8 ms·

> I would use them because the company that makes it can’t be trusted. I think this gets at only half of the problem. Not only can meta not be trusted, even if

> I would use them because the company that makes it can’t be trusted. I think this gets at only half of the problem. Not only can meta not be trusted, even if I trust _you_ if you were friend, I wouldn't trust any _other_ random user of such a product. As such, better to not have such a product around.

rtkwe 1mo ago
Correct the issue isn't Meta people just don't like the idea they could be being recorded at any time to get blasted out to the whole world. Yes, in theory you're always open to being recorded in public but the glasses make it far more subtle /and/ up close so more normal interactions become subject to the intrusion in a way that would normally be quite obvious. It's basically the same backlash that hit Google Glass over a decade ago. Nothing has really changed about the product and the reason people reject is so viscerally when they're not the user.
- jimmydddd 1mo ago
  At my kid's daycare, they sent home an authorization form to allow them to use your kid in pics that might be posted to the internet. Some parents declined out of privacy concerns. Now I guess we are just blasting past all of that. Kind of like AI and copyright.
  - JoeBOFH 1mo ago
    10 years ago we had the same form with my kid’s daycare. They kinda got pissy about it tho as they didn’t want to have to scrub photos they posted to their Facebook and insinuated that your kid may not have as much fun if they have to “separate” them when it comes to photo time. We told em tough don’t use our kid’s photo. So even if institutions implement this kinda thing almost non want to do it.
- bonoboTP 1mo ago
  Phones already make people much more reserved and less "wild" eg at parties compared to pre-phone-cameras (that are always online and can upload to social media effortlessly).
  - rtkwe 1mo ago
    It's true but phones are much more obvious that you have them out and probably filming where the glasses aren't so can be more controlled and at least reacted to. The glasses create more uncertainty about if the person is filming.
    - bonoboTP 1mo ago
      It's more obvious, but since people use their phones all the time anyway, you really have to look at the angle they hold the phone to be sure. So it's not super hard to be sneaky about it even with a phone.
      - rtkwe 1mo ago
        Most people are pretty obvious about it if you're looking. It's still the fact they could be doing it right in front of you without you knowing that really makes people hate the subtle-camera-on-face-products.
  - wolvoleo 1mo ago
    True, though there's a lot of parties that now ban phones or put stickers on them.
  - specproc 1mo ago
    I've found being over 40 has made me way less wild at parties.
    - harambae 1mo ago
      Skill issue.
- specproc 1mo ago
  I'm really happy to see this turning out the same way as Glass. It's rare we get serious wins over big tech. It's tough to think of something else that's been so roundly societally rejected, not so much as a bad product, but as something that's loathed so much it has no future.
  - rtkwe 1mo ago
    I wish there was a way to do it without all the problems of having cameras on people's faces. The tech of AR glasses would be pretty neat to get working given I was raised on Sci-fi with visual overlays on people's vision being a pretty common piece of tech. You'd have to trust they couldn't get jailbroken to add recording though even if a company with enough trust made a set with cameras only able to be used by the inside out tracking system.
    - reaperducer 1mo ago
      I wish there was a way to do it without all the problems of having cameras on people's faces. Just make it obvious that they're not ordinary glasses, but recording devices. Not just a tiny LED that can be covered, but something like the camera is on an arm that swings out in front of the wearer so there's no mistaking that a recording is in progress. The fact that they're designed for stealth shows the nefarious intent.
      - rtkwe 1mo ago
        For AR glasses the current best option for tracking is inside out tracking so the camera would basically always be deployed. I don't think we have to go so far as assigning nefarious intent here, there are a lot of reasons they're designed as they are. For example your proposed solution is bulky, expensive and prone to damage, so there's plenty of non-nefarious reasons they don't have it operate that way.
fusslo 1mo ago
I think I agree with this sentiment most. I am having trouble articulating it. I think wearing smart glasses in some situations is on a scale between rude, offensive, and wrong. I think that's what culture teaches us about what is and what isn't acceptable behavior, right? Like some places teach us it's rude to speak over each-other. Here in New England it is rude not to. I am 100% on board with calling smart glasses "Pervert glasses" if worn in situations that call for it
- adolph 1mo ago
  What situations call for "Pervert glasses?"
  - bluefirebrand 1mo ago
    Wearing them in a locker room or at a pool party or at the beach or really anywhere you might be likely to catch a recording of someone in a state of undress that they wouldn't want you to have a recording of?
    - 8note 1mo ago
      it feels like theyre really designed for people that dont need glasses. i dont want to have a camera stuck to my face that i dont really control in order to see
  - fusslo 1mo ago
    I think maybe I in-artfully wrote it - I mean: there are situations when wearing smart glasses should be labelled 'pervert glasses'. Not that there are situations that require wearing of the glasses
    - valleyer 1mo ago
      They're just being intentionally obtuse.
  - axus 1mo ago
    Active duty police officers. Anything that applies to bodycams should apply to other public recording devices.

rtkwe 1mo ago

Correct the issue isn't Meta people just don't like the idea they could be being recorded at any time to get blasted out to the whole world. Yes, in theory you're always open to being recorded in public but the glasses make it far more subtle /and/ up close so more normal interactions become subject to the intrusion in a way that would normally be quite obvious. It's basically the same backlash that hit Google Glass over a decade ago. Nothing has really changed about the product and the reason people reject is so viscerally when they're not the user.

jimmydddd 1mo ago
At my kid's daycare, they sent home an authorization form to allow them to use your kid in pics that might be posted to the internet. Some parents declined out of privacy concerns. Now I guess we are just blasting past all of that. Kind of like AI and copyright.
- JoeBOFH 1mo ago
  10 years ago we had the same form with my kid’s daycare. They kinda got pissy about it tho as they didn’t want to have to scrub photos they posted to their Facebook and insinuated that your kid may not have as much fun if they have to “separate” them when it comes to photo time. We told em tough don’t use our kid’s photo. So even if institutions implement this kinda thing almost non want to do it.
bonoboTP 1mo ago
Phones already make people much more reserved and less "wild" eg at parties compared to pre-phone-cameras (that are always online and can upload to social media effortlessly).
- rtkwe 1mo ago
  It's true but phones are much more obvious that you have them out and probably filming where the glasses aren't so can be more controlled and at least reacted to. The glasses create more uncertainty about if the person is filming.
  - bonoboTP 1mo ago
    It's more obvious, but since people use their phones all the time anyway, you really have to look at the angle they hold the phone to be sure. So it's not super hard to be sneaky about it even with a phone.
    - rtkwe 1mo ago
      Most people are pretty obvious about it if you're looking. It's still the fact they could be doing it right in front of you without you knowing that really makes people hate the subtle-camera-on-face-products.
- wolvoleo 1mo ago
  True, though there's a lot of parties that now ban phones or put stickers on them.
- specproc 1mo ago
  I've found being over 40 has made me way less wild at parties.
  - harambae 1mo ago
    Skill issue.
specproc 1mo ago
I'm really happy to see this turning out the same way as Glass. It's rare we get serious wins over big tech. It's tough to think of something else that's been so roundly societally rejected, not so much as a bad product, but as something that's loathed so much it has no future.
- rtkwe 1mo ago
  I wish there was a way to do it without all the problems of having cameras on people's faces. The tech of AR glasses would be pretty neat to get working given I was raised on Sci-fi with visual overlays on people's vision being a pretty common piece of tech. You'd have to trust they couldn't get jailbroken to add recording though even if a company with enough trust made a set with cameras only able to be used by the inside out tracking system.
  - reaperducer 1mo ago
    I wish there was a way to do it without all the problems of having cameras on people's faces. Just make it obvious that they're not ordinary glasses, but recording devices. Not just a tiny LED that can be covered, but something like the camera is on an arm that swings out in front of the wearer so there's no mistaking that a recording is in progress. The fact that they're designed for stealth shows the nefarious intent.
    - rtkwe 1mo ago
      For AR glasses the current best option for tracking is inside out tracking so the camera would basically always be deployed. I don't think we have to go so far as assigning nefarious intent here, there are a lot of reasons they're designed as they are. For example your proposed solution is bulky, expensive and prone to damage, so there's plenty of non-nefarious reasons they don't have it operate that way.

fusslo 1mo ago

I think I agree with this sentiment most. I am having trouble articulating it. I think wearing smart glasses in some situations is on a scale between rude, offensive, and wrong. I think that's what culture teaches us about what is and what isn't acceptable behavior, right? Like some places teach us it's rude to speak over each-other. Here in New England it is rude not to. I am 100% on board with calling smart glasses "Pervert glasses" if worn in situations that call for it

adolph 1mo ago
What situations call for "Pervert glasses?"
- bluefirebrand 1mo ago
  Wearing them in a locker room or at a pool party or at the beach or really anywhere you might be likely to catch a recording of someone in a state of undress that they wouldn't want you to have a recording of?
  - 8note 1mo ago
    it feels like theyre really designed for people that dont need glasses. i dont want to have a camera stuck to my face that i dont really control in order to see
- fusslo 1mo ago
  I think maybe I in-artfully wrote it - I mean: there are situations when wearing smart glasses should be labelled 'pervert glasses'. Not that there are situations that require wearing of the glasses
  - valleyer 1mo ago
    They're just being intentionally obtuse.
- axus 1mo ago
  Active duty police officers. Anything that applies to bodycams should apply to other public recording devices.