So why not encode that data in a human readable format? I think it's the same argument as a binary storage format vs. plaintext. Sure you gain a slight bit of efficiency on the application side of things. But the decreased portability and ease of use is usually not worth the trade-off.
The problem is of course barcode isn't quite right either. The term 2D or Matrix codes never really caught on (of course the FB symbol isn't a matrix code either).
Further, the "dreaded" is a bit of poorly worded editorializing. But I recall a few years ago when they started popping up, that whily maybe not dreaded, people thought they were a stupid gimmick (for all the reasons mentioned in the article) and many times intrusive or tasteless. Dreaded similar to fucking blue LEDs. That is, to say, Blue LEDs are useful, but it was damn fucking annoying when a bright one was put on damn everything they didn't belong.
> Don't look now, but QR codes have begun to creep back. They have different names now—Snap Codes and Spotify Codes and Messenger Codes and Other Things Codes—and a much improved sense of style, but the idea hasn't changed.
Snapchat ID codes and Facebook Messenger ID codes are NOT based on QR Code technology. They don't look remotely the same. My guess is that they are proprietary and have no published standard. Because of their geometry and layout, they both probably have much lower raw information density than QR codes.
What's funny is that in China QR codes are commonly called by the generic name of 二維條碼 (two-dimensional barcodes), but the Wired article makes the opposite mistake of calling every 2D barcode as "QR Code".
However, note that WeChat/Weixin/微信 2D barcodes are valid QR codes. (The picture in the middle is treated as a correctable error.)