[radu_floricica]

Please note that being clued in and being a zealot are very different things. Which is probably the greatest issue of our times - if you don't scream your support for something at the top of your lungs, you must be against it.

Nothing parent says suggest he's clueless. He just made a rather common sense observation that investing in a very niche hardware company has a very poor ROI if your goal is getting accounts. But by doing this he BETRAYED THE CAUSE, so you must call him clueless to put him in his place. Bah.

[TomSwirly]

I beg to differ. PP seems to see nothing wrong with Facebook breaking your property - that is, rendering your games and your hardware literally useless - simply because FB doesn't "care" about VR.

No. Wrong. This is clueless. If I spend a few hundred dollars to buy a headset and a game, Facebook has no legal or moral basis to take it away from me just because I won't use their other services.

It isn't a "privacy" issue. It's a theft issue. Being pro-theft is clueless.

[disgruntledphd2]

Both of you can be correct.

FB shouldn't require an FB account for Oculus, and Oculus is not a major source of ad data for them. I replied up thread, but given the ubiquity of web and app tracking for FB, Oculus is almost certainly not incremental to their understanding of almost any user.

[radu_floricica]

Like disgruntledphd2 said. That's actually another very common fallacy - I defended parent, who wasn't criticising Facebook, so I must be pro-facebook and probably agree with everything they do. Just... what!?

The point touched was very very narrow: Facebook very likely doesn't invest in Oculus for the sake of getting facebook accounts. I'd probably argue that it's not even for the sake of getting more info about the users, though I haven't yet. But I definitely didn't say anything like "they can kill your hardware device if you give up your account".

I did criticise tribalism, polarisation and automatically assuming that a discussion has exactly two sides. Hint hint.