Why must we see world through Facebook?

Company shouldn’t be trusted to become your portal to ‘the metaverse’

So Facebook wants to change its name. According to tech site the Verge, CEO Mark Zuckerberg is set to announce a new name that reflects a shift in focus for the company from social networking to what it is calling “the metaverse” — a mix of technologies meant to create a virtual world that Facebook happens to run.

Still, for an embattled company, bruised by a string of injuries to its reputation, the change probably reflects a few things Facebook is looking to achieve.

For one, it is now embroiled in a bitter battle with the tech press over various lapses in the company’s track record: privacy gaffes, moderation problems and a failure to tamp down on the ills of social media. Couple that with a high-profile “60 Minutes” interview with a whistleblower who detailed Facebook’s various failings, and you see how a name change might be just the thing for one of the world’s largest companies to sweep a few unpleasant realities under the rug.

It isn’t just the self-inflicted wounds that is worrying Facebook, however. Recent reports show that Facebook has poured its significant marketing budget into Instagram rather than its core product, mainly because Facebook is terrified of losing the key younger demographics who grow into a lucrative customer base. What’s more, with the TikTok app cresting over a billion users and swallowing much of the cultural energy once absorbed by Instagram, Facebook is feeling vulnerable and is casting about for the next big thing after the familiar newsfeed.

So: the metaverse. It’s a diffuse idea, and Facebook envisions it as a kind of layer of tech between you and the world. More practically, the metaverse is likely to be a mix of virtual reality in the form of headsets; augmented reality, in which smart glasses and other things layer information atop reality; and a host of other tech — maps, wearables, headphones — to shape how you interact with everything.

The first thing to ask about the metaverse is whether or not it’s something we want at all. The second is that, even if we do, whether we want Facebook — or whatever their name will be — to be the company to run it.

Big tech has operated somewhat differently than most corporations in that, rather than simply offering a product, tech tries its best to become like modern infrastructure.

This is often how tech gets misunderstood. Uber, for example, is often thought of a replacement for taxis. What Uber actually wanted wasn’t to simply be a ride-hailing app on your phone but an entire transportation infrastructure — the tech layer that runs not just rides, but bikes, scooters, transit and, eventually, autonomous cars. It didn’t pan out that way — Uber sold off its autonomous-car division after it became clear selfdriving is a much harder problem to solve than anyone knew — but the desire to become a layer was what drove things.

So Amazon wants to be the layer between you and shopping, using not just its website but voice assistants, smart buttons and more to be everywhere. Google wants to be the layer between you and day-today tasks — booking appointments, scheduling meetings and so on.

Facebook’s desires are arguably more insidious. The metaverse is essentially the layer between you and reality.

Picture walking down the street wearing Facebookbranded smart glasses, little bits of information about stores or coffee shops appearing as you stroll. Imagine taking a class or having a meeting in Facebook-run virtual worlds. That is the vision.

In essence, the metaverse isn’t just a virtual world, but an intermediary layer between you and the rest of the world — a set of technologies meant to insert Facebook’s business between individuals and their daily activity.

In the same way that Facebook monetized basic communication, it now wants to monetize, well, life.

In short, Facebook wants to be the operating system for reality.

Even if Facebook didn’t have a track record of privacy intrusions, harming its users’ mental health or quashing dissent, would we in fact want any company to become the interface between ourselves and reality?

The answer seems quite clearly “no,” but it is especially so given Facebook’s blasé, almost careless approach to the wellbeing of the world it purports to make better.

It seems clear that augmented reality is coming, and there may well be benefits.

Just as social media has its upsides, so too does technology that can give directions, inform us about our towns and cities as we are in them, or provide a more embodied experience when we meet virtually.

But what is cause for worry is that Facebook’s wish to become the company that runs that technology seems to stem more from a desire for domination than either mere altruism or even capitalist profit motive.

In short, what Facebook wants isn’t to offer you a neat product, but to entrench itself and seize control — and that isn’t something a name change can or should obscure.