Facebook rebrands as 'Meta' to emphasise metaverse vision
Oakland (US), Oct 28: Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg said his company is rebranding itself as Meta in an effort to encompass its virtual-reality vision for the future, what Zuckerberg calls the metaverse.
Sceptics point out that it also appears to be an attempt to change the subject from the Facebook Papers, a leaked document trove that has revealed the ways Facebook ignored internal reports and warnings of the harms its social network created or magnified across the world.
Zuckerberg says he expects the metaverse to reach a billion people within the next decade. The metaverse, he says, will be a place people will be able to interact, work and create products and content in what he hopes will be a new ecosystem that creates millions of jobs for creators.
The announcement comes amid an existential crisis for Facebook. It faces legislative and regulatory scrutiny in many parts of the world following revelations in the Facebook Papers.
In explaining the rebrand, Zuckerberg said the name Facebook just doesn't encompass everything we do any more. In addition to its primary social network, that now includes Instagram, Messenger, its Quest VR headset, its Horizon VR platform and more.
Today we are seen as a social media company, Zuckerberg said. But in our DNA we are a company that builds technology to connect people.
Metaverse, he said, is the new way. Zuckerberg, who is a fan of classics, explained that the word meta comes from the Greek word beyond.
Announcing @Meta — the Facebook company’s new name. Meta is helping to build the metaverse, a place where we’ll play and connect in 3D. Welcome to the next chapter of social connection. pic.twitter.com/ywSJPLsCoD
— Facebook (@Facebook) October 28, 2021
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
SC seeks reasons for denying maternity leave to woman if adopted child aged above 3-month
New Delhi (PTI): The Supreme Court has asked the Centre to explain the rationale behind a provision which entitles only those women, who adopt a child below the age of three months, to seek maternity leave benefits.
The apex court was hearing a plea challenging the constitutional validity of a provision of the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961 which entitles only those women who are adopting a child below the age of three months to seek benefits of maternity leave for a period of 12 weeks.
A bench of Justices J B Pardiwala and Pankaj Mithal said the case put up by the petitioner in public interest prima facie was that the provision was a social welfare legislation and there was no reasonable classification when it restricted the age of infant up to three months.
"In other words, if a woman adopts a child above the age of three months, she will not be entitled to any such maternity leave benefit as provided under the Amendment Act," the bench noted in its November 12 order.
It said the Centre has filed its reply justifying the prescription of the age of three months but during the course of hearing, many issues have cropped up which require consideration.
"In such circumstances, we expect the Union of India to file a further reply on the issue discussed today, more particularly, as to what is the rationale in saying that it is only that woman who adopts a child below the age of three months would be entitled to seek maternity leave benefits otherwise not," the bench said.
It said the reply be filed within three weeks.
The bench said a copy of the reply to be filed be served to the counsel for the petitioner well in advance and rejoinder, if any, be filed within a week thereafter.
It posted the matter for final disposal on December 17.
In October 2021, the apex court had sought response from the Centre on the plea which claimed section 5(4) of the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961 was discriminatory and arbitrary.
"Section 5(4) apart from being discriminatory and arbitrary towards the adoptive mothers, also arbitrarily discriminates against orphaned, abandoned or surrendered children above the age of three months, which is completely incompatible to the object of the Maternity Benefit Act as well as the Juvenile Justice Act," the plea said.
The petition stated the purported 12 weeks of maternity benefit to adoptive mothers was not only a "mere lip service but when juxtaposed with the maternity benefit of 26 weeks provided to biological mothers
