Nobody is mentioning Zuckerberg but you and it's pretty worrying you'd rather patients have less options just because Facebook seperately works on related tech.
I keep seeing comments like this all the time—discussion on some solution that is evidently not ideal, but for some reason, the commenter is also very quick to settle for and defend the solution despite its non-negligible negative tradeoffs; as if it’s impossible for something better to be done, which in this case, is not true, because it is not difficult for a social media platform to choose not to track people in coma so that it can show them ads later. Is there a term for it yet? I can only think of reductionism but it doesn’t feel enough.
I don't. If facebook works on VR, that just gives a general push in that area in my opinion. It would be really sad, if fb will be the only option, but I doubt that. In either case, a "coma" patient not being able to move, would be probably thankful for any option.
I don't know about that. Nobody was talking about the metaverse in earnest until FB went and rebranded themselves to it.
Before then, it was some fictional concept in a dystopian sci-fi novel. Now it's got Facebook--I mean Meta--all over it. So it's reasonable to bring this up when someone imagines the potential of neuralinking someone to the metaverse. It almost feels like the suggestion is making Zuckerberg's dream come true for him.
That's not really true. It was a real trend on which Facebook jumped on[0] but yes their involvement overshadowed that. And at any rate clearly the poster here used it in a general sense of a VR Environment rather than meaning Facebook's specific implementation.