Yeah I know, this sounds dramatic. It kinda is.

I’ve had this feeling quite a lot in my recent adulthood. Feeling like the world was closing in on me. Even recently.

And the weird part is that at certain points in my life, this may have motivated me to become unstuck. To make the world less likely to close in around me. At times that may have looked like me working even harder at whatever I needed to work at. Sometimes that meant I would try to be clever about my situation and get around it. Here’s the thing. It worked.

… up to a point.

You may see what I am getting at here. The problem is that this feeling kept returning. That the world is closing in on me. Maybe it was for one situation, or maybe it was for another. It doesn’t really matter. It just kept coming back.

And every time it would come back, it would eat away at me a little more. Bit by bit, more and more. And of course, I would work hard to become unstuck, or tried to be clever about my situation. And each time it required more and more effort.

Once I would navigate myself out of one disaster, I would no longer be running on adrenaline. I wouldn’t be in survival mode anymore. And once that happened, well. I would be down for a while. Burnout. And that burnout would last longer each time I had to shovel myself out of a situation, or put in effort to avoid something when I wasn’t ready. After a while I could see the trend. It would get worse each time.

I needed to do something each time. And that was precisely the problem.

# The Need

I needed to do something. Each time. Need. *Neeeeeeeed.*

I can say now that I don’t need to do anything. Not write this blog post. I don’t need to pay my bills. I don’t need to make money. I don’t even need to eat food. But as you might be asking yourself, well, don’t you want these things?

Yes. Absolutely. Unbelievably yes.

You may ask, well, if you want to do it, and you need to do it, what is the problem? It’s the need. Don’t worry, I’ll explain. But first I ~~need~~ want to explain something else first in order to comprehend what I am truly getting at.

I came across one of John Vervaeke’s (UoT Department of Psychology, if that matters to you) lectures[^1], called “Awakening from the Meaning Crisis” at one of the most absurd periods of my life[^2]. It’s a fantastic set of lectures targeted at a general audience.

John speaks about a topic which I think is sorely underappreciated by western society. In fact, he speaks of many. But one of the topics which managed to have stuck with me the most is what he described as the two modes of existence.

1. The mode of being.
2. And the mode of having.

Take a guess which one most people are predominantly in all the time. You’re (probably) right. It’s the mode of having. How can you tell if you’re in the mode of having?

Well, one good way is to tell if you feel like you need something. Have you ever said to yourself: ****ing hell, I need to do this ***(or else).*** Congratulations, you are thinking of things from the mode of having. You need to HAVE the completion of something. You need to HAVE something out of your way.

A common response to learning about this is attempt to reduce the need for having. This is good. But beware, you may think you’re making meaningful changes without realizing that nothing has really changed.

Ok then! - you may say. I’ll just become a minimalist! Easy! I’ll drop all of my possessions, live with minimal baggage. I’ll be happy. Well, not for the wrong reasons you wont.

# The Minimalist Trap

As far as I can see it, there are two forms of “minimalists”. Lets look at this in the form of a dichotomy.

1. You have the minimalist that just is.
2. And then you have the minimalist who is focusing on being a minimalist.

Which one is thinking from the existential mode of having? Now that I’ve pointed it out, you might have intuitively caught on to it. It’s #2.

Now you may be asking: *well, isn’t that how you become a minimalist? You focus on it?* Not exactly, but that’s not to say you can’t eventually end up as #1 through the path of #2. But something critical needs to change before that can happen.

The trap with #2, is that even though the person is attempting their hardest at “being” a minimalist, they are more-so focused on having the aesthetic of a minimalist. It’s about ***having*** the aesthetic. You tried to escape the having by being, but instead you found yourself still thinking about having. You’ve been fooled.

How do you escape the trap? By being- intensely. Here’s a hint. You cannot rationalize your way to the being mode of existence. You just are, you become.

You may have heard people speak about meditation. Modern self-help advice is wrong in many ways, but it gets this one thing right. If you have ever felt a certain peace by practicing meditation, you might know what the mode of being is. That is how you invoke it.

But for those of you who never have experienced what I speak of in meditation: you know of this feeling too. You just may not have experienced it in a while.

# Flow

Have you ever worked on something you enjoyed so much that it took over you? Focus came so naturally because it was something that mattered to you? Maybe you wrench on cars. Maybe you make music. You play guitar. Maybe you sing. Maybe you do programming on projects that fulfill you. Sometimes, when you work on these things, everything just comes so naturally.

I want you to think about this state of mind. Were you rationalizing? Were you thinking of about YOU in YOUR STATE doing work? Let me rephrase. Were you thinking about the state of mind you HAVE? If you were in flow, the answer is no. You had an experience where something meaningful somehow just happened to come out.

If that doesn’t work, I want you to think back about when you were a kid. Think about times where you were running out on grass, playing ball, or frisbee, or whatever. Or even recently, for that matter. Were you thinking about your running? Were you thinking about your hand movements? Probably not. You were probably locked in.

I want you to think hard about the state of mind you felt. Try to feel it again. Keep that in the back of your mind.

You can invoke this feeling whenever you want through what is understood as meditation. I want to suggest something that helped me understand this state of mind when I first really needed it. I won’t ask you to close your eyes. Just to do some dishes.

# Scrub the Dishes

In another absurd period of my life, I had to learn a primitive form of the mode of being. I was really upset. At that time I couldn’t get rid of certain thoughts that were in my head, they were truly dragging me down. Distracting me from the good things in my life. I tried to think my way through them, but somehow it wasn’t helping me. In fact, it was doing the opposite. So instead of thinking them away, I focused on removing all space in my head for the thoughts. My logic here was: well, if these thoughts keep haunting me, then I will make sure there’s no room in my head for them.

So I began doing the dishes. And I scrubbed. And scrubbed. I filled my head with the scrubbing. Each scrub was deliberate. Each movement. I paid attention to every detail. I filled every last cubic millimeter inside my virtual brain space with mundane scrubbing. The feel of the sponge. The water escaping the sponge each time I scrubbed. The abrasive side of the sponge slowly removing some food from the plate. I was aware of every detail. And in that moment I realized something. This was helping me so much more than thinking my way through the the problem I was facing ever did.

Some problems are not problems that can be solved with rational thinking. You cannot rationalize your way through everything. This was one of those situations.

You see, in that moment, I stopped thinking about how I *neeeeeeeeeded* to solve that problem. Instead, I focused on my experience. I was just experiencing. And eventually, I found that problem almost resolving itself.

Experiencing = mode of being.

# The Lie

Now we get to the real part. The lie. Here it is:

> You have responsibility in life. Get a degree, get a good job, get married, have kids. You have a responsibility to society. **** you if you think otherwise. **- The advice which happens to be a lie.**

Here’s the thing. You don’t. It’s garbage advice.

These things are motivating. Being told sternly that you have an important role to play and **YOU WILL** play it and learn to enjoy it can certainly be motivating. But it is the same motivation which I spoke of at the beginning of the article. It works.

… up to a point.

It fails when your effort is not good enough. When all of it is not good enough. When you know that you’ve given every last inch of yourself, and yet things still seem to be getting worse. You start noticing a pattern.

But most of all, it takes away your agency. You are expected, therefore have no choice, to do these things. It’s in the framework of our social interactions. It’s in the framework of the filling out of our tax returns. It’s either do that, or be a lowlife. Or stated differently: have the status of a lowlife. There it is again. The have.

You must HAVE these things. You must. HAVE. HAVE a job. HAVE a marriage. HAVE a degree. HAVE an education.

Look. These are important things. If you think I am not advocating for these things, you have misunderstood the message I wish to portray.

I am going to appear to contradict myself now. These are real responsibilities, IF and ONLY IF you want them. But your responsibility isn’t to society. It’s to your life experience. That’s it. The experience. Nothing more.

Anything else just comes as a result of your responsibility to your life experience. Your responsibility is to attempt to spend as much time in that first (being) mode of existence for as much time as you possibly can.

You may find that responsibilities, things which you need to do no longer haunt you. Ironically, it can make the things you *neeeeed* to do much easier to face and do. It can make it easier to cross those things off the list. On the (irrelevant) exterior, it can make people think you are taking your responsibility to society more seriously. But they’d be wrong. It’s not about society. It’s not about the rules. It’s about your experience. You do everything enthusiastically because you want to **experience** a good life. You have subverted the lie, and lived a better life for it.

This freed me from the feeling of life closing in from around me. Because life was telling me what I needed. I instead chose to focus on what I want to experience. Even when those may appear to be the same thing.

Hopefully this helps you, the reader, figure some things out. I can’t promise you that it’ll make sense right away. But I can promise that effort put towards attempting to understand this topic does pay off.

[^1]: One of the absolute best resources I have ever found. I believe everyone should watch a few of these videos. They helped me when it seemed nothing else could. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=54l8_ewcOlY&list=PLND1JCRq8Vuh3f0P5qjrSdb5eC1ZfZwWJ&index=1

[^2]: Read my article on my experience at PolyUnity, if you’re interested in this topic: https://sihawken.net/blog/polyunity-an-exercise-in-bad-faith

There is a lie which is inherent in the society which we live in regarding the way to be.

The Lie We All Believe(d)

*I debated whether or not to release this article, as there are many nice people who work at PolyUnity. These are people I like, and I do not wish to hurt their chances at success despite them working for a company that I do not like. That being said, I think that there is a really important lesson to be learned from this situation, and I wish to communicate it to others who may be interested. To those who work at PolyUnity, I am very sorry if this affects your employment.*

I am a prior employee of PolyUnity Tech Inc. That is public information. I was the third employee at the company.

I do not like PolyUnity *anymore*[^1]. This is not necessarily public information, but it is my opinion.

I am held under NDA, an agreement I signed with PolyUnity Tech Inc. However I am allowed to speak of public information. The substance of the material in which I will speak of today is all public information or strictly personal information *(about me, and only myself)*. Within the agreement, in order to disclose information, I must prove that the information is publicly available, so I will do so here. *You may surmise that this is the smallest extent to which I can speak about the company, and that there are many more details about which I am not at liberty to speak about.*

![My PolyUnity Mugshot](/uploads/My_Poly_Unity_Mugshot_4769ef674c.jpg "My PolyUnity Mugshot")

The three founders of the company are doctors. They know their craft well. Please note, however, that when I say “their craft”, I am only referring to their respective medical fields.

There was a point in time where I would have considered the “Founders” of PolyUnity: Michael Bartellas, Travis Pickett, and Stephen Ryan my friends. They were people who I “worked for” previously, at MUN Med 3D, a university organization where we made 3D printable medical simulations. I really enjoyed the work, and I believe they started something immensely valuable when they began the organization. It was work I was good at and really enjoyed, which led me down the path of focusing on 3D printing for medical purposes.

I do not consider them my friends anymore, nor do I like who they are. However, my opinion on them is much better than that of those who later became associated with PolyUnity.

# Why I Came to PolyUnity

I was one of the co-founders of a university group called MUN ProtoMED, which I built with the help of two of my good friends. MUN ProtoMED primarily focused on getting university students involved with making biomedical simulations. We were wildly successful in terms of new university organizations, growing to over 20 regular student members at one point in time. This is significant, because we were hardly operating for more than a year.

I gave regular tutorials to students on how to make biomedical simulations, which was one of my favourite points in my life[^2]. In many ways, I felt like I was building a company from scratch, because I essentially was.

I felt like I had a winning formula. I was introducing 3D printing, biomedical design, teaching Fusion 360 to a bunch of students, it was lovely. I was beginning to look to see if I could find a commercialization path for anyone in the team who wanted to develop anything significant, and I was seriously thinking of starting my own company to do so. I had enough people interested, and made a lot of great connections to those who wanted to see us succeed. *I had developed momentum.*

![Picture of MUN ProtoMED, the university team I had developed, where I was giving a tutorial to students on how to extract 3D models from CT scans, and import them into Fusion 360.](/uploads/MUN_Proto_Med_37961382ef.png "Picture of MUN ProtoMED, the university team I had developed, where I was giving a tutorial to students on how to extract 3D models from CT scans, and import them into Fusion 360.")

MUN ProtoMED was bringing a lot of talented students into the field. I met a lot of really great people who were incredibly adept in these fields (many of these people later joined PolyUnity[^3]).

At one point, we were looking for funding to be able to purchase 3D printers and material. As a result, we (MUN ProtoMED) participated in a meeting with a government organization. We were promptly told the following (paraphrasing): “We love what you are doing, but unfortunately we can only fund companies.”

Having known the three founders of PolyUnity, I knew that they were operating in a similar field. I directed their attention towards PolyUnity, which shortly led to me becoming one of their employees. The third employee, after a computer engineering major and a business/computer science major. Things were super early, however I was confident that I would be able to play a significant role towards success- I wanted to bring my winning formula, *my momentum* to PolyUnity. This was my goal.

# My Time at PolyUnity

When I first joined, PolyUnity’s address was 22 Brownrigg Pl, a residential address[^4] owned by Michael Bartellas’ father[^5]. This is pretty normal at the early stages of a company, but it often suggests something about the state of the company. *Far more companies fail at this stage than succeed.*

PolyUnity was primarily focused (publicly, that is) on Medical Simulations when they first started[^6]. Subject matter which I was regularly teaching students how to develop via MUN ProtoMED.

Around the time that the pandemic hit, PolyUnity became known as the “PPE” company. This is because PolyUnity shifted focus towards 3D printed face shields[^7] in order to supply Eastern Health with much-needed face-shields.

There is much that I want to take credit for, but as I have explained, I can only disclose what is public information. Taking that into consideration, these are my designs. I designed the face shield product that brought the huge boost of success to PolyUnity.

With my employment at PolyUnity, I brought along my focus on the potential for small-to-medium volume manufacturing with 3D printers, along with specific expertise of the available equipment on the market to be able to successfully pull off manufacturing of end products. I was the first employee which had a mechanical background, and particularly a design-for-3D-printing background, having done it for years prior[^8]. On top of it all, I had a network of extremely valuable connections already developed.

Here is a comment posted on Facebook.com where Michael Bartellas, the CEO of the company, gave me credit for the design of the face shield, along with “several other critical pieces”:

> Simon Hawkenson has been an incredible part of this project. He made the design, along with several other critical pieces. We cannot say enough good things about him!! **- Michael Bartellas**

![Michael Bartellas giving me credit for developing the face shield product publicly on Facebook. Image is of Travis Pickett wearing an early prototype of the face shield product.](/uploads/Michael_Bartellas_Facebook_Comment_1203e70589.png "Michael Bartellas giving me credit for developing the face shield product publicly on Facebook. Image is of Travis Pickett wearing an early prototype of the face shield product.")

Thankfully, I can show material which I published and presented publicly for my work term deliverables. Here you can see a picture of my desk with a 3D printer, and an early prototype of the face-shield[^9].

![An screenshot from my PolyUnity work term presentation, after having worked for PolyUnity for 4 months.](/uploads/Poly_Unity_Work_Term_Presentation_f97d641ad4.png "An screenshot from my PolyUnity work term presentation, after having worked for PolyUnity for 4 months.")

This was a tremendous amount of work, as is best stated by company COO (at the time), Travis Pickett.

>“From design to prototyping to Health Canada approval to quality assurance testing with Eastern Health and finally manufacturing, we had a turnaround time of three weeks to the day. We are hoping to continue to build this effort and produce approximately 4,000 a week in the immediate future.” **- Travis Pickett[^10].**

This was a very intense period of my life, there were many nights where I got very little sleep. I put a tremendous amount of effort into *whatever I was developing at that point in time*, and it took a serious toll on me. That being said, I recall feeling optimistic about my effort.

There were many people involved in the process of getting the product prepared for manufacturing. However, what I hope to establish here, is that I was a critical member to the early success of the company.

*More importantly, the timing of my arrival, along with the background, network, and experience (previously developed via MUN ProtoMED) which I brought to the company, correlates with the rapid success of PolyUnity.*

# Why I Stayed

I was working for PolyUnity on a work term. Work terms only last so long, eventually you have to return to school.

Luckily, at the time, the MUN Coop Office was offering a year long work term option, an option that was elected in order to see PolyUnity continue to grow. I decided to delay my graduation for PolyUnity, a company that wasn’t mine in any way, shape or form. *This was a sacrifice made in trust, trust in the people who I considered my friends.*

This wasn’t enough, however. Part of trust means that the people who you trust will reward you for your efforts. Particularly if those people you trust own the *near-entirety* of what you poured your heart and soul into. As such, I was compelled to remain within the company.

How was I compelled? Part of it was by stock options, where I briefly owned stock in the company (roughly 1.1%). A very small amount, even when considering the public information about my contributions to the company, never-mind the information which I cannot disclose.

Remember, the company was based out of a residential address owned by the father of the CEO of the company, with three employees. Companies at this stage rarely survive, and I had given them a design *(amongst other non-discloseable things)* that was a major contributor to their success. From the public’s eye, this was their sole product which had any large-scale success.

Most companies that need specific talent at the extremely early days of a companies success will choose to compensate their employees with significant stock ownership, as other forms of compensation (significant salaries, etc) are usually off the table and *too difficult to honour*. This is what is standard.

I cannot speak for others, but this was not what happened to me. Instead, I got a different, *non-standard* offer which I thought was acceptable. And as such, I stayed.

Considering I no longer work for them, you may surmise that something went wrong.

# Nearing the End

PolyUnity continued to grow, developing products and making partnerships. I had a few key projects and responsibilities, amongst them were:

- 3D printer research, particularly focused on increasing productivity and reliability.
- Computer vision project to identify print failures using a webcam.
- “[Ensured] that the software integrate[d] with [PolyUnity’s] hardware/3D printers.”

However, my title was “Mechanical Lead”. I also “lead” a team. We generally focused on the research side of the engineering.

![Public Facebook post about some of my contributions to the company.](/uploads/Poly_Unity_Simon_Feature_8620b46c23.png "Public Facebook post about some of my contributions to the company.")

Two significant things happened near the end of my time with PolyUnity. One that I cannot disclose, the other was that I returned to school to finish my degree, after having delayed it for nearly a year to help PolyUnity get off the ground. *I had already made my sacrifice for the company, and now it was time for me to return to school.*

# A Dropped Call from Telus

Completing a degree, particularly an engineering degree, while remaining employed is something that usually needs to be planned in advance, and more importantly, agreed to by the employer. Mechanical Engineering is a program which has a significant workload, and is full time.

I completed a semester while remaining as a PolyUnity employee. From this information, there may be a few key assumptions that can be made. Usually along the lines of *advanced arrangements, agreements, and approvals.*

On my second semester, I was let go from the company. This was nearly a year ago, in June. I was let go while completing school. AFTER my sacrifice had already been made.

On my Service Canada record of employment document, there is a name that wasn’t publicly associated with PolyUnity. *Jacqueline Lee.*

![My Service Canada Record of Employment.](/uploads/Jaqueline_Lee_Service_Canada_Record_of_Employment_69ff951b8f.png "My Service Canada Record of Employment.")

5 months ago (September), it was publicly announced that Mark Gillingham and Jacqueline Lee were joining PolyUnity as President and COO, respectively.

At the time of my dismissal, both Mark Gillingham and Jacqueline Lee were officially working for Skyhawk Telematics, a company owned by Telus. By September, both Mark Gillingham and Jaqueline Lee officially “*left*” SkyHawk, in order to join PolyUnity.

These two details do not add up. What is a Telus’ employee’s name doing on my employment record when they filed for my termination? *I cannot say.*

What I can say, is that I really, really do not like these people.

Since that point in time in June, some of the earliest employees of the company have left to move on to greener pastures[^11]. Myself included. And some of those who remain, are also co-founders of their own technology company. These are often publicly-visible markers of a bad administration.

Further publicly-visible markers of a bad administration:

- PolyUnity’s website is built off of WebFlow[^12], a web service that allows you to make your own websites. Considering PolyUnity markets itself in part as a software company, the companies’ age, and its relative success, it is embarrassing that they did not develop their own site. To be clear, I do not wish to disparage whoever designed the site in WebFlow. It looks much better than the previous one. The embarrassment is with the company and its leadership.
- PolyUnity appears to have a disjointed focus, marketing many different things on their website, instead of a single focal product to sell. Their attention appears to be scattered. This likely makes their potential clients confused, and less likely to work with them.

*Given this mix of strictly personal and public information, paint the picture as you will.*

# Why You Should Never Give Your Momentum Away 

Everything is momentum. Success comes from momentum.

I had developed a tremendous amount of momentum prior to joining PolyUnity, and after leaving PolyUnity, I now have to rebuild it.

This is part of the reason why I built this site. I am re-building momentum. However, this time, I am much more experienced with a wide variety of fields within which I am passionate, including software development. This site was developed by me, using a few choice Node.js frameworks. I am working my way towards something greater.

Those who wish to work with you in good faith will not choose to sap your momentum. Instead, they will want to see you build it, and see the success benefit everyone who is in close proximity, including themselves. You should never choose to give your momentum away. Rather, you should choose to help build other people’s momentum in parallel to yours, a formula that benefits everyone. Pick who you work with wisely, and trust yourself when something feels wrong.

There was a lot that I wanted to talk about. I could talk about my experience of feeling betrayed, I could talk about the consequences of working yourself to the point of burnout- *a sign that you aren’t trusting yourself when something **feels wrong.*** I can talk about good leadership vs bad leadership. But most of all, I just want people to pay attention to themselves, their emotions, and their instincts. I want you to understand that *you may be giving your valuable momentum away.*

Listen to yourself. Trust yourself. You already know who you can trust, and who you can’t.

[^1]: Those who know me, know that I loved the company, and worked hard to see it reach success. My opinion has changed quite a lot since then.

[^2]: Hindsight about my decisions in the year 2020 is 2020. Regardless, I wish I would have prioritized this university group, since there was a lot of great things going on, and my life took a turn for the worse after choosing to prioritize PolyUnity.

[^3]: 4 employees, past and present, came to PolyUnity in part due to their association with ProtoMED. Some of which I believe to be incredibly talented, perhaps amongst the most talented in the entirety of Canada.

[^4]: PolyUnity’s old address can be still seen here: https://local.infobel.ca/CA103401264-7097636523/polyunity_tech-saint_john_s.html

[^5]: A document showing Elias Bartellas (Michael Bartellas’ father) was granted a building permit for his property back in 2007. https://www.stjohns.ca/sites/default/files/files/minutes/Regular%20Meeting%20October%2009%202007.pdf

[^6]: The internet is a wealth of public information, past and present. Here is a copy of their website archived by the Wayback machine from back in 2019: https://web.archive.org/web/20190701204853/https://polyunity.com/

[^7]: This generated a ton of good press for PolyUnity. For example, see CBC article: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/newfoundland-labrador/ppe-taskforce-nl-polyunity-1.5532678

[^8]: Visible from LinkedIn, and internet archives of PolyUnity’s website.

[^9]: Presented publicly. The Coop Office at Memorial University of Newfoundland never signed an NDA, an option which is available (but was not taken).

[^10]: Company COO (At the time), speaking (publicly) on the turnaround of prototype to product. https://gazette.mun.ca/public-engagement/made-right-here-2/

[^11]: Visible from LinkedIn. 2 of the earliest team members are no longer with the company.

[^12]: If you inspect the source of PolyUnity’s current website, you’ll see many links to the service WebFlow.

I am a prior employee of PolyUnity Tech Inc. I do not like the company.

PolyUnity, an Exercise in Bad Faith— Why You Should Never Give Your Momentum Away

*I wrote this a few months ago, a day after Facebook announced their re-branding to Meta. A few details might have changed since then.*

Facebook (Meta) has been in the news quite a bit lately, and not for reasons that Facebook (Meta) would like to be. For the growing list of Facebook (Meta) whistle-blowers, this is hopeful news. Facebook (Meta) might finally be forced to take some accountability for their actions.

Amidst the controversy, almost out of nowhere, Facebook announced that it is re-branding its larger corporate entity to Meta, something which is meant to represent the larger focus of the company, rather than simply the site “Facebook.com”. Facebook appears to be pulling a similar move to Google with Alphabet in 2015, but perhaps for slightly different reasons.

Many people, perhaps even most people view this as an attempt at shaking the controversy, and rightfully so. But I believe that the brilliance in this plan goes much farther beyond simply shaking the controversy, even shielding themselves from future controversy.

![Corny graphic I made of the Meta banner peeling with the brand Facebook behind it. Symbolizes my opinion on the company's re-brand.](/uploads/Metabook_ca406924ac.png "Corny graphic I made of the Meta banner peeling with the brand Facebook behind it. Symbolizes my opinion on the company's re-brand.")

You might be asking yourself, why am I writing (Meta) every time I mention Facebook? Well, the answer is association, a topic which I cover later in the article. I am going to use them interchangeably. I want you to intuitively think of the two brands being the same entity, which they are. Along with all of the negligent (at best) behaviour that Facebook has become known for.

It seems that everyone who I know -usually- hates Facebook (Meta). It is worth noting, however, that I am a Canadian. A recent study came out to show that “Most Canadians believe Facebook harms their mental health”[^1]. This seems to be a popular opinion over here. Considering that Facebook (Meta) is based in the U.S., perhaps the public there has a better view of the corporation. But without a doubt, on the international stage, the brand “Facebook” has been dragged through the mud. In the eyes of the corporate executives at Meta (Facebook), it may not be salvageable.

Some companies choose to live with their controversial brand name and poor behaviour. EA was rated the most hated brand for many years. Nestle has often come to be known as the “exploit your local municipality for pennies and destroy the local water supply in order to make billions off of water bottle sales” corporation. This might work for EA or Nestle, but companies like Facebook do not make money by selling services or products to users. They make money off of advertising, primarily. And advertising clients often prefer to steer clear from controversy, something which Meta (Facebook) has been full of.

But it is even more complicated than that. Meta (Facebook) has made it exceedingly clear in their most recent re-branding video that they plan on increasing their presence even further in your life through VR and AR. They wish to make Facebook (Meta) a “useful” tool for work. Try escaping Facebook (Meta) now that your workplace has mandated its use. *Or perhaps put you at a serious disadvantage if you don’t use it.* In other words, they wish to reach into new areas which might present serious ethical dilemmas, and they know that it would be next to impossible with the exposed dirty laundry that the brand “Facebook” carries. The brand “Facebook” is already in hot regulatory water, and they need a “new” entity to do these things with minimal regulatory oversight.

I find this change to be pretty upsetting, if I’m being honest. I was happy to see interviews of Frances Haugen and Sophie Zhang being the most notable news related to Facebook. I wasn’t happy when Facebook went down, since it took away news exposure from the whistle-blowers. And I am especially not happy with the news of re-branding to Meta for similar reasons.

Beyond that, I find Facebook’s ambitions to be extremely concerning. It is not a company which has proven itself to be worthy of trust, trust required to meet these ambitions. I would like to see Facebook as a company broken up, where Facebook retains Facebook and Messenger. I would like to see Instagram, WhatsApp, and Oculus return to being completely independent companies.

If you were a corporate executive in those shoes, what would you do? Lets explore human psychology and what can be done to protect yourself from regulations, and perhaps unrest from the general public.

# Association

One of the most powerful forces can direct how humans feel is association. People often make their judgements based on prior association. Buy the new Toyota Highlander instead of the Nissan Rogue, because my cousin’s son is still driving the family’s old 1999 Toyota Camry. My neighbour bought a new Nissan Sentra a few years ago, and it’s already having transmission problems.

![One of the best things that Toyota ever did for its brand image was make a car in 1999 that can still be seen on the roads today. 1999 Toyota Camry. Image licensed CC-SA 4.0. Author: Elise240SX on commons.wikimedia.org.](/uploads/1999_Toyota_Camry_CE_Rear_Left_02_23_2021_20760d8848.jpg "One of the best things that Toyota ever did for its brand image was make a car in 1999 that can still be seen on the roads today. 1999 Toyota Camry. Image licensed CC-SA 4.0. Author: Elise240SX on commons.wikimedia.org.")

Facebook (Meta) knows this, and they know their “Facebook” brand is dead in the water. “Facebook” the brand is a late 2000s Nissan Sentra in the public’s eye. Don’t buy it.

Meta (Facebook) is hoping that the brand “Meta” has the same association (or *feel*) as a new unheard of car brand. Its flagship vehicle has all of the regular bells and whistles, it is new and shiny. It even has extra features that cannot be found in other car brands (Metaverse).

Facebook (Meta) is “*innovating*”. To be clear, I am sure that they will have some real significant technological advances that they will place behind a 20 year patent, inhibiting any other company with a stronger sense of ethics from making a product that stands up to Facebook’s (Meta) product. I do not particularly view their work as innovation. But Meta (Facebook) wants you to know it is innovating, and more importantly, it wants the regulatory bodies to know that it is innovating.

# Innovation is a Religion

It is often said that “football” is the USA’s religion. I have to admit, there are quite a few similarities. To some, Sunday football is taken almost as seriously as to how Christians take their Sunday gospel. On a similar schedule too.

I am going to add another religion, or another tenet to the religion of the cultural American experience. *Thou must not kill innovation.*

The United States grew off of innovation. Sure, it had natural resources to exploit. But it came to be the superpower that it is from its ability to innovate and change fundamental aspects of human nature. Cars, highways, suburbia, warships, jets, GPS.

In the book of innovation, one of the clearest mandates is *“Thou must not kill innovation”*. Facebook (Meta) knows this, they were able to profit off of it once, and they wish to take advantage of this once again.

Silicon Valley’s motto “Move fast and break things” exists for a reason. American culture is generally permissive of lies and “breaking” things (with the exception of clear fraud) if it is for a new innovating company. Regulations are viewed as the enemy of small developing companies full of promise. How else was Google supposed to come to form if the GDPR existed at its inception? How else has Tesla avoided getting in trouble for denying “Autopilot” to paying customers? How else did Tesla get away with naming its assisted driving technology “Autopilot”, when it cannot truly be used as an autopilot?

By re-branding to Meta, and by making it clear from the brand inception that this “new” entity is focused squarely on “innovation”, they are attempting to set up an image where regulatory action could “kill” innovation. Facebook went out of its way to unveil its view of the future with technology that Meta (Facebook) is developing, marketing which appears inspired by Apple or Tesla[^2].

![Look how fun and friendly and advanced this all looks! You can't break up Meta (Facebook), or else this won't happen!](/uploads/Friendly_Technology_Fun_57f2e21cbb.png "Look how fun and friendly and advanced this all looks! You can't break up Meta (Facebook), or else this won't happen!")

You see, the technology itself looks great (if it were to exist). I would love to see a company attempt to create this type of product. But knowing that Facebook (Meta) is behind this, and knowing the attitudes of their leadership: this product will likely have all the same problems that Facebook has, and more. This product could be a fountain of wealth for advertising, which means that they will likely exploit their users in favour of making a significant profit. Meta (Facebook) has shown over the many years of it’s existence that it fails at making appropriate decisions when running into situations where there are conflicts of interest[^3].

Facebook (Meta) has never appeared to care so much for this type of marketing until it unveiled its re-branding to Meta, and I do not think that this is a coincidence. Apple and Tesla are two corporations which have successfully made their brands synonymous with innovation. I believe that Facebook (Meta) is attempting to hitch off of the positive association that these two brands have via similar marketing, shielding itself in the name of “innovation”.

And they may get away with it. Because Google (Alphabet) set precedence for this to be a “normal” practice.

# Precedence

Alphabet Inc. is currently Google’s parent company, designed to allow “Google” to focus on greater projects that reach beyond the core mission of Google’s services. Google restructured their company to Alphabet back in 2015, after deciding to take down their famous “Don’t be evil” motto[^4].

Google’s re-branding was largely unsuccessful, mostly because they kept nearly all instances of their products under the Google trademark umbrella. Nobody refers to Google as Alphabet. Meta (Facebook), however, is attempting to ditch the Facebook trademark on their products for nearly everything except for Facebook.com (or Messenger). I believe that Meta (Facebook) is approaching branding like Proctor and Gamble (P&G), where there are many sub-brands, all sheltered from one-another. You do not purchase Proctor and Gamble laundry detergent, you purchase Tide detergent. P&G rarely faces the wrath of the public, rather it is its sub-brands which people tend to criticize, sparing P&G to uncritically do what they want with their other brands. I believe Facebook wants to emulate this. Facebook.com will still exist, however its other borderline-invasive products will not share the same heavily stained brand, perhaps shielding it from controversy.

However, ever since Google had already made the move, this type of corporate restructuring became a standard practice for large technology companies. This precedence may allow Facebook (Meta) just enough breathing room to not be universally accused of making a thinly-veiled manipulative decision.

# What can we do here?

Facebook is wishing to break the public’s association with their brand name, an association that they deserve. We must not allow that to happen, if we want to ensure that Facebook remains accountable to the public. Therefore, Facebook is Meta. Full stop. They’re the same entity, it must be known universally that they represent the same entity. The details of how different their corporate structure is does not matter. It is the same people who are in charge as those who were in charge prior to the re-branding. Their behaviour wont change just because they re-branded. In fact, they likely re-branded specifically because they don’t want to change their behaviour. Its too profitable!

I believe we are about to witness an attempt at large-scale corporate gas-lighting of the public (and regulatory bodies) in order to avoid social accountability. It is brilliant, horrifying, and it all starts with a re-brand.

So spread the word. Facebook is Meta, and Meta is Facebook. The snake only shed its skin, it is still the same snake.

[^1]: Most Canadians Believe Facebook Harms their Mental Health: https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/article-most-canadians-believe-facebook-harms-their-mental-health-survey-2/

[^2]: Everything Facebook revealed about the Metaverse in 11 minutes - CNET on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gElfIo6uw4g

[^3]: Frances Haugen on Facebook’s misconduct. https://www.cbsnews.com/video/facebook-whistleblower-frances-haugen-misinformation-public-60-minutes-video-2021-10-03/

[^4]: Google removes its famous “Don’t be evil” clause from its code of conduct: https://gizmodo.com/google-removes-nearly-all-mentions-of-dont-be-evil-from-1826153393

Facebook has some smart people who work for them. And these people are experts at avoiding accountability.

The Lie We All Believe(d)

PolyUnity, an Exercise in Bad Faith— Why You Should Never Give Your Momentum Away

How to Avoid Accountability, If Your Name Happens to Be Facebook

Some good links.