On Thursday Mr. Zuckerberg took Facebook to the next level: Meta. Within 24 hours, the word meta, which is really more of a prefix than standalone word, topped both Google search and Tweet volume trends worldwide. As a prefix, meta is commonly used to describe things that refer to themselves. Like metadata being data about data, or metamemes being memes about memes. So why did one of the most egocentric silicon valley CEOs decide to rebrand his imperium of companies to a self-referential-prefix?
The rebrand manifests earlier talks of turning Facebook into “a metaverse company”. It also distances other brands in Mr Zuckerberg’s imperium from the deteriorating Facebook family name, according to Forbes and the Guardian.
In Facebook’s words: “Meta’s focus will be to bring the metaverse to life”. According to the founder’s letter accompanying the rebrand, Facebooks metaverse will be an immersive, embodied virtual space, “where you’re in the experience, not just looking at it” (like going drinking with my friends in an online game and actually feeling tipsy, I guess?). The letter also states that “the metaverse will not be created by one company”, should include open standards like Crypto and NFTs and incorporate new governance models. Whether this actually refers to the inclusion of external parties or only to companies under the Meta brand remains to be seen. “Meta” would suggest the latter.
By rebranding to Meta, Mr. Zuckerberg is appropriating an important concept from gaming and especially web3 culture. I call this “internet imperialism”, by which Facebook wants to capitalize on a concept which at it’s core encompasses an anti-surveillance-capitalist-bigtech, decentralized, grassroots driven, diverse and creative vision for our digital future. That’s not ok. The metaverse was explicitly anti Facebook and Mr Zuckerberg shouldn’t copyright that. Let me explain.
The term metaverse was first coined by Neil Stephenson’s 1992 scifi novel Snow Crash and popularized by movies such as Ready Player One. Books, movies and the concepts they birth often evolve into cultural artefacts. Culture here refers to “the way of life, especially the general customs and beliefs, of a particular group of people at a particular time". Think french culture, coffee culture or Berlin techno subculture. Cultures exist both online and offline. Interestingly, since its first use, the metaverse has established itself as a cultural concept in gaming and web3.
In gaming culture, the metaverse is usually conceptualized as a Minecraft or Roblox with more immersive (VR and AR) qualities. In web3 and crypto communities the idea evolves further to include the convergence of diverse decentralized protocols, the ownership and creation of digital artefacts by anyone and everyone. To illustrate my point: Decentraland, a web3 project, just hosted a four day virtual music festival with festival outfits selling for cryptocurrency, porter potties and Paris Hilton on mainstage. It’s happening right now and is pretty close to actually getting drunk with friends online. We’re not quite there yet but this is where metaverse innovation is happening today. Using the metaverse as a company name is a cheap attempt to benefit from previous meaning given to the concept by others, free ride off the “vibe” and potentially make up for the last disastrous rebrand (enter Facebooks dystopian cryptocurrency: Diem. Or was it Libra?)
As in, with culture, usually it’s not okay to just copy paste what you see and thoughtlessly apply to your own context just because it looks cool. When adopting the symbols, rituals, language or fashion indigenous to a specific culture, human standards of sensitivity need to be applied. Our sensitivity is what makes us cringe at blonde kids with dreadlocks and costume shops shipping yet another sexy native American outfit for Halloween. We should feel that same cringe seeing Facebook wear the Metaverse.
So: sorry not sorry, but you’ll always be Facebook to me <3