I feel like it's almost trite to point out how wacky and the wrong Meta is. I'm almost positive that I'm hardly the first person to question why any would want to create the Metaverse based on Neil Stephenson's breakout novel, Snowcrash. For those who haven't read it, it's a tongue-in-cheek parody of the cyberpunk genre with everything ratcheted up to 11, but also wildly imaginative, donning us with the common lexical use of "Avatar." It's a technocratic dystopian universe where society is so fractured that nation-states exist by neighborhood enclaves, generally aligned with various corporations and/or political ideologies or ethnicities. The world's resources are out of reach for all but the extremely rich thus, everyday citizens exist in an alternate escape reality, called the Metaverse.
If that sounds unappealing and a bit on the nose, it's because it is. I don't know if I can lob any extra insight other than I'm confident that Facebook will wedge NFTs into the Metaverse in an upcoming press release./p>
Now, what is interesting is an interview by Wired Magazine, ‘AR Is Where the Real Metaverse Is Going to Happen’ with Niantic CEO John Hanke (the company that brought the world Pokemon Go). The most interesting thing is the tonality of Wired Magazine, which with a healthy distrust of this technology. While I don't read Wired regularly, I have read Wired articles over the past 20 years. This feels like the new default position instead of a contrarian, skeptical, neo-Luddite, or paranoid position. I'm not sure when this shift happened at Wired, but I certainly felt my faith in progress via the internet in the mid-2000s wane pretty sharply. That was earlier than most people I know but hardly the first. Now, as we're fully into the current decade, it feels like skepticism is the default position as it feels irresponsible not to be.</section>