
In case you needed a reminder, Facebook spent much of the 2000s collecting the personal data of millions of users on behalf of British consulting firm Cambridge Analytica. This data was mostly used for political advertising with user consent, and it was a definite scandal in the company’s history.
And while it was major news at the time, it didn’t seem to have changed anything about how the company operates or how it protects users. When NPR followed up on the story in 2021, it found that Facebook did not take responsibility for its behavior, and consumers saw no reform as a result.
If anything, the company’s reckless actions only demonstrated the need for an Internet layer of sovereign self-identity and access controls. More and more people are waking up to the importance of identity on the Internet, and this is something The blockchain is completely designed to handle. The history of Meta also provides a scriptural example of surveillance capitalism, which should in essence offend any Internet user.
We now have three well-documented incidents that demonstrate that the older generations of massive social platforms and the data business model they represent cannot be trusted to deliver a mature ecosystem of the internet-using audience.
Those massive platforms cast a long, dark shadow on social media in general, but the future of space is bright. The explosion of cryptocurrencies over the past 10 years shows that large centralized entities do not have the same influence as they used to.
What can we do about this?
The Meta solution lies with all of us. The future of the Internet is a collaborative effort of many sovereign-minded projects, developers, and users.
The stage is set for small, smart, next-generation companies to radically redefine how people express their identity and interact with online communications. Small, committed teams will focus on making an impact and building on each other, rather than enhancing existing revenue.
These new companies have the opportunity to build the foundations for a decentralized society to emerge from the bottom up. They can create a standard and infrastructure for people to aggregate and own their status and social capital, within and across diverse social networks. They can build trust in the fabric of their social networks and enable really useful connections and better discovery. In doing so, they can create a more decentralized, open, and resilient Internet for all.
The events of the older generation companies also emphasize the importance of an Internet protocol that no one owns and cannot be controlled centrally. A protocol is needed to help coordinate these efforts, set standards for social data interoperability, provide a decentralized and economically scalable global data storage solution, and enable application creators to quickly leverage existing resources.
Such a protocol would be a powerful tool to combat surveillance capitalism for companies like Meta. It will give users complete control over their data and identity, and make it more difficult for bad actors to misuse personal data.
But this is not easy. The Next Web is a huge undertaking that requires the commitment of many different people and organizations. It would be an unprecedented manifestation of a human ‘Senu’, a focused and voluntarily organized collective brilliance.
The good news is that the general ethos of the web may have changed drastically. Compatibility and interoperability are more than just technical designs – they are also intrinsic value propositions that we sincerely hold on to and share with others to work together. This is a requirement that we must meet if we are to build a better future for the Internet.
Consequences of inaction
Inaction is also a form of action. The consequences of doing nothing about the problems Mita poses are clear. Your digital identity will never truly be yours and will always be at risk of moderation, alteration, or even erasure. As we increasingly integrate our physical lives with digital life, blurring the lines between the two and spreading more personal and collective value into the digital, this danger looms more and more.
In a bigger picture, we will slip into a society Total control capitalismNot only will everyone lose control of their data and identity, but their data will be further marketed to turn users into products that gradually lose sight of the problem and the will to act. The profit-driven holistic system reduces the space for any discussions or endeavors regarding human agency and meaningful social connections to human groups.
We need to take action now to build a better future for the Internet and human society as a whole. The Next Web offers us an opportunity to do things differently, and together we must seize it.
Wilson Way He is the co-founder and CEO of CyberConnect, a decentralized social graph protocol that helps DApps smooth network effects and build personalized social experiences.
This article is for general information purposes and is not intended and should not be considered legal or investment advice. The opinions, ideas and opinions expressed here are those of the author alone and do not necessarily reflect or represent the views and opinions of Cointelegraph.
#Facebook #seeks #destroy #Metaverse #Web3