This is another attempt to measure when Zuck will change the default FB avatar system's extreme focus on nonbinary/queer looking avatars. He's publicly come out against Meta emphasizing this type of ideology internally, but internally their avatar system is very much a relic of this time. To me, it's unusably focused on forcing every avatar to look genderbendy, etc. This is a niche cultural group (which has a perfectly fine right to exist, etc etc.) but doesn't, to me, belong as a forced default for the entire USA. Not just me but many groups in the US do not at all frequently portray themselves this way.

Judging

I own a facebook group which I haven't configured avatars for. When I click in to manage the group, this is the default selection. No harm intended but like, do you notice anything weird about this? This claim resolves YES when the imagery around this UI/system changes to be more mainstream, i.e. to reflect the voluntary choices for self-representation of the US population (which does consist of some people who don't live in SF, aren't graphic designers, some who even wear cowboy hats, boots, have muscles, etc.)

Background

Forgive the direct speech but I see a super feminized black man, a chonky nonbinary, an indeterminate gender middle aged grey haired person in an inappropriately tight (given his/her extreme pear-shaped body) informal clothing, a black woman making an exaggerated wink, and an asian woman with blue hair. This is all fine, IF the group in question was one related to gender issues and the site had detected that this group of avatars (through stereotyping) was suitable. But, that's not what the group is - it's just a random unmaintained group.

My claim is that this weird graphic design homogeneity against anything resembling conventional avatars is a takeover, and is against Meta's business interests. I also claim that if the system were moved back to something more normal, that is, reflecting self-chosen gender presentation, clothes, style, manner, emotion choices by the actual population, that a system like that would clearly win AB tests. And that this niche group domination is a temporary cultural phenomenon which sustains itself against actual usage numbers of a more free system (which may still allow this style of self-presentation, but wouldn't force on it, and would also allow a much broader range)

We will judge by whether the default group avatar selector has changed to something which is clearly more mainstream. Mainstream = having men who look conventionally masculine (i.e. as judged by men & women's ratings of male dating site photos for example), men who may even be white, people of all races who present themselves in a statistically more common way.

I'm not being normative here, I'm suggesting that the choices made default here are against actual user adoption, slow it down, harm the business, and are against what we actually can easily determine about people's preferences both for themselves and others (via their demonstrated preferences in choosing their own & matches' dating site photos, which are much more typical, with males emphasizing strength, height, style, women trying to look conventionally attractive, males going out of their way to not emphasize unmasculine features, not making overtly feminine gestures (hands clasping for example). Also, that a reasonable default is more balanced in how the population of people's sex and sexuality and race looks.

Related claims by me on this.

This situation has been going on through the entire era of Meta spending 20+ billion dollars on this - they made incredible hardware, but they shipped it with an avatar system which I'm arguing is highly unappealing to huge numbers of Americans of all cultural groups.

/Ernie/facebook-will-ship-a-clearly-tradit

/Ernie/personal-subjective-will-facebook-f