• Meta has been hit by another huge fine in New Mexico
• The ruling judge compared Meta's apps to polluting factories
• Meta says it's going to appeal the decision

Meta is in more legal trouble over the harms that its products — specifically Instagram and Facebook — can do to children, with a New Mexico judge slapping a $567 million (£422 million / AU$805 million) fine on the company, and suggesting that the damage done by these apps is akin to "noxious pollution" from factories.

As reported by CNN, the latest court ruling and financial penalty says that Meta's suite of apps "create a common, societal burden on and harm to the affected children and their families and schools, as well as hospitals and law enforcement".

Meta has said that it will appeal the decision, but its lawyers should recognize the factory analogy: they used it themselves during the original trial that got underway in February (via Courthouse News Service), arguing that a town factory shouldn't necessarily be held responsible for wider community problems it has nothing to do with.

The aim of Meta's lawyers in using the factory example was to limit the fines and measures imposed by the court, but it only partly worked. The mention of schools, hospitals, and law enforcement shows that the judge in the case, First Judicial District Court Judge Bryan Biedscheid, thinks Meta has wider problems to answer for.

Mental health support

Most of the money that's being demanded from Meta — $420 million of it — is specifically earmarked for supporting community and family-based mental health services for the young people of New Mexico. The rest will be going towards mental health screening, prevention campaigns, and referral programs.

The latest fine is on top of the $375 million (£279 million / AU$533 million) in civil penalties that Meta was previously ordered to pay by a jury. This second part of the trial, with only a judge presiding, has now officially declared Instagram and Facebook a "public nuisance" in the eyes of the law.

There's more to the ruling than financial hits too. Meta is being ordered to delete all the accounts and data of users aged under 13, to turn off notifications from 8am-3pm on weekdays and from 10pm-7am on other days for users under 18 — at least in New Mexico. New accounts set up by teens should also be private by default, the judge has said.

Don't expect any of this to be implemented soon though — Meta has said it's going to appeal these decisions, which is likely to take an extended period of time. Even so, it's more evidence that the harms that social media can do to youngsters are now better understood, and that further action is very likely.

I couldn't believe it. Had Roku really just casually inserted global viral raccoon sensation Jimothy into Roku City? I'd seen a post claiming so, but knowing how easy it is to fake things with AI, I had to see it for myself.

I powered up one of my home's half-dozen Roku streaming boxes and spent 10 minutes trying to force the platform into screen-saver mode, which then opens up Roku City. Ever since the most recent Roku platform update, I see this interface far less often than I used to.

Roku City is Roku's fictional, purple cityscape populated by thinly disguised iconic characters and objects from film, TV, and life.

After a few minutes of hunting, I figured out how to set my screen saver timeout to one minute. A moment later, the side-scrolling Roku City appeared, and in it, caught mid-waddle atop a chain-link fence, was Jimothy's unmistakable silhouette.

For those who've thrown out their phones, computers, and TVs, Jimothy is a Seattle-based raccoon with a rare disorder called "short spine syndrome." Don't worry, it doesn't appear to impact his mobility or lifestyle, but once you see Jimothy, you never forget him.

Jimothy is so popular that he's been featured as the unofficial mascot at Seattle Mariners games, launched what's widely considered "Hot Jimothy Summer," and is now immortalized in Roku City.

Jimothy made it to Roku City in a matter of hours

"You share the same problem we all share, which is when we really want to get to Roku City, like right now, we wonder, 'How do we get there?" Damon Van Deusen, Roku's Vice President, Global Brand and Creative, told me this week, but added that a solution is already in the works: Roku is adding a Roku City tile to the home screen for instant access.

Van Deusen agreed to sit down and explain how Jimothy made his way — virtually — from the alleys of a Seattle suburb to Roku's iconic services.

Jimothy's appearance, while surprising, is not out of character for the screen saver enjoyed by Roku's roughly 100 million customers.

"The Jimothy journey starts six or seven years ago when we actually started realizing that social was paying attention to the screen saver," explained Van Deusen. Back in 2021, they noticed likely pandemic-quarantined consumers posting about how they'd like to visit the city, share a kiss there, or even get married in the purple space.

"We've been putting Easter eggs in the screen saver as a way to engage some fans and social ever since," he added.

Over the years, the city's been populated by, among other things, characters from popular films (like the rock monster from Galaxy Quest and Star Trek's Enterprise). Still, there was something about Jimothy's timeliness that struck me.

Seattle resident Kiana Hall posted an Instagram video about the unusual raccoon on July 16, 2026. I spotted Jimothy in Roku City on July 31, and the post I saw about the raccoon's integration in the platform was a few days older than that.

"In the last two years, we created what's called the Rapid Response Easter Egg Team," explained Van Deusen.

This cross-functional group cuts through typical product development, and "we figured out a system where we could publish these things really fast. So now everything we do is quicker and quicker and quicker."

Tracking and choosing from the Zeitgeist

The team, which often communicates on Slack, is constantly kicking around watercooler moments like Punch the Money and Goat on Car. They choose "anything that tickles us, anything that feels really fun. I mean, again, that's the bar; it's gotta be delightful, playful, fun, lift spirits, and create conversation," Van Deusen told me, who later added that delight, or something that triggers an "unexpected smile," is "really the heart of the whole brand."

Van Deusen loved that I more or less stumbled on Jimothy's existence in the city. "An unexpected smile, if you think about it, it's like it comes out of nowhere. It's not like you're looking for it; it's just like you spotting Jimothy. It's like, 'Wait a minute, are you, wait, is that Jimothy?'"

Not every viral moment can make it in. The Rapid Response Easter Egg Team avoids bummers and negative news. However, they did do a retrospective of Moira Rose's wigs as a way to memorialize the great Catherine O'Hara, who played Moira in Schitt's Creek and died on January 30 of this year.

When the right idea comes along, the team knows it. "Then we'll be like, 'Oh my God, that's so cool,' and then we'll make it happen right away...and that's how Jimothy came about."

Looking at the Roku City Jimothy, I was struck by the silhouette's uncanny accuracy — it could be no other raccoon.

Van Deusen told me Roku has, over the last five years, built a world-class illustration team, which includes comic book illustrators and former Disney artists.

The company shared the Roku Designer, Illustrator, and Director Tim Cook's early Jimothy sketch and how he might appear in Roku City (above). Even in pencil, you can see how he captured the shape and signature gait of the lovable critter.

The making of an icon

To create Jimothy, the team focused on that "iconic sort of hunch." Van Deusen said that there was a feedback session to ensure they got the look just right.

Silhouettes also happen to be part of Roku City's DNA, giving you the clear impression of a character or viral figure without a lot of detail.

"We had tried doing less silhouetted versions of the city when we tried to localize for different markets once, and the more you see, the further you get away from the City," he said.

The suggestion of these shapes and recognizable figures forces you to lean in and engage even more with what is arguably just a screen saver.

"It's kind of a little bit of a wink, obviously, you know, and we do that on purpose; we never want to say too much. And we never reveal what the Easter eggs are; we always just sort of suggest and like elude, and again, it's so much more fun," said Van Deusen, smiling, I think, at the thought of Jimothy's unmistakable shape.

As for how Jimothy made it to millions of screen saves so quickly, Roku's Rapid Response team can add new elements to Roku City in a matter of hours.

"We developed a tool," Van Deusen said, "where we can basically come up with an idea, something we want to do, the illustration team quickly mocks something up, and we can put it in the screen saver, all within a couple of hours."

That kind of speed puts Roku City firmly inside the zeitgeist. But that, too, is fast changing, and I wondered how long Jimothy would be waddling across Roku City screens.

Roku does rotate out the Easter eggs, though a backlog of four years or more can rotate in and out of the side-scrolling interface. Roku, by the way, recently added a user-controllable version where you can slide back and forth for a better look at all these hidden gems, including Jimothy.

The lovable raccoons should appear in Roku City "as long as Jimothy is in the zeitgeist," said Van Deusen, adding, "[he] will eventually, probably be replaced. I don't know if we'll always have a rotational raccoon, but we will find the next, you know, popping character."

Until then, enjoy Jimothy in real and virtual life.

Somewhere, Myspace Tom is looking over his shoulder, frowning. Everyone's first friend on the once-leading and iconic social and blogging platform, Tom Anderson's smiling face is the sole reminder of what Myspace once was. While so many loved its messy, GIF-filled countenance in 2004, it's unlikely he's cheering its potential comeback.

MySpace didn't survive the rise of Facebook (then "The Facebook"), let alone Tumblr, Twitter, and Instagram. Teens left in droves when NewsCorp bought it for $850M in 2005, and adults, who never understood it in the first place, stayed away by the millions. By 2011, it was sold for a measly $35M to a consortium that included Justin Timberlake. The shift to a more purely music-focused platform did little to distinguish or revive it. The domain survives, but according to Similarweb, it has just over 1.7M monthly uniques. That might sound like a lot, but it is a far cry from the 76M monthly visitors it enjoyed 20 years ago.

Now, Chris and Tim Vanderhook, who bought the platform with Timberlake in 2011, confirmed they plan to "relaunch Myspace."

Myspace version 3?

That, though, my friends, is not the surprising part. Companies relaunch valuable IP all the time in the quixotic belief that they can squeeze just a little more value or revenue out of it. It rarely goes their way.

No, what's truly astounding is that the Vanderhooks did not quickly follow that statement with, "It'll be built on an AI foundation."

I mean, seriously, what is the point of relaunching Myspace if not to house some new LLM, presumably one that connects in some fashion to music. Maybe a big partnership with — gag — Suno.

Myspace has, for the last 15 years, been all about music. The first menu item on the current site is "Featured," which is all about trending musicians, and the second menu item is "Music." "Videos", which is all clips of either "Getting Nailed" or "The Pedicab interviews," comes next, and "People," once the foundation of Myspace, comes last.

If you happen to click on "People," Myspace encourages you to sign up with your Facebook account, which is the deepest cut of all when you consider how Facebook ate Myspace's lunch.

Profile types leave little room for the normies that once populated the platform: Your profile options include "Artists," "Writer". "DJ/producer," "Comedian," "Filmmaker," "Models," and similar extra types. It's like an Influencer reality show casting call. It's unclear how or if you can join as just a person.

If AI were a part of this promised next phase of MySpace, I assume it might help these influencer industry archetypes connect with their audiences and produce exactly the kind of content each wants and would consume at scale.

No way you'll recognize the next Myspace

I find it hard to imagine that the old-school Myspace, in all its chaotic luster, is somehow rising from the ashes. No online audience is still interested in that, right? Though, I guess a sort of anti-social media could work.

No algorithms, no filters, no cool interface, maybe even no AI, just point-to-point encrypted messages, space to say your piece, an occasional meme-worthy GIF, and that's all. It could be ever more bare-bones than the old Tumblr. I see no reason for that to exist, but at least it would stand out from the current selection of overwhelming communication and social media platforms.

Even so, in our current space, no technology is more energizing for investment and emergence than AI. So I fully expect the Vanderhooks, who are "just waiting for the right time to do it," to lean fully into the space and produce a Myspace-awkward blend of earnestness and AI.

They might even get Tom Anderson's permission to use his likeness in AI figures that show him looking over his shoulder, smiling and offering custom greetings on your Myspace page. Tom could be the platform's AI chatbot. It'll be creepy as heck and the polar opposite of what new Myspace should be, but I also see no other realistic path forward for this thing.

Banning phones in schools. Yay or nay? It's certainly a topic that's raised debate on both sides in recent years as more states look to enforce stricter rules. Interestingly, however, it does appear that public opinion is starting to sway heavily towards the 'pro ban' camp.

A new report from the Pew Research Center has just concluded that an overwhelming 77 percent of adults surveyed now support a ban on phones in the classroom. That's a massive increase from the 36 percent reported just two years ago.

The ban on phones in the classroom is generally considered distinct from a full ban on devices in schools - commonly referred to as a 'bell-to-bell' ban. Support for a full ban remains firmly split in the Pew report, with 48 percent of adults supporting a full ban in comparison.

Teachers have long been overwhelming advocates of stricter rules. A 2024 survey by the National Education Association found that a whopping 90 percent of teachers supported a ban on phones in class, whereas this 2025 survey by RAND found that 70 percent of school principals believe bans have a positive effect in school. Now, however, it appears that the general public is increasingly on board.

But what do you think? At TechRadar, we're interested in hearing what our readers have to say. I've attached a poll just down below, and we'd also love to hear your concerns in the comments, if you have any.

Do you support a phone ban in the classroom?

The case for a ban

• Studies have suggested an improvement in suspension rates
• Evidence for improved performance is more mixed

On a gut level, it certainly feels like phones should be out of the classroom. As adults, we're increasingly recognizing the perceived downsides of doomscrolling, social media, or other common phone-based habits. I know I've certainly felt frustrated at my own tendency to be distracted by my phone during work hours.

Luckily, we don't have to just rely on gut feeling; however, as there is in fact some evidence to suggest that phone bans in schools result in better outcomes for students.

Perhaps the most convincing report I've seen is from the Education Next Journal, which collated evidence from Florida's state-wide ban in 2023. While other states have followed suit, Florida is a particularly good case as it was the first state to actually institute a ban. In short, the data is strong here.

Interestingly, the report suggests a higher suspension rate in the first year of the ban, followed by a return to a base level, followed by an overall decrease. Test scores remained steady in the year after the ban but then massively improved in the second year. That suggests it takes a while for any positive changes to be evident.

Another excellent report is from the National Bureau of Economic Research, which studied students from 40,000 schools nationwide between 2019 and 2025. In this study, students reported a greater sense of well-being post-ban as well as decreased suspension rates long-term (after a temporary increase).

This report's findings are a little less cut-and-dry than Education Next's, however, as it didn't find any meaningful effects on test scores. Overall, the report still skews toward viewing a ban favorably, and crucially reports on students' own sense of well-being.

The case against a ban

• Parents cite child safety as a concern
• Questions remain around other tech devices

So are there any arguments against a ban? Well, the answer is actually yes; there are a few, and they're mostly fielded by concerned parents.

The most common point I've seen raised is the issue of safety in schools. Some have commented that they'd prefer for their child to have a phone in the case of an emergency on school grounds.

Even though I don't have kids, I can certainly empathize with parents in this case. Sadly, we know that violence continues to be an issue in schools, so it's a very good point that absolutely shouldn't be ignored when exploring this topic.

One other point that I've seen raised, and one that certainly also holds weight, is that even with a phone ban, children may still be distracted by other forms of technology in the classroom. If a child still has a laptop, for example, then they may still have access to social media, messaging, and so on.

This was actually suggested by the authors of the National Bureau of Economic Research report as one of the reasons why test results didn't improve in their study. Certainly, it could suggest that you really need a holistic approach to technology as a whole in the classroom. Banning smartphones could just be the start.

Whether rain or shine, weekday or weekend, my morning starts with a scroll.

It’s one of my most enduring habits. I’ll start by checking the time, before allowing myself a few texts or emails in the name of ‘productivity’, and before long, I’m lying there watching people throwing bowling balls at TVs or reading ragebait in the comments section.

I’ve long suspected that this isn’t the optimal way to start the day, but it was only after a recent moment of mid-scroll lucidity that I began to wonder why I reach for my phone first thing in the morning.

As it happens, research on early-morning phone habits suggests that it’s not just me diving into social media as soon as the alarm goes off.

The Independent reports that 81% of Brits reach for their phone as soon as they wake up, while a 2025 YouGov report found that the majority of US adults under 30 often use their phone right before sleeping and right after waking up.

These figures could suggest that most of us shared a mental tendency to pick up the phone right after waking up, but without additional context, they can’t tell the whole story.

So, to find out more about why I and so many others scroll first thing in the morning, I spoke to two psychology experts to connect the dots between ancient human behaviour and the supercomputers we keep in our pockets, and indeed our beds.

Information vs stimulation

“To boil it down as simply as possible, it’s a combination of our natural dopamine reward system and the fact that we are communal people,” says psychotherapist and addiction specialist John Puls.

Puls tells me that long-standing psychological drivers are pushing us to use our devices in the mornings, where in the past we might’ve sought different kinds of connection

“We are pleasure-seeking people, and one of the ways we do that is through engagement with our smartphones, particularly social media,” he explains, “and we want to know what’s going on in the world.”

Puls continues: “Previously, in closer communities with less technology, it wouldn’t be uncommon to just spend some time with your neighbours or your family in the morning. In the absence of that, people are looking for immediate connection, and the easiest way to do that is through the smartphone. You have to take into account the changes that have come with the smartphone, but these are natural impulses that social media is fulfilling.”

For clinical psychologist Dr. Ari Lakritz, the smartphone and all the news it connects us to fulfil an evolutionary impulse to detect threats: “The brain is somewhat hardwired to look for pertinent information, especially the more threatening information. The part of the brain that deals with that is called the amygdala — it’s one of the most ancient parts of the brain, one that’s most responsible for the fear response.”

“News sites, with their slant towards negative news, are hacking into an inborn part of ourselves,” he adds, “and when you’re looking at your phone as the first thing you’re doing, it may not be all that different from one of our ancestors scanning the horizon for threats.”

“We develop very early on to be aware of possible threats to ourselves, and to scan the environment for those [threats],” Lakritz continues, adding that the availability of information that may not be relevant to phone and social platform users could be increasing stress levels: “The existence of something we feel is negative or threatening in a far off country has no direct relevance to us, but we do find ourselves psychologically pulled to that.”

“It’s really assaulting people with a great deal of information that is not directly relevant to them, and definitely doing more harm than good… there’s this whole other aspect of life, which is positive news and uplifting stories that people are either not drawn to or simply not sent as much.”

Social media algorithms are blackboxed — meaning users aren’t privy to the decisions and equations that decide the content they see. With that said, it’s generally accepted that algorithms are designed to maximize engagement of any kind, and, as The Conversation reports, anger spreads more quickly through social media networks than other emotions.

As John Puls notes, this has a physical effect as well as an emotional one: “When you immediately go into your smartphone [in the morning] and start doomscrolling, so to speak, you’re releasing cortisol, a stress hormone, and your brain is getting overstimulated.”

“We’re basically in the middle of a giant experiment,” Puls continues, “our brains were not necessarily meant to be this stimulated first thing in the morning and then consistently throughout the day. Where it becomes problematic is with the risk of overstimulation — there’s a risk of constant pleasure-seeking that dulls the senses.”

Effects of the morning scroll

According to Dr. Ari Lakritz, beginning the day with an intake of highly charged, negative information can have major effects on one’s mood and focus. He describes social media as “unlimited scrolling” of “dramatic news that can get our fight or flight response very worked up.”

“It’s really not good,” he explains, “and it very much sets the tone of one’s cognitive framing. It’s very fast, intense stimulation, whether that’s YouTube Shorts, TikTok style videos, or even just Reddit-style scrolling through very short, snappy comments or news stories.”

Lakritz continues: “If my baseline is very fast, short, intense bursts of entertainment, when confronted with something that takes more focus or deeper thinking it’ll be hard to move on from that set point.”

When asked whether early morning phone use is always problematic, Dr. Lakritz makes few exceptions: “Aside from more extreme circumstances, it’s hard to think of a good advantage one is getting with the phone right there that couldn’t be gotten in a non-technological way.”

John Puls tells me that he’s noticed that several of his clients experience discomfort when away from their phones for even short periods of time: “It almost becomes an emotional support phone — if anything happens in our life, an interpersonal problem, a problem with our relationship, we could experience that discomfort until we scroll on Instagram.”

And for young people, even higher stakes could influence phone use from dawn till dusk.

‘If they don’t exist online, they don’t exist socially’

It’s worth noting at this point that I interviewed John Puls and Dr. Ari Lakritz separately, and without either knowing of the other’s involvement in this article. With that said, both professionals agreed that early morning phone use has a tighter hold — and greater impact — on young people.

“The teens that I’m working with that struggle with this, I have them check their screen time, and on average it’s between 14 and 15 hours,” says Puls, “that’s the majority of time that they’re awake.”

“Naturally, what comes with that is being pretty disconnected from people in real life [...] so there’s this pressure to constantly be online. Teens want to psychologically individuate from their families and feel part of a community, particularly with their friends. So they often feel the pressure that they can’t be part of that unless they’re on their phones.”

“For younger people, they feel that if they don’t exist online, they don’t exist socially.”

Dr. Ari Lakritz says that phone use in general has a huge impact on young people’s psychological growth: “It touches child development in a profound way. It’s a huge compound for something like ADHD, and makes assessment of ADHD very complicated — you have to piece apart how much of this is inattention issues, or developmental, and how much is very, very high exposure to electronic entertainment.”

Taking back time

Olivia Yokubonis, known online as Olivia Unplugged, is a digital wellness strategist for Opal, one of the best-known screen time limiter apps. She tells me that she “meets people where they are” with a message of digital balance and wellbeing, sharing tips and tricks to a combined social media audience of 600,000 followers.

"I was an Opal user before I even started working here,” Yokubonis explains, “the goal is to help people stop feeling like they’re the victim of their phones, and actually feel like they’re in control again.”

“I’m not anti-technology, I’m pro agency,” she adds, “you have to focus on awareness. I’m a big advocate of the idea that we can’t change what we don’t notice. And the morning scroll is very often unconscious.”

At the time of writing, Opal boasts more than a million daily users, and in 2026 announced that the app had saved its user base a total of 500 million hours — but Yokubonis’ strategies go further than just using the app: “Something I’ve implemented with my family is no-phone zones. The bedroom is one of those places — we put our phones in the other room, our alarms go off, and we have to get up and go get it.”

She adds: “Digital wellness means your attention is not constantly being fragmented, that you can think in complete thoughts and sentences, and that you don’t lose hours of your day, especially the first few hours of the day, without realising it [...] We need the ability to choose to go on a social media app rather than have it be a habit, or something that’s just automatically happening because my nervous system is reaching for something.”

“We have a finite amount of willpower, and these apps have an unlimited amount of resources. They are designed to use up that willpower.”

On a similar note, Dr Ari Lakritz explains that even a marginal reduction in screen time can make a big difference: “Check your screen time, add up how much you do per week, and try to cut it down by 10%. If it’s 60 hours a week, just cut off six, see what you can do. You don’t have to be a digital hermit to improve.”

Though high screen time correlates to higher revenues for many phone makers and mobile software developers, a rising tide of social media legislation and backlash against big tech could push some brands to recognise its problematic potential.

Indeed, some smartphone manufacturers are beginning to acknowledge the issue of excessive phone use, and are developing software-based features to help users curb their screen time.

Nothing, for instance, believes its Glyph Matrix and Essential Space features will ‘help you be more human’, while Google's upcoming Pause Point tool will redirect you away from social media apps towards more meaningful forms of smartphone engagement. Apple, too, recently announced a slew of wellbeing-focused upgrades for its Screen Time feature in iOS 27.

Do you remember the metaverse? If you don’t, don’t worry. In 2026, four years into the AI revolution that’s changing the world forever, you could easily be forgiven for thinking it was a strange fever dream you had back in 2021. You might even have odd memories of seeing a blocky version of Mark Zuckerberg floating about in a Minecraft-inspired hellscape, conducting meetings with people who could walk with no legs, while the real Mark Zuckerberg was looking at the whole thing through VR goggles. At least, that’s my memory of it.

I could be suffering from the Mandela effect, but I distinctly remember something off about the legs. They fixed that in a later version, but that’s my overriding memory — no legs. Oh, and Mark Zuckerberg assuring us that this was the future. He’d spent tens of billions of dollars on it, even changing the company name from Facebook to Meta, just to let us know he was really serious about the metaverse. Even if the legs didn’t work.

The problem was, it looked laughable. While everything in the technology world to do with games and special effects was moving in the direction of hyper-realism, the metaverse was moving in the opposite direction, towards the sort of blocky graphics that small children enjoy. But even that didn’t really answer the most basic question about the metaverse. Why? What possible advantage was there for us all to meet in a VR space where clunky avatars of ourselves could interact… badly?

Then AI happened and Meta abruptly forgot about the metaverse and pivoted towards the mission of putting personal superintelligence in all our hands instead, which sounds as terrifying and dangerous as it actually is, but we are where we are. At least when Zuckerberg was obsessed with the metaverse, we could ignore him. It existed somewhere “over there”, in Meta-land, where we could let him get on with it. Now he’s right up in our business again.

The rise of a bad idea

I’ve always been fascinated by how Zuckerberg got into the metaverse and why he became so obsessed with it. The origins of the metaverse go way back. In March 2014, Facebook bought Oculus, the VR company, for about $2 billion. This was where his passion for VR started. Think of it as the seed, not the full obsession.

By July 2021, Zuckerberg gave a long interview to Casey Newton at The Verge about Facebook becoming a “metaverse company” and described it as an “embodied internet”. Then, on October 28, 2021, his obsession became the company identity. Zuckerberg announced that Facebook the company was becoming Meta at Connect 2021, saying the new company brand would focus on bringing the metaverse to life.

I can see the logic. As a business strategy, that made sense. As a product ordinary people were expected to use, it was much harder to understand. Zuckerberg did not want Meta/Facebook to be trapped inside someone else’s platform again. Facebook had won on social, but on mobile it remained dependent on Apple and Google for distribution, privacy rules, app-store policies and hardware. The metaverse looked like a chance to own the next operating system of social life: hardware, avatars, identity, payments, meetings, gaming, work, commerce — the whole stack. In his 2021 founder’s letter, he framed the metaverse as the “next chapter of the internet” and said Meta would become “metaverse-first, not Facebook-first.”

Facebook had obviously had its problems — it was scandal-ridden. It had let advertisers target vulnerable teenagers, helped fake news spread, and enabled the spread of hate speech linked to atrocities in Myanmar. Perhaps Zuckerberg was looking for a way out of Facebook, and the metaverse offered that.

What I still didn’t understand was why he didn’t see what the rest of us saw — that it looked terrible and offered no real benefit to users. Then I read Sarah Wynn-Williams’ tell-all book about Facebook, Careless People, and it all started to make sense.

To say the book made my jaw hit the floor on several occasions would be an understatement. It’s an absolute page-turner, and your reactions grow from mild amusement to shock, then disbelief, then absolute outrage the further through the book you get. I’m aware of the criticisms of Wynn-Williams: that it is a book written by a disgruntled employee, and that she dodges a lot of personal responsibility for her part in the various misdeeds of the company. However, in another perfect example of the Streisand effect, the fact that Meta obtained a legal order in the United States to prevent her from saying anything negative about the company — at all — made me want to pick it up, and I’m glad I did.

Because now I get it — Zuckerberg seems to have spent years in an environment where too few people were willing to tell him when his ideas weren’t good. According to Wynn-Williams, he was surrounded by sycophants. When he had bad ideas, like the ill-fated Internet.org, he wouldn’t let them go and persisted with them, even when they were obviously going to fail. The people around him enabled him because he was simply too powerful. They even let him win at the board games he liked to play with them at his house or on his jet, and — crucially — he didn’t notice that they were letting him win. I can imagine that in that environment, nobody inside Meta would want to tell Zuckerberg that his metaverse was the equivalent of the emperor’s new clothes, especially if they wouldn’t even risk beating him at Settlers of Catan.

Wynn-Williams only mentions the metaverse in her epilogue. It happened after she was brutally fired from Facebook. Perhaps selfishly, I wish she’d been there for the metaverse period, because I would love to read firsthand accounts of how and why Zuckerberg persisted with such an obviously bad idea.

The fall of the metaverse

Maybe I’m being too harsh on Zuckerberg. The metaverse graphics did get better over time and Apple ventured slightly into the same territory with its Apple Vision Pro, even after the metaverse had turned into a smoldering wasteland. The fact is, people don’t enjoy wearing VR goggles for extended periods of time, and for normal people, VR lacks that one killer app. There doesn’t seem to be anything you can do in a VR space that you can’t do elsewhere much more easily.

The metaverse didn’t really die with a bang, but with a whimper. It faded through layoffs, spending cuts and the AI pivot. If I had to put a date on it, I’d say early 2023 was when Meta’s narrative moved on. In February and March 2023, Zuckerberg started talking about Meta’s “year of efficiency” and announced huge layoffs and cost-cutting. OpenAI had launched ChatGPT in November 2022, and by early 2023, generative AI had swallowed the oxygen that ideas like the metaverse need to survive. Every tech company was talking about AI now, not virtual offices and avatar legs.

The metaverse was over. We all forgot about it and moved on.

I’m glad I read Wynn-Williams’ book, because now I can understand how Facebook let the metaverse happen. And if there’s one thing I learned from reading it, it’s that money and power can bring you a lot of things, but common sense requires neither.