It has been reported that Facebook has decided to change its name in the coming week. The decision to change the name has been opted to focus on building metaverse. The ongoing decision to change the name of Facebook has been taken from a source that ascertains direct information about the matter. The new name of Facebook will be announced by Mark Zuckerberg at the annual conference of the company. The annual conference has been scheduled to be held on 28th October. Although, from inside reports it has been getting to know that the new name may be unveiled sooner. The decision to change the name of the biggest social media giant was taken after several meetings. A lot of experts believe that the new name decision has been taken after cleaning the tarnished image of Facebook.
It is supposed that after the new branding, we will see the blue Facebook app logo over several parent companies of Facebook. It may be visible on the homepage of Instagram, WhatsApp, Oculus, etc. Although the spokesperson of Facebook has declined such claims Nowadays, Facebook has been focused on manufacturing consumer hardware that will revolutionize the technology. The social media giant has been Working on building AR glasses. The CEO of the company, Mark Zuckerberg believes that this device will overcome smartphones in the near future. More than 10,000 employees of Facebook are working on the AR glass project of Facebook. Mark Zuckerberg has also said in an interview that “we will effectively transition from people seeing us as primarily being a social media company to being a metaverse company.”
The rebranding of Facebook is primarily designated towards building a metaverse company. The spokesperson of Facebook has told that the company doesn’t want to work only as a social media platform in the near future. Facebook is in the limelight nowadays, a former employee of Facebook has unveiled a lot of dark secrets about the company which eventually leads to legal trouble. Frances Haugen is the whistle-blower who has leaked a lot of internal documents of Facebook to “The wall street journal”. He has also testified about the documents before congress. New impositions on Facebook are causing a lot of trouble and tarnishing the image of the social media giant. Facebook has different policies for different communities in different countries. This is the psychology of social engineering.
People are being programmed and manipulated. When people are in a state of fear, or anger they are easier to control. Censorship is also being promoted. Facebook is NOT changing the name of the platform. It is considering a name change to the holding company – because a lot of people cannot tell the difference between the company and the platform. It’s really simple. Microsoft is NOT the same as Windows. Apple is not the same as macOS and Facebook (the company) is not the same as Facebook (the platform). The company name change simply fixes this for the hard of thinking. The rebranding of Facebook may work as a fresh start with all the information they’ve accumulated. They can use that information to make a better label with better rules and guidelines. Then enforce the rules equally from day one. Facebook is a business, not a country.
It operates on a business model. Suddenly, we want to be moralists and not capitalists. In reality, Facebook as a business has no obligation to anyone and that includes the government. At the end of the day, if your product is causing harm to society the government must regulate you. Self-regulation is a failure because who regulates you? Facebook is a product, not a news information network. If you use the product and are harmed by it Facebook should be accountable. Once Facebook is held accountable it will become more involved in stopping harm to protect its Brand Name and product. Facebook can do better, but the real question is does it want to? It’s not just the information that is on social media. There are other issues, people get addicted, confidence gets lowered.
Everyone has the choice to be on it but there are lots of negative aspects to being on social media in general. The problem here is that they know this and lie about the effects. If they acknowledged it, this woman wouldn’t be talking. It’s similar to cigarette companies saying that it’s not harmful. If Facebook knows that they affected children negatively, they should acknowledge it. Not to say that it is only helpful even though it might be helpful to some. While some people still like Facebook, Yet don’t understand how that media platform works. It’s sad to see a guy have to defend himself for a company that everyone seems to like yet out of jealousy. Take the time to ask questions about their favorite app on the internet. That distracts everyone from doing their job.
Some people have given mixed statements on Facebook and said that Facebook is Setout to make a destructive platform…” Are we forgetting what Facebook was originally? You would compare face shots of people, who you thought were or weren’t attractive. Some people may find you unattractive, and others prince charming. It ran algorithms, to place people in a ranking system, of most attractive to least attractive. That sounds a bit destructive. Facebook has evolved into something even more grotesque over the years, and it’s quite crazy how much social media we have and how addictive it is. Crazy to think how we ever got by day to day in the early 2000s. So Facebook is like news organizations that know, “if it bleeds it leads”.
Not saying it’s right, but it’s a model that has been used to increase engagement since that was a measure of success. The model FB and other platforms are using to increase engagement needs to change, but it’s not just a FB problem. Every platform that cares about engagement including news organizations, needs to find a new model to increase engagement because never before have we been able to compound the negative information a single person sees. Experts suggest that all companies that use algorithms for content decisions start testing algorithms that deliver more positive content the more a user engages with negative content, a kind of positive feedback loop if they aren’t already. To some degree, people are resistant to change, but it is a bit more than this in the case of Facebook changes.
Over the years there are a lot of improvements we would have liked to have seen on Facebook, from other friends and forums they have been very consistent with the Wishlist of others. We rarely see any of these desired changes come to fruition. Yet Facebook makes frequent changes that are usually met with a lot of complaints from their consumers. Why is that, who are they trying to please when making these changes? They are trying to please the game companies and ensure that Facebook is still a place that allows viral marketing of their games. That they are trying to please their advertisers by making it difficult to ever get a grip on your privacy settings. We try to be very aware of my settings and we are careful to who we post to or not, but we have been caught out because they keep changing the way this works (at the same time trying to make it look like they have made it easier).
There are a lot of changes Facebook could be making that wouldn’t be met by ‘disturbed and indignant people. Trust me, they could be making a lot of changes to make the user happy. So, On Facebook, we often see activities and behavior that is other-determined, and extrinsically motivated (rather than springing from honest feelings — which are unique to each individual and come from within). Facebook makes us view people through the lens of what they do, and not why. There is too much conformity within social circles. Facebook circumscribes the world (by reinforcing social expectations) rather than expands it by examining the reasons and motivation for these social expectations. So, in the end, we just can’t deduce the real motive of Facebook behind the name change decision. It can be a business module or a blanket to cover a spoiled image or just a usual change that has been decided ubiquitously.