Let’s reconnect with each other, not fall into dystopian Metaverse

By David McElroy · October 28, 2021

I don’t want to live in Mark Zuckerberg’s “Metaverse.” I’ve already see what Zuckerberg and Co. have to offer. Regardless of their intentions, the results of living in the virtual world they’ve created have been monstrous.

I embraced the online world far earlier than most. I had my first CompuServe account in about 1986. Before long, I was deeply involved in forums, message boards and bulletin boards. I became part of the early culture of “cyberspace.” We saw ourselves as pioneers — and we believed we were part of something great which would change everything.

As those early nerds days evolved into the fashionable world of social media, I came along for the ride. But over time, I became horrified at what I saw. Those of us who thought we were pioneers in something great were wrong.

We were pioneers who laid a foundation for something which would ultimately cause damage in “the real world.” And now that Facebook and other social media platforms have shown us just how dangerous they can be, Zuckerberg is asking us to double-down on trusting him — by joining him in something he calls “the Metaverse.”

If we have a shred of wisdom remaining in our online-addicted brains, we will run screaming from the dystopian future which Zuckerberg is so eager to sell to us.

There have been positive benefits of the online culture, for the world as a whole and for me personally.

I’ve made friends I never would have made without CompuServe or Facebook or Instagram. I’ve fallen in love because of chance meetings online with women I never would have met otherwise. And I have instant access to information which would have shocked and delighted my grandfather.

But all this has come at a cost, one which I was very slow to recognize. As someone who’s read a lot about communication theory — and about the ways in which new technologies change society in unintended ways — I should have seen this coming. But I was blind to the costs, simply because I wanted to believe in the idealistic fantasy we were promised.

There’s been a lot written about the evils of Facebook as a company, but those complaints largely miss the point which I should have seen much earlier. Facebook and other media platforms have become toxic not because the people who run them are necessarily evil, but because these technologies cause us to treat each other in horribly toxic ways.

The nature of the technology itself dehumanizes the people we deal with, so that we routinely treat people in ways that we would never act in real life.

We deal with two-dimensional (or even one-dimensional) caricatures of demons online. We put masks on our online selves and we make assumptions about others based on the masks they wear. We make heroes out of people who we don’t know. We make monsters out of other people we don’t know.

The worst of real-world tribalism migrated to the online world — and the petty disagreements we might have in real life became fuel for pure hatred when we could direct that hate at two-dimensional cardboard cutouts.

It’s easier to hate people who we don’t have to see and know in the flesh-and-blood world.

(For the briefest of explanations about why this was inevitable, please read Neil Postman’s excellent books, “Amusing Ourselves to Death: Public Discourse in the Age of Show Business” and “Technopoly: the Surrender of Culture to Technology.” For a deeper dive into the theory behind this, read the older works of Canadian academic Marshall McLuhan. I know you’re not going to do any of this, but I’m begging you.)

The people who run social media platforms are technologists and advertising salespeople. Their goal is to make a lot of money. They have no real interest in understanding the social psychology or media ecology behind what they’ve created. And most of their users are so focused on the shiny “free” toys which these services offer that they never think about the consequences. (Users have almost no understanding of how these technologies are changing them.)

What social media platforms have already done is bad enough, but now Zuckerberg is selling his latest fantasy — a virtual reality platform he calls “the Metaverse.” He believes so strongly that this is the future of his company that the corporate name has now been changed to Meta.

This “place” is a virtual world where people can buy and sell and meet and argue — and do a million other things. It will take all of the original idealistic promise of the Internet and mix it with the worst of toxic social media — and it will create even more toxicity. And it will once again reduce the importance of the flesh-and-blood world where we should be focusing our energy.

Far too many people live far too much of their lives on social media platforms. Zuckerberg is offering crack addicts a new and more addictive kind of crack, one which will be more toxic and more addictive. It’s a virtual world where the toxic effects of social media will multiply — and companies such as Zuckerberg’s will make even more money by controlling our lives.

But you have a choice. You can say no to this new addiction before it hooks you.

I stopped using Facebook about 10 months ago, although there is some irony in the fact that I still have to post links to articles from this page on Facebook or else many of my friends would never see them. I realized that Facebook had become too toxic for me — too dangerous even as a virtual environment — and I feel healthier to have left. (I’d eventually like to eliminate all of my social media footprint, but I’m not ready for that yet.)

Zuckerberg is going to sell you an idealistic dream and he’s going to tell you it’s free. He’s a crack dealer handing out “free samples” to the kids of all ages online. We need to disconnect from what we’ve already become too much a part of, not allow ourselves to get deeper and deeper into the control of amoral technologists trying to control our attention for their profit.

We have allowed our real-world relationships to deteriorate in modern culture. We’ve allowed ourselves to live too much of our lives inside of these little screens that follow us everywhere we go. We desperately need to break free, both as a culture and as individuals.

Everything I want in the world exists in the flesh-and-blood world of other people. If I could connect with the right people — to have with me to touch, talk to, hold, and listen to — the online world could disappear forever and it wouldn’t matter to me.

We need to break our addiction before it gets worse. We need to reconnect with the people we love — and with who we want to love. That’s where we will find an emotionally healthy future, not in the “virtual reality” of Zuckerberg’s dangerous Metaverse.

Share on Social Networks

If you have problems with high blood pressure, I’d like to encourage you to consider making serious changes to your diet. There might be some people who don’t have any choice but to start taking prescription medications for high blood pressure, but I’d like to tell you that I have completely eliminated my issue by eliminating all sugar and almost all carbohydrates. (A couple of months ago, my blood pressure hit 185/144, which was dangerously high — considered stage 3 hypertension.) By completely changing my eating habits, I’m down 22 pounds and my blood pressure is now in the “ideal” range — without taking any medication. In addition, I sleep better and I have more energy. Getting away from the sugar-laden mess that we generally refer to as “highly processed food” has been a life-changer for me. Now my challenge is to avoid slipping back into old habits — by eating in the dangerous ways that almost everyone in our society has come to see as normal.

When I first heard about this, I thought it must be satire. When I discovered it was real, I was appalled, but I still thought it must be a one-time thing from some nutty activist. But it turns out it’s the latest bit of pandering to a bunch of far-left activists who believe that a man can become a woman if he decides to claim he’s a woman. As everybody knows, men have prostate glands. Women do not. Period. End of story. Men can get prostate cancer. Women cannot. But political activists are so eager to pretend that a man claiming to be a “trans woman” is really a woman that they are insisting that “women” be included in public health messages about the issue. This is nothing but political virtue-signaling. If you’re a man, you know which parts you have. You know that you ought to be screened. Nobody is made any safer by dragging far-left gender ideology into simple medical reality.

Every time someone tries to tighten requirements around the use of absentee ballots, I hear screams from Democrats and others on the political left that such efforts are nothing but “suppression of black voters.” These protests have never made sense to me, especially because it’s never been a secret that absentee ballot fraud goes on all the time in certain areas. (Everybody knew it when I worked in politics.) The people who engage in such fraud are rarely caught — often because the local political establishment approves of the crime — but a Democrat who won a primary election in Clay County, Alabama, last year has pleaded guilty to this sort of cheating. Terry Andrew Heflin was running for a place on the Clay County Commission. He was caught ordering seven absentee ballots in the names of various voters and sending them to his post office box — after which he used the ballots to vote absentee for himself seven time. Did he have other people cast additional fraudulent ballots? We’ll never know. But in a primary in which he was able to win with only 141 votes, it wouldn’t take many fraudulent votes to change the election. The next time you hear “civil rights activists” claim that it’s just “voter suppression” to hurt blacks which is at the root of efforts to stop this fraud, remember Terry Heflin. If you care about fair and honest elections, ballot security and voter identity should matter to you.

A state legislator in Maine has been stripped of the ability to speak in the state Legislature — and her votes are not being counted on legislative issues — all because she made a truthful social media post. Rep. Laurel Libby (R-Auburn, Maine) opposes allowing boys to compete against girls’ teams in school athletics and she’s become known for making an issue of it. On Feb. 17, she posted on Facebook about a recent example that she found outrageous. She posted side-by-side photos of a boy named John who competed last year in a state track event and won fifth place against other boys two years ago — and a photo of the same boy (now called Katie) who won first place in the same event this year against girls. Whether you find this outrageous or not, Libby is clearly being honest and truthful about the objective facts of an issue of public importance. But the state Legislature censured her. Democrats decreed that she could not speak in the House and that her votes would not count on legislation — until she apologized for the outrage of telling the truth. She refused and her constituents have been unrepresented in the state House since then. The people who promote this ideology are out of touch with reality and won’t rest until they force the rest of us to join them in this delusion. But even if you agree with “trans” ideology, you should be appalled at this heavy-handed attack on political speech.

The late Steve Jobs was at the center of our culture’s transition from analog to digital. He co-founded Apple Computer. He led the team that revolutionized personal computing with the first Macintosh. As CEO of Apple, he led the development of the iPhone and later the iPad. You would think the children of such a man would be surrounded by technology. But Jobs and his wife Laureen didn’t let their children use iPads. Their home had few screens of any kind. Even though Jobs spent most of his time developing and selling Macs and iPhones and iPads, he was home with his wife and children for dinner when he was in town. The family ate together at a simple wooden table in their kitchen — and there were no digital devices or focus on popular culture. Instead, he’s said to have guided his family toward deep discussions of art, philosophy and education — with no iPads to be found. If the man who guided the development of such products chose a different path for his own children, does that suggest that his digital experience taught him that children need human connection, not screens? And does it suggest the possibility that we might be better off if we made the same choice for our families?

Related Posts