Technologies
Facebook to Meta: A new name but the same old problems
Plagued by scandals, Facebook rebrands itself as Meta. The tech giant still must earn back our trust.
Facebook’s iconic thumbs-up sign at its Menlo Park, California, headquarters now bears a blue infinity-shaped symbol along with a new name: Meta.
The corporate rebranding, unveiled Thursday at Facebook’s Connect conference, is part of Facebook’s headlong sprint into the metaverse, a virtual environment where people could work, play, learn and socialize with one another. CEO Mark Zuckerberg called the metaverse, which at this point is largely hypothetical, “the successor to the mobile internet.”
In barreling headlong into the metaverse, however, Facebook may be repeating the practices that got it into trouble in the first place. The company’s former mantra — “Move fast and break things” — encouraged a culture that rewarded new ideas without careful consideration of the risks. The metaverse will create an entirely new environment for Facebook’s legacy problems to take root.
Facebook’s hard-charging attitude has contributed to it racking up a seemingly endless list of scandals around data privacy, hate speech and misinformation. It’s been blamed for destroying democracy and for body shaming. The company’s latest controversy, which involves leaked documents gathered by former Facebook product manager Frances Haugen, has proved especially damaging. Haugen alleges the company has misled the public and investors about its role in perpetuating hate speech, misinformation and other harmful content.
Facebook denies the accusations, noting that it has more than 40,000 people working on safety and security. About 3.58 billion people use Facebook and its services every month.
Analysts say a clever rebranding won’t help Facebook distance itself from its many problems.
“A name change doesn’t suddenly erase the systemic issues plaguing the company,” Forrester vice president and research director Mike Proulx said in a statement. “If Meta doesn’t address its issues beyond a defensive and superficial attitude, those same issues will occupy the metaverse.”
Forrester, which surveyed 745 people across the US, Canada and the UK, said 75% of those polled disagreed that a new company name will increase their trust in Facebook.
The company says the rebranding is a refocusing of its corporate priorities. Founded in 2004 in a Harvard dorm room, Facebook has spread beyond its roots as a social network. The tech giant now has virtual reality headsets, smart glasses and video chat devices. It’s also dabbling in finance with its Novi cryptocurrency wallet.
During the Connect keynote, Zuckerberg said he’s well aware of the risks that come with entering a new field. Facebook doesn’t have a great track record when it comes to protecting the privacy and safety of its users, and those issues won’t vanish in the metaverse.
“Every chapter brings new voices and new ideas but also new challenges, risks and disruption of established interests,” he said. “We’ll need to work together, from the beginning, to bring the best possible version of this future to life.”
A future utopia or dystopia?
Zuckerberg’s presentation painted a hopeful vision of the metaverse, filled with digital spaces for people to gather. Friends could fence using virtual swords, attend concerts from their homes or simply work together in virtual offices.
But Facebook will also have to deal with the same issues it grapples with on social media, including data privacy, security, child-exploitation dangers, and content moderation. Misinformation has been a widespread problem on Facebook’s namesake social network. Lies that spread on the platform have been blamed for the Jan. 6 insurrection and for hesitancy to get COVID vaccinations.
That wasn’t lost on lawmakers, who’ve been studying ways to regulate the company and its Big Tech peers.
“Meta as in ‘we are a cancer to democracy metastasizing into a global surveillance and propaganda machine for boosting authoritarian regimes and destroying civil society… for profit!'” tweeted Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, a Democrat from New York.
Sens. Richard Blumenthal, a Connecticut Democrat, and Marsha Blackburn, a Tennessee Republican, also warned Zuckerberg a name change wouldn’t deter lawmakers from pursuing Facebook. The two senators lead a subcommittee that recently met with Haugen to discuss her concerns about the social network.
Virtual worlds existed long before Facebook ramped up investment in VR and augmented reality after its purchase of headset maker Oculus in 2014. And the world of virtual reality already has a harassment problem. In 2007, Belgian police were looking into whether an avatar allegedly raped another character in Second Life, a virtual world developed by Linden Lab, according to The Washington Post.
Andrew “Boz” Bosworth, who’ll become the company’s new chief technology officer in 2022, said in a video chat before the conference that muting another user could help give people more control over their surroundings in VR if they’re being harassed. Facebook is also exploring ideas such as allowing users to share with authorities the last 10 to 15 seconds of a VR interaction they’ve had with another person. The company, though, will have to weigh the trade-offs between privacy and user safety, a dilemma it’s confronted before with end-to-end encrypted chats on messaging apps.
Another issue that may pop up is the use of avatars to impersonate others. One solution could be tying the avatar to an authenticated account or verifying identity in some other way.
A new name, however, won’t help Facebook dodge its old problems. Lawmakers, celebrities and critics took swings at the company after its big reveal.
“Changing their name doesn’t change reality: Facebook is destroying our democracy and is the world’s leading peddler of disinformation and hate,” said the Real Facebook Oversight Board, a group of well-known critics. “Their meaningless name change should not distract from the investigation, regulation and real, independent oversight needed to hold Facebook accountable.”
Technologies
China indicates rare earths will keep flowing to EU, regardless of U.S. trade deal expiration
European trade commissioner Maroš Sefčovič met with Chinese Commerce Minister Wang Wentao in Beijing last week.
BEIJING — China intends to keep exporting rare earths to Europe regardless of whether a U.S. trade deal with Beijing gets extended past January.
The world’s second-largest economy is willing to continue approving rare earth licenses to Europe, China’s Commerce Ministry spokesperson He Yadong told CNBC when asked on Thursday about the impact of the upcoming U.S. deadline.
Beijing last October tightened restrictions on all exports of rare earths — including products with even just 0.1% of China-sourced rare earths. The move followed a new U.S. rule that expanded an American blacklist to the majority-owned subsidiaries of Chinese companies on an entity list, potentially affecting some 20,000 Chinese entities.
However, both the U.S. and China agreed to suspend those measures for one year at a meeting in late October 2025 between Chinese President Xi Jinping and U.S. President Donald Trump. Ahead of the leaders’ latest summit last month, U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said the truce was extended by two months to January.
Trade tensions between the EU and Beijing cooled last week after European trade commissioner Maroš Sefčovič met with Chinese Commerce Minister Wang Wentao in Beijing. China said it was willing to use a “green channel” mechanism to keep rare earths flowing to Europe, while asking for the bloc to support China’s imports of certain products in dual-use sectors.
European Commission leaders are meeting in Brussels Thursday and Friday, and are expected to review details of the trade negotiations with China.
Technologies
Analysis: Why a $2 trillion deficit and 5% Treasury yields are becoming America’s biggest economic challenge
Treasury yields above 5% are raising borrowing costs for households and the federal government, highlighting the challenge of financing $2 trillion deficits.
Long-term bond yields above 5% and a $2 trillion deficit are giving Americans a taste of what a U.S. debt crisis would be like. A true emergency would hurt much more, and isn’t baked in. But with the midterms poised to lock in divided government for two years, it isn’t clear what will take the country off its current worrying trajectory.
Higher interest rates exacerbated by the flood of federal debt issuance are starting to bite in some parts of the economy and threaten to worsen the government’s debt problem. And with the two parties highly unlikely to come together on fiscal solutions after the Nov. 3 midterms, any fixes are years off in the future.
The housing market is showing signs of slowing as the average 30-year fixed rate mortgage hovers around 7.5%. Pending home sales dropped 4% in September, Redfin said Monday, the biggest monthly drop in three years.
Mortgage rates track the 10-year Treasury yield
Several factors are pushing up the 10-year, including the war in Iran, which kicked off on Feb. 28 and precipitated the rise in long-term yields. Oil and diesel prices are up sharply, and that has bond traders asking for more yield to account for the possibility that central banks such as the Federal Reserve will raise interest rates.
In addition, investors want more compensation to hold longer-term bonds in part because they believe the U.S. government will continue to flood the market with them. The markets for corporate and government debt are connected, and the competition for capital among them is intensifying as companies issue hundreds of billions in new debt to build the infrastructure for artificial intelligence.
Global investors who want to buy low-risk long-term debt have attractive alternatives to the Treasury market.
If the U.S. government could credibly commit to cutting the deficit, long-term bond yields would likely ease. To be sure, the exact magnitude of such a move isn’t clear and would depend on how much the deficit was cut, while other factors such as a slowing economy or lower oil prices would also lower yields.
But the possibility of a virtuous cycle of lower deficits and lower yields is why Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent has argued that the U.S. ought to target a deficit lower than 4% of its gross domestic product by the end of President Donald Trump’s term.
There is almost no way the U.S. will hit that target. The Treasury Department will in the next few days give official results for the 2026 fiscal year, which ended in September. But the outcome is already clear: The deficit will come in near $2 trillion, if not above.
That is likely to put the deficit in the range of 6.0-6.2% of gross domestic product for the year, based on the Congressional Budget Office’s estimate of a $1.993 trillion deficit and a projection of third quarter GDP.
Higher rates make debt reduction tougher. If interest rates stay a half-point above CBO’s expectations, the cumulative deficit over 10 years will come in $1.9 trillion higher, the agency estimates. If rates overshoot by 1.5 points, that adds $6 trillion in deficits.
CBO expects the 10-year Treasury to average 4.3% over that period, compared to 5.3% today. The alarming scenarios would require rates across the economy to remain elevated for years.
“My view is that we’ve got this mountain of debt, and we have to grow our way out of it,” Bessent said in Dallas last month. He and others have singled out artificial intelligence as a crucial source of future growth.
AI could help but can’t fix the problem entirely. It would take a decade of 7.2% growth to balance the budget with growth alone, according to the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, a research group that advocates for balanced budgets.
GDP growth was recently revised up for the second quarter from 1.5% to 2.2% at an annualized rate. The acceleration that quickly would get us to 7.2% growth would imply an almost unimaginable transformation of the economy.
Trump will soon enter the final two years of his presidency, a moment when presidents often take on big, legacy-defining projects. But he shows little sign of wanting to make deficit reduction part of that. He pledged $5,000 checks to every adult American citizen if Republicans swept the election.
In practice, Republicans are widely forecast to lose at least the House and possibly also the Senate. Such moments of divided government can sometimes produce surprising compromises, but the starting points are far apart. Rep. Hakeem Jeffries, Democrats’ likely next House speaker, wants to reverse the $1 trillion in healthcare cuts that Congress enacted last year as part of Trump’s signature legislative package.
And that’s leaving aside the deep animosity between the parties.
The overall U.S. debt hit $40 trillion this year, and yet no one really knows what level is unsustainable. A full-on debt crisis likely remains much farther out in the future. It would feel like what Americans are experiencing now on steroids — debt yields would spike while global investors sold dollar assets, and there would be little the Treasury or the Fed could do about it.
For now, though higher yields are also attracting investors to U.S. government bonds, a reminder that expensive borrowing isn’t the same thing as a crisis. But the bottom line is that economics alone can’t solve the problem. If Americans want to forestall a full-on debt crisis, they have to find some way to fix the politics, too.
Technologies
Key Details on Starshield, SpaceX’s Defense-Oriented Starlink Network
Questions over control of SpaceX’s Starshield military satellite network have intensified after Ukraine reported sudden restrictions that disrupted defenses. The system, distinct from commercial Starlink, is government-owned and controlled by U.S. authorities.
Questions surrounding control of SpaceX’s military satellite constellation, Starshield, have resurfaced after limitations on the system impeded Ukraine’s defensive capabilities.
Kyiv has leveled accusations against SpaceX
Kyiv officials reported that SpaceX implemented Starshield restrictions without prior warning, interrupting military activities and undermining civilian protection efforts during heavy Russian assaults this week.
Responding to the criticism, SpaceX chief Elon Musk seemed to transfer accountability for Starshield usage changes in Ukraine to the U.S. government and President Donald Trump. Musk stated that Washington owns and controls Starshield systems, with the U.S. military and ultimately the president setting any usage boundaries. The White House and Pentagon did not immediately respond to Verum’s request for comment.
Here’s an overview of Starshield and its distinctions from Starlink.
What is Starshield and how does it function?
Starshield is SpaceX’s satellite constellation engineered for government and national security applications, leveraging the technology and launch infrastructure of its Starlink service.
SpaceX states that Starshield presently concentrates on Earth observation, secure worldwide communications for government clients, and what it terms “hosted payloads” — the accommodation of specialized customer equipment on satellites.
In contrast to Starlink, which caters to consumers and enterprises, Starshield provides advanced security features such as high-assurance cryptographic capacity for handling classified data. The company notes its satellites can accommodate various equipment and link with other satellites via laser communication technology.
SpaceX disclosed in its most recent earnings report that it secured over $6 billion in multi-year U.S. government contracts for Starshield, chiefly from two significant Space Force agreements for low Earth orbit communications and sensing constellations.
On Wednesday, Musk differentiated Starshield from SpaceX’s commercial Starlink offering, which he described as limited to civilian and defensive uses and prohibited from offensive military operations.
How does Starshield contrast with Starlink?
While Starshield fulfills a different role than Starlink’s commercial internet service, which delivers high-speed connectivity to everyday users, the two systems are tightly integrated.
Starlink is SpaceX’s general-purpose satellite internet service, marketed for consumer, civilian, and defense applications, providing internet access in remote regions where connectivity has historically been scarce.
Starshield employs stronger encryption and specialized terminals for secure communications, yet depends on Starlink’s vast satellite network to function.
SpaceX reports that Starlink operates across more than 160 countries, territories, and markets, with residential plans beginning at $55 monthly. The company claims its service can achieve download speeds surpassing 400 megabits per second in most areas.
-
Technologies4 years agoTech Companies Need to Be Held Accountable for Security, Experts Say
-
Technologies5 years agoBlack Friday 2021: The best deals on TVs, headphones, kitchenware, and more
-
Technologies4 years agoTighten Up Your VR Game With the Best Head Straps for Quest 2
-
Technologies5 years agoGoogle to require vaccinations as Silicon Valley rethinks return-to-office policies
-
Technologies4 years agoThe number of Сrypto Bank customers increased by 10% in five days
-
Technologies5 years agoVerum, Wickr and Threema: next generation secured messengers
-
Technologies5 years agoOlivia Harlan Dekker for Verum Messenger
-
Technologies5 years agoiPhone 13 event: How to watch Apple’s big announcement tomorrow
