I am actually no longer working for Meta. I do think the title reflects the news and is factually correct. But happy for @dang to change it back as it’s not exactly the title of the article
Ideally the submission title would have matched the blog title and then not only would it have been factually correct but it would have also not had any omissions. It seems disingenuous to me to post a submission with that title knowing how unpopular the FB account requirement is in this circle while tacitly omitting the fact that a Meta account is going to be required. It might not have been your intent but it did come across as suspicious and as it is it comes across as a Lie of Omission.
It does not reflect the news accurately. Very few people here distinguish between "Meta" and "Facebook". An account is still required to use the device, and that account is still owned by Meta/Facebook.
(As an aside, you should probably update your HN profile, it still reads "Now VP of AI at Facebook.")
Editorializing titles has become completely standard and I rarely see them fixed anymore despite the comments. Of course others also post editorialized titles when they see it happening daily on the front page.
Oh get over it, your hate for FB is noted. The title is accurate, the information is news, and IMO HN users are smart enough to know what a PR release is when they read it.
What are you worried about? That folks will walk this earth thinking you have to use a Meta account instead of a Facebook account to log into your VR app?
The post was posted by a (edit: recently ex-) VP at Facebook, and the posted title, while strictly accurate, doesn't mention that there's a brand new account type that you need to have. I read this at first as "I can finally buy a VR headset and use it as regular hardware", not "FB is still going to track my usage, just under their new name".
"Introducing Meta Accounts: A New Login for VR" is the actual title, and should be used instead of this one.
There's user accounts for almost every software business out there that has any form of online component. You have a user account on this very site. I don't get the complaint.
The complaint is that many people don't trust Facebook (or Meta or whatever they change their name to tomorrow) and don't want a _Facebook_ account. The title implies that their needs will be met: that they will be able to buy Oculus hardware without having to interact with Facebook's data-gathering. But that's a lie: they are just rebranding the name of the login system, not actually changing anything.
The title (currently "A Facebook account is no longer required to use Meta VR devices (oculus.com)" which is not the title of the article) is specifically written to get the attention of that Facebook-distrusting group and in that way is explicitly and I believe intentionally misleading.
Yea, requiring an online account to use a head mounted display makes as much sense as requiring an online account to use a monitor.
Sure, require an account to do purchases through their online store, that makes sense. But why on earth do you need an account to use an unconnected piece of hardware? I don't need to log in to an account to use my monitor, mouse, keyboard, or joystick.
EDIT, answering my own question:
The only reason these accounts are required is that Facebook wants to pretend Oculus is not just the HMD but also the whole "ecosystem" including the store, their toxic social media properties, and their ridiculous metaverse. I don't buy into this fantasy of theirs, and will never buy another Oculus until they are treated as dumb displays.
I do miss the days when I could buy hardware (or appliances, for that matter) and just use it as hardware, without signing into it. I miss not having everything have a mandatory online presence.
But the bigger issue here is that this account is owned by the company formerly known as Facebook, and that company has given me absolutely zero reason to trust them with any data whatsoever. I don't mind having a Steam account, because Valve hasn't had scandal after scandal of them abusing user data in egregious ways.
>Valve hasn't had scandal after scandal of them abusing user data in egregious ways.
Any real examples? Scandal after scandal implies there should be many, but in recent memory I can't think of FB directly abusing user data besides it being repeated as truth on HN.
