The author is confusing many things. If the metaverse is interconnected spaces, it requires federated protocols. The Internet relies on BGP and TCP/IP for that, with strong decentralized governance (via LIRs and RIRs and the IETF).

The author claims Minecraft is an interoperable protocol, which is false: you can only run Minecraft where Microsoft distributes it (unless you crack/RE it) and you can certainly not expand the protocol. Minecraft is a very good example of vendor lock-in restricting user freedom.

> FaceTime has taken a huge step forward in connecting people

How so? What did it invent? Everything we do on computers today has been there since at least 1968's "Mother of all demos". If anything, FaceTime and iMessage and such have restricted people connections. We had standard protocols for IM (IRC/XMPP) and they deliberately broke away from the federation so that they could capture and control users.

> This is not a winner-take-all, zero-sum environment. Video, text, images and other forms of media will not die as a result

They may not die, but there's concerns to be raised. About accessibility first and foremost: text may not be accessible to blind people, but screen readers and braille screens make it so. Audio/Video can use transcripts and captions to be accessible. What about VR? Does VR care for disabilities?

If VR tech becomes successful, there will be huge incentives for the usual evil corps to move everything there to appear modern and to better control our attention span. More immersion means more addiction, means more exposure to advertisement and more susceptibility to various "mind control" techniques.

> But the metaverse actually (theoretically) allows for more fairness due to the decentralized nature of it.

How is it decentralized? You make this argument over and over again yet all corporations pushing for the metaverse have never promoted a decentralized standard so far.

> YouTube and TikTok have enabled people from unprivileged backgrounds to make money from providing value

That's true for some people, but that's the exception and not the norm. Most people who make money don't make interesting content (just sponsored shit), and most people who make interesting content will be censored due to alleged copyright violation of ToS abuse. Youtube and Tiktok are two very good examples of everything that's wrong with the Internet as we know it. You may or may not agree with Youtube's political censorship, but you will certainly agree that TikTok's censorship is going really far. [0]

> My conclusion and refutation of this point is that cross-compatibility is not bullshit. (...) We still text today, but we still video call too!

The word you're looking for may be interoperability. And interoperability goes against the laws of capitalism. People use many different protocols and most are centralized proprietary protocols we have zero control over. I really recommend you check out Cory Doctorow's talks on interop and monopolies.

> So yes, progress is a good thing, first of all.

Depends how you measure progress. Is it financial? Scientific? Based on happiness? Equal access to resources? According to most metrics (except economic development) humanity has been going backwards for decades, destroying everything it touches.

> technophobia and pessimism of technology

I'm neither technophobic nor a pessimist. I'm a realist: i know humanity is capable of the best and the worst depending on the circumstances and incentives. There's a lot that's deeply broken about our society as it is, and i see the "metaverse" being pushed by the most evil actors out there. It cannot be for the betterment of humankind because the incentives are wrong to start with.

If you're looking for a metaverse project that's not a complete dystopian nightmare, it appears Spritely Goblins [1] is the only one worth considering, because it aims to be federated and standardized, and based on capabilities.

[0] https://www.protocol.com/china/i-built-bytedance-censorship-...
[1] https://gitlab.com/spritely/goblins