Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

'Pervert glasses': Backlash against Meta's smart glasses grows

seattletimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

251–260 of 277 posts

Re: 'Pervert glasses': Backlash against Meta's smart glasses grows

#251

Post by Atheros »

peter_d_sherman wrote: post #54
danparsonson wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you want to do that, there is a wide variety of pre-existing recording devices available already...

>"pre-existing recording devices available already..." Exactly! People could be "covertly recorded at the gym" (as the article states!) by other pre-existing recording devices (any other kind of video camera, mounted in the gym or on a gym member's smartphone or other electronic device) -- not just Meta's smart glasses! In other words, the central issue of the article seems to stem more from consent (more specificall…

The other devices do not feature plausible deniability when caught. The glasses do. That's the problem.

Re: 'Pervert glasses': Backlash against Meta's smart glasses grows

#252

Post by Atheros »

fortyseven wrote: post #172

The demonizing of devices like this as "pervert glasses" incredibly fucking juvenile and obnoxious. We're going to throw out an entire concept because a handful of scumbags abuses them. This isn't serious discussion, this is just mobs of imbeciles running around with pitchforks.

They won't be thrown out. You'll surely be able to buy these in the future just like you can buy cell phones and fire crackers. But you can't take cell phones and fire crackers anywhere you want. You may not drive a car wherever you want, you may not carry a visible firearm wherever you want, and you may not use a backscatter X-ray machine wherever you want.

Re: 'Pervert glasses': Backlash against Meta's smart glasses grows

#253

Post by Mawr »

petsfed wrote: post #214
threethirtytwo wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bro, read the article. As much as I hate corporations, this is not there fault. It's women who don't like perverts using the glasses and the perverts who use these glasses to look at women. This is a phenomenon among the masses of consumers who use this tech, the corporation has nothing to do with it. In fact the corporation is trying to reign in your freedom to use these tools by stopping this perverted stuff from h…

>Women just need to deal with it. Assume that whenever you're in a public place, ALL your actions are PUBLIC. A women (and men) should dress and talk in a way conducive to the public arena. People have been the subject of stalking, harassment, rape irrespective of how they dress for ages. If you consider "being polite to a customer at a coffee shop" as an invitation to any of the above, then I guess you can claim tha…

> People have been the subject of stalking, harassment, rape irrespective of how they dress for ages.

Flatly untrue. Can you get harassed regardless of anything in particular? Sure. Is the probability of harassment tied to various factors, like the way you dress? Absolutely yes.

Re: 'Pervert glasses': Backlash against Meta's smart glasses grows

#254

Post by tuesdaynight »

arjie wrote: post #227
tuesdaynight wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm sorry, but I was taken aback when I clicked on the link and it was met with a real vídeo of a child. I was sure that it would be a Rick Rolling link or something. Aren't you afraid of exposing your daughter to a bunch of anonymous people on the internet? I understand that you like the product, but not even Mark Zuckerberg uses his kids for marketing

I do not believe that children are to be hidden away from the world. As a family, we take perhaps more risks than most in pursuit of the normalcy of children in the public sphere. e.g. she is also here: https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2025/07/16/orchid-... and here: https://wiki.roshangeorge.dev/w/Astra_Meridian

I don't disagree with your point, but don't you think that the internet is a different thing? I mean, there's a reason for parents avoiding public pictures of their babies on Instagram. Specially nowadays, with AIs like Grok and such. You probably thought about that risk too, so I'm asking from a curiousity perspective

Re: 'Pervert glasses': Backlash against Meta's smart glasses grows

#255

Post by arjie »

tuesdaynight wrote: post #254
arjie wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I do not believe that children are to be hidden away from the world. As a family, we take perhaps more risks than most in pursuit of the normalcy of children in the public sphere. e.g. she is also here: https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2025/07/16/orchid-... and here: https://wiki.roshangeorge.dev/w/Astra_Meridian

I don't disagree with your point, but don't you think that the internet is a different thing? I mean, there's a reason for parents avoiding public pictures of their babies on Instagram. Specially nowadays, with AIs like Grok and such. You probably thought about that risk too, so I'm asking from a curiousity perspective

The Internet is real life, one way or the other. I think there is a lot of anti-family messaging in the world, and I think a lot of people end up not interacting with children as a consequence of us taking families outside of what is now one large public sphere.

Our family is public in a few ways:

* Our pregnancy log https://wiki.roshangeorge.dev/w/Pregnancy

* Our IVF process https://wiki.roshangeorge.dev/w/IVF

* My genome https://viz.roshangeorge.dev/roshan-genvue/

These are all, to us, normal aspects of life and there is a grand taboo around many of these normal things. I want to shift the Overton window back to normalcy. Yes, there are risks, but the alternative is to play along with the taboo-ification of normalcy and I don't want to be part of that.

For instance, most online commenters talk about how there's no sense of community and this and that. Well, I have this. Many people have this: https://wiki.roshangeorge.dev/w/Blog/2025-10-09/Community

It's normal. But all the people who don't are on the Internet talking about it and propagating the kind of behaviour that makes it prevalent. I want to show them there's another way out.

Re: 'Pervert glasses': Backlash against Meta's smart glasses grows

#257

Post by kyleee »

kstrauser wrote: post #194
oneeyedpigeon wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Absolutely this. Even better, if you ever find yourself playing one of the "guys" in this situation, just act pre-emptively and introduce yourself!

Works 100% of the time: Extend hand for a handshake. Hey, I'm [name]. We've met before but it's been a while. First, it lets the other person off the hook, because they're almost certainly experiencing the same momentary anxiousness. Second, literally every time I've done this, they've replied like "Hi, nice to talk to you again! And I'm [name]."

It does work 100% of the time, but about maybe 5% of the time people are very very slightly annoyed that I’ve assumed they don’t remember my name. So it’s not totally fool proof but agreed it is a great strategy

Re: 'Pervert glasses': Backlash against Meta's smart glasses grows

#258

Post by petsfed »

Mawr wrote: post #253
petsfed wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Women just need to deal with it. Assume that whenever you're in a public place, ALL your actions are PUBLIC. A women (and men) should dress and talk in a way conducive to the public arena. People have been the subject of stalking, harassment, rape irrespective of how they dress for ages. If you consider "being polite to a customer at a coffee shop" as an invitation to any of the above, then I guess you can claim tha…

> People have been the subject of stalking, harassment, rape irrespective of how they dress for ages. Flatly untrue. Can you get harassed regardless of anything in particular? Sure. Is the probability of harassment tied to various factors, like the way you dress? Absolutely yes.

More than one art installation has been a simple depiction of the clothes worn by victims during their rapes. You should look it up.

My daughters have dealt with sexual harassment. Should I tell them to dress less sluttily? I mean, they wear what I buy for them, and I don’t think I buy anything wildly inviting of anything. But what do I know?! I’m just the father of a 7 and 6 year old.

Re: 'Pervert glasses': Backlash against Meta's smart glasses grows

#259

Post by petsfed »

threethirtytwo wrote: post #248
petsfed wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Women just need to deal with it. Assume that whenever you're in a public place, ALL your actions are PUBLIC. A women (and men) should dress and talk in a way conducive to the public arena. People have been the subject of stalking, harassment, rape irrespective of how they dress for ages. If you consider "being polite to a customer at a coffee shop" as an invitation to any of the above, then I guess you can claim tha…

Is that really a big deal? Someone who monetizes me saying don’t film me?

Depends on how many times you get rape and/or death threats from unhinged audience members who went to surprising and horrifying lengths to figure out your identity.

Obviously, we cannot wholly bar these jack wagons from going out and finding the exact edge of “harassment worth pursuing legal action over”. But we can lower the cost of pursuing legal action, and raise the cost of defending against such action. That’s all I’m proposing.

Re: 'Pervert glasses': Backlash against Meta's smart glasses grows

#260

Post by 1vuio0pswjnm7 »

10 Aug 2026 08:16:25 UTC | Influencers face backlash over Meta 'pervert glasses' content | https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2026/aug/09/i-kept-ca... | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49240828

10 Aug 2026 08:35:49 UTC | 'Pervert glasses': Backlash against Meta's smart glasses grows | https://tech.yahoo.com/ai/meta-ai/articles/pervert-glasses-b... | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49240972

Post reply on HN