Meta is tipped to "repeat all the harms" associated with Facebook as it reportedly plans a near-50% cut of all NFT sales on its platform

[Redaktion]

One of the most prominent whistleblowers who highlighted Facebook's potential for detrimental effects on human society has voiced concerns of similar ramifications arising from the company's new focus: the metaverse. On that note, Meta is also now linked to plans for sales levies within a relevant platform, Horizon Worlds, that outdo even those found on the Apple App Store.

https://www.notebookcheck.net/Meta-is-tipped-to-repeat-all-the-harms-associated-with-Facebook-as-it-reportedly-plans-a-near-50-cut-of-all-NFT-sales-on-its-platform.614281.0.html

[Barebooh]

Make me care.
(still got no clue as to what the hell is an 'en-eff-tee')

[vertigo]

It shouldn't come as any surprise at all that a company that has repeatedly shown no remorse and has repeatedly violated users' privacy and acted in ways that are otherwise knowingly harmful to its users would again do the same. Anyone that continues using their products at this point simply can't play dumb and pretend any harm caused is unexpected. People just don't really care, and that's the sad truth.

[_MT_]

People just don't really care, and that's the sad truth.

Because they don't think it concerns them. They have trouble imagining how could such a thing be used to harm them. You might even hear the naïve argument that they have nothing to hide. Sure, there are issues that they can grasp better like impact on body image problems. Personally, I don't get it. What could posses anyone with fragile ego to expose themselves? Do they really expect everybody just giving them a pat on their back? It's unlikely that you're at the top of a food chain. So, better be prepared to be eaten alive. And this is nothing compared to what is possible. Right now, they just want money and all the damage is just collateral. Imagine they actually tried to do harm. Or perhaps they might fancy a change of government. The damage we are seeing is just a tip of an iceberg.

[vertigo]

People just don't really care, and that's the sad truth.

Because they don't think it concerns them.

Only partially true. I've explained it to people, detailing multiple ways in which it can negatively affect them both directly and indirectly, and the responses have ranged from indifference to flat-out saying they don't care. We deserve what we get I guess. It just sucks those of us that do care are going to be affected anyways. Just because I hate and don't use Facebook doesn't stop others from posting pictures of me all over it. And even though I never submitted my DNA to companies (seriously, I just can't believe people are so willing to do this), it doesn't matter, because enough people have they can extrapolate it. If I try to protect my phone number, email, etc, friends and family will still share it with Google/Apple/Samsung/etc.

We live in a society that's highly medicated for anxiety and depression (I'd guess around 25-30% at least, probably 35-40% in those under 30), yet people expose themselves on a daily basis, sometimes for hours at a time, to a product known to cause....anxiety and depression.

[_MT_]

Only partially true. I've explained it to people, detailing multiple ways in which it can negatively affect them both directly and indirectly, and the responses have ranged from indifference to flat-out saying they don't care. ...
We live in a society that's highly medicated for anxiety and depression (I'd guess around 25-30% at least, probably 35-40% in those under 30), yet people expose themselves on a daily basis, sometimes for hours at a time, to a product known to cause....anxiety and depression.

If you believe in the threat, you have to do something about it. And they don't want to do that so they don't believe it or say they don't care or whatever. It's like reasoning with a drug addict about the consequences of abusing substances.

Technically speaking, at least where I live, it's illegal to publish a photograph of a person without their consent. There are some exceptions for example for newspapers, but generally, it's illegal. But how would I know if I'm not on that platform? And who would want to waste their time policing it? Historically, it wasn't enforced because sharing a picture meant showing a print to a couple of friends on a visit. The reach was very limited with very little potential for harm. The situation is very different now. The result is that few people know about it. That you should, for example, remove registration plates from cars (which is why Google's Streetview doesn't show them - it's a legal liability and Google, unlike most people, has lawyers to keep an eye on such things). And of course, before you enter contact information of someone else, you should read the terms and conditions. It very much is personal information (it identifies you). You can't do whatever you want with it. It's refreshing when someone asks me for a permission to share my number or e-mail address. A nice reminder that I still live in a civilized (part of a) society.

Yeah, the pill poppers... It's sad. I mean, it's like a definition of failing at life. Happiness and content are no rocket science. It's fascinating how people can be so misguided in something so elementary. At least they serve as a reminder to be grateful for what you have. That even such simple things shouldn't be taken for granted.

[_MT_]

By share I mean give to somebody who wants to contact me.