[honzzz]

Maybe it is just me getting old but when I was watching that part when she was talking about "getting out there, trying new things, making your mark", something really deep in me was screaming NOOOO!, this is not right :-/

I was always into tech but this video makes me want to throw all my devices away, move to some old house in abandoned Spanish village and grow my own tomatoes. And the disturbing part is that I am not even sure why - on its face value it seems great, you get to talk to people from all around the world and that is cool, right? But my intuition tells me that we are not wired for this and if it gains traction, something terrible will come out of this.

[dmix]

I don't get this type of visceral reaction personally, even though I wouldn't use this type of app, but I understand why some older people would never touch it.

I like to keep up with new tech and I was looking at the viral Houseparty [1] and Airtime [1] apps the other day. While I'd never do anything like that with my friends, when I checked the reviews it was mostly 12yr kids (some say their age in the review for some reason) and I could imagine myself at a younger age loving this stuff.

The kids could use it when they are stuck in their bedroom and want to to 'hang out' with friends after school. Watching Youtube videos or simple games combined with live video chat and texting.

I could see a similar use case here with VR.

The whole 'spectator culture' watching people playing vide games is a massive phenomenon among kids. But sitting watching a "zany" perpetually hyper guy playing a video game for hours seems foreign to most adults.

The social lives of kids are already heavily intertwined with technology. They don't mind jumping into a multi-party video chat with some friends from school. Doing the same in a VR world sounds just as fun.

There's also always naysayers for every tech launch on HN/internet so it's safe to take it with a grain of salt. Sometimes it's just not meant for you and that's totally fine.

1. https://apps.apple.com/ca/app/houseparty/id1065781769

2. https://apps.apple.com/ca/app/airtime-watch-videos-together/...

[mnsc]

Me, an old fart, looks at Houseparty/Airtime: That's nice! I could see myself doing that with friends. I haven't really thought of how important It's to see peoples faces. The kids are alright!

Me looks at a VR world run by facebook: Screeches and sees the worst imaginable dystopian future marching towards me.

[dmix]

I guess this is the type of thing that FB envisioned when they bought Oculos.

But it’s true, Facebook ruins everything don't they? If it was anyone else I'd be more inclined to support this otherwise.

[DJHenk]

> And the disturbing part is that I am not even sure why - on its face value it seems great

And that is exactly the reason why it is not the right direction. Think about it. Why would one choose a virtual world over the new one? Because apparently the real world is not good enough. On the surface the virtual looks better, but if you engage in it, I think you will probably find out that it is as boring and hard as the real one.

People have lived for centuries without it. In those years there have both been plenty of fulfilled lives and unfulfilled lives. Clearly, the shiny happy virtual world is not a prerequisite for a fulfilled live. Now think about what made those lives fulfilling. Whatever the answer, it can be done in the real world. It probably is also not superficial and also not shiny. So trading the current world for the shiny virtual world is not the ultimate solution to whatever it is that you are looking for. It can be a tool, like the telephone is. But not more.

[biztos]

On the A16Z podcast, Marc Andreessen (IIRC) said something like "VR is not for Silicon Valley where you wake up every day thinking of all the awesome things you can do. VR is for all the people whose everyday life is terrible."

When you think about it in those terms it gets seriously dystopian. You put your AR goggles on for your 10-hour shift at the Nike factory, then you pop a protein pill and put your VR goggles on for the rest of the day, spending your meagre income on whoever bid most for your eyeballs on Google.

[tomp]

How is that different from any other form of entertainment (books, TV shows & movies, spectator sports)?

[jkestner]

It’s only a matter of degree—unless it’s completely controlled by Facebook, or any other company.

[hw]

I do think there are some merits to VR (a better gaming experience) but framing VR as a new worldly experience feels wrong to me. There are some arguments for Horizon being beneficial for people whose lives aren't great and they get to let off in a better, virtual environment. How is that different than opioids though - both are temporary escapes from real world problems, and that's just what it is which is an escape and not a solution.

[neilv]

> "VR is not for Silicon Valley where you wake up every day thinking of all the awesome things you can do. VR is for all the people whose everyday life is terrible."

An earlier Facebook VR demo infamously managed to twist up both, with the Puerto Rico tragedy demo. CNET report: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z8q2BQOGRGE

[throwaway1777]

Seems the factory workers are in a bad spot either way, at least the vr version is presumably more “enjoyable”.

[growlist]

> People have lived for centuries without it. In those years there have both been plenty of fulfilled lives and unfulfilled lives. Clearly, the shiny happy virtual world is not a prerequisite for a fulfilled live.

One could say the same about anaesthetic - but I'd still prefer to have the choice! But I won't be rushing to sign up for this. I don't use FB, and think they (& Google for that matter) are a malign force in the world.

[DJHenk]

Yes, I would prefer the anesthetic too. The difference between the two that it is very clear that the anesthetic is a tool. It makes it easier to accomplish something, but that something does not change whether you use the aid or not. Whereas the virtual world is often confused with being a new something that replaces the old one. That's why I said it could be useful as a tool, but not more.

[viraptor]

> something really deep in me was screaming NOOOO!, this is not right

I though the same. I mean there are some things that can easily exist in virtual world, and it may even be enabling for people who can't leave their houses in a literal way (for many different reasons). But as a default? You can likely try new things in person - but the ad made it seem to be a new thing rather than an alternative experience. I guess I'm opposed to that framing.

[hos234]

Don't pay attention to unimaginative people who pretend to be imaginative and creative (because its part of some job description and quarterly kpi) and you will be fine.

A well programmed Corporate Robot knows not to act like a visionary. Their job when they do it right, is to keep the factory lights on and set the stage up for the visionaries.

But some of these robots have bugs and end up getting up on to the stage and wasting everyones time.

[qubex]

You’re disturbed, I imagine, because it is the beginning of the Neuromancer/Ready Player 1 dystopia.

[Yoric]

Frankly, we're starting to live in a very Cyberpunk world these days.

[ptah]

> you get to talk to people from all around the world

i would say this is a bug not a feature. it should take time and effort to talk to people all over the world.

[nnq]

> it should take time and effort to talk to people all over the world

No, it shouldn't, that was the whole point of the global Internet (ignoring its origins), to drill into people's thick skulls that in the end we're all very similar, that most of the "local culture" crap it's just that, CRAP, and deep inside we're all driven by the same fears and desires. That ANY kind of war means just fighting against other people that are just like you and that in the end it's not worth fighting. That we can have the global village, and keep our special tribal/nationa/race identities too, there's no contradiction there.

Hope AR, VR and later neural implants get implemented and deployed in ways that empower this vision instead of the opposite, that they manage to push further in the one-world-interconnectedness direction of the 90s internet.

I used to dislike corporations like Facebook... but now I'm pretty sure I'd rather live in a globalized world ruled by such corporations, than in a separated and restricted one ruled by governments representing "nations"! I'd swallow the AI-powered-corporate-surveillance part as a minor inconvenience if it manages to deliver the "one world" dream... I'm just afraid that most corporations aren't truly powerful and globally distributed enough, in the sense that they could at least in theory overpower the governments of most of most of their base countries if push comes to shove and they need to fight them for more freedom and connectivity. Maybe if they'd drop central control and organize themselves more into "cells" or something similar... there's got to be something in the whole Ethereum and distributed systems experiment that can become successful and power this. Heh, maybe once Libra gets traction more can be built on top. Go Facebook!

[jazzyjackson]

a homogenous culture is like a monocrop agriculture: complete vulnerability to pest or blight

Evolution works best in a diverse population: when the environment shifts, some varieties will be quicker to adapt than others.

[orbifold]

One world and one culture is a nightmare not a dream.

[Fr0styMatt88]

One of the most exciting things I remember about first getting the Internet in the 90s was (especially as a socially-anxious introvert) being able to jump on an IRC server and chat mostly anonymously with just a nickname, to people I didn't know, without the awkwardness that real-life interactions could bring me at the time.

As a high-school kid, I could be on the same footing as a distinguished scientist. Or I could make friends in other countries.

Even my parents, who aren't technically-inclined, were excited by that and thought it was amazing.

I sometimes feel like the Internet went from being a place that you explored to find new people and new viewpoints, to one where many people just stay in their own bubbles.

No, this is not a bug. How did we get from there, to here? :(

[ptah]

you were lucky to not get scammed or groomed sexually

[Fr0styMatt88]

Certainly, but at the same time -- it wasn't a free-for-all. I was lucky that I'd been taught to be suspicious and to have boundaries long before the Internet. Of course that doesn't preclude anything from happening and luck does play a part. It just means I wouldn't have engaged in some risky behaviours - I wouldn't go giving strangers my phone number (this was before mobiles, so my phone number was my parent's phone number) or home address, for example. This was at a time when people hadn't even warmed up to the idea of using their credit cards online; my folks using their credit card to pay the monthly Internet bill was a way out-there thing at the time.

I also wasn't _that_ young - I don't think I touched IRC until I was around 15 or 16.

I remember the first in-real-life 'meetup' was a big thing; it was with members of an IRC chat group from our local area. I was real-life friends with some of the people already, so it wasn't an entire group of strangers. I don't think that even happened until I was out of high school.

[ddnb]

You realise you are using the internet right now?

[melon_madness]

What? Why?

[ptah]

it should be harder for predators