It would seem that Facebook is looking for a rebranding and transition away from being a social media company to a metaverse. So, what is a metaverse? Well, to oversimplify, a metaverse is the supposed future of the internet, a platform that acts as a digital realm of sorts, a place where digital and real spaces blend using technologies like augmented reality. Different companies have different ways to define it but it is essentially a way to connect with your tech and the internet in ways that were not even imaginable before. While all this is very exciting and merits its own discussion, the topic at hand is actually Facebook and its attempts to rebrand. So, what about it? Well, there is an innocent way of looking at this rebranding attempt. Facebook is essentially doing what many other tech companies have done before it. Google, for instance, reorganised itself under a holding company by the name of Alphabet to signal that it was moving away from being just a search engine. With its host of internet services and products, Facebook could, presumably, be looking to do the very same as it takes a step away from being identified as just a social media platform. But take away those rose-tinted glasses and you realise that while the social media giant has been laying the groundwork for this transition for some time, it is also true that news of this metaverse comes at a time when Facebook could really use the rebranding. For some time now, Facebook has been caught up in a storm of its own making. Social media platforms, in general, are having a moment of reckoning worldwide as leaders realise the terrifying potential of the parallel universe these platforms create for their users. But Facebook, somehow or the other has always managed to lead the pack in controversies and whistleblower complaints. First, it was Cambridge Analytica, these days it is the Facebook papers. All in all, Facebook has been stuck with a reputation of being an organisation that feels too big to effectively oversee, one that prioritises its profits to the detriment of democracy and even the mental health of its users. From spreading misinformation to body dysmorphia, Facebook does it all. It is not like the world at large didn't know about all the things Facebook could be doing or could be responsible for before whistleblower Frances Haugen. All she did was provide confirmation of sorts and context to understand just how bad the situation really is. Among other things, we recently learnt that Facebook trained its algorithms to give extra value to emoji reactions for posts as opposed to likes. The idea was that posts with plenty of emoji reactions are likely to keep viewers more engaged. Of course, it was realised that these emojis were frequently the sign of a post heavy in controversy, clickbait and misinformation. Essentially toxic posts elicit more clicks and Facebook was keenly aware of this. This means that not only was Facebook creating echo chambers of opinion like other social media groups, it was also creating an environment where the worst of these opinions would float to the top and perpetuated a cycle where people would almost self-radicalise by being constantly bombarded with similar content. Here's a rather grim example of how this works. It has recently come to light that Facebook carried out an account test in India in 2019 to determine how its algorithms would affect people in the country. Within just three weeks, the account turned into a firestorm of beheadings, doctored images of Indian strikes on Pakistan and other jingoistic scenes of violence. For context, the test account used the profile of a 21-year-old woman living in Jaipur and hailing from Hyderabad. This test user only followed pages or groups recommended by Facebook or encountered through these recommendations. The reason why this happened beyond Facebook's own algorithms at least partially lies in how lacking the company's moderation attempts are worldwide. Another bit of information that made its way out to the media recently is that while the US comprises less than 10 per cent of Facebook's user base, 84 per cent of the company's moderation efforts in terms of global remit/language coverage was concentrated in America. The rest of the world has to make do with just a measly 16 per cent. To state the obvious, this clearly is not enough for a platform that has most of its user base spread across the world and has the sort of reach and influence that very few world governments could claim to match. For all its supposed noble intentions of bringing the world together, in practice, Facebook has contributed to the deeply polarising world we live in. In this post-truth era where we cannot even agree on the basic ground facts, Facebook has reaped a profit from every side. But hey, maybe this time will finally be the time when the governments of the world have had enough and they decide to start curbing the near-unlimited power of social media giants. Maybe this will be that moment but really, maybe it won't and things will just continue as they always have. One thing is for certain, however. Try as he might, Mr Zuckerberg should know that there are some stains that you just can't wash away with a simple rebranding.