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

Guerrilla London bus ads mock Kylie Jenner’s Meta glasses campaign

hyperallergic.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 166 posts

Re: Guerrilla London bus ads mock Kylie Jenner’s Meta glasses campaign

#51

Post by sbrother »

paxys wrote: post #41

I don't understand why Meta is so insistent on making the camera and creepy video recording the primary feature of these glasses. They do have a ton of other uses. The speakers are genuinely great. It's useful to be able to hear notifications while walking. Having a decent AI for asking random questions is nice as well. It supports live translation. And unlike Airpods it doesn't tune out the rest of the world, which…

In theory I could see really enjoying them in an action sports (backcountry skiing, mountain biking, rock climbing) setting. I'd want 1) true AR that could annotate terrain with stuff like slope angle, aspect etc, 2) all the GPS and monitoring functionality of a Garmin watch, and 3) a high quality action camera that could replace a gopro with less faff.

From what I can tell we aren't particularly close to putting this all together in a consumer usable package.

Re: Guerrilla London bus ads mock Kylie Jenner’s Meta glasses campaign

#52

Post by drdaeman »

somenameforme wrote: post #48
deejaaymac wrote: post #27

People wearing cameras is going to increase over time, no matter what. Why would it slow down? Don't get me wrong, I'm extremely anti a lot of things, including people wearing cameras all the time, but I see no logical way to stop it without stomping on freedoms. In this case, defense will be your ally, whatever form that may take,eg wearing a mask. If I had to choose between flock cameras and meta glasses existing,…

Quite simply because people don't want to be casually recorded 24/7. By "casually" I mean by other people doing so indiscriminately, if not actively fishing for "content", as opposed to entities doing so for more justifiable reasons, like a security cam.

Doesn’t that strongly suggest us that it’s not the filming that’s actually problematic, but something that happens afterwards?

Re: Guerrilla London bus ads mock Kylie Jenner’s Meta glasses campaign

#53

Post by Barbing »

charcircuit wrote: post #28

The UK police monitoring your social media posts is more of a risk than Meta monitoring your social media posts to their platforms.

Advanced https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism potentially? (Maybe I’m being unfair)

Re: Guerrilla London bus ads mock Kylie Jenner’s Meta glasses campaign

#54

Post by Barbing »

infinite_spin wrote: post #6
downrightmike wrote: post #2

glassholes never change

Help me understand this attitude, because I've mostly seen women wearing these types of products, and they stand to gain a lot in terms of security from wearing them. So why the ad hominems? What is your best argument against these devices? When I go to a coffee shop I do so with the understanding that the establishment is likely recording me, are we going to accept this same rhetoric for anyone that films others in…

>I've mostly seen women wearing these types of products

Anyone have data on this? Feelin’ doubtful

Re: Guerrilla London bus ads mock Kylie Jenner’s Meta glasses campaign

#55

Post by ffsm8 »

paxys wrote: post #41

I don't understand why Meta is so insistent on making the camera and creepy video recording the primary feature of these glasses. They do have a ton of other uses. The speakers are genuinely great. It's useful to be able to hear notifications while walking. Having a decent AI for asking random questions is nice as well. It supports live translation. And unlike Airpods it doesn't tune out the rest of the world, which…

Eh, realistically speaking the camera is it's main selling point. If you want just audio, why not get eg an aftershockz headset. They've been around for over 10 yrs and work very well for that exact usecase (speaker that doesn't block your ears whatsoever)

The translation feature is also available on your phone which you'll need to pull out when using it anyway, because otherwise the other party won't understand what you're saying either...

Re: Guerrilla London bus ads mock Kylie Jenner’s Meta glasses campaign

#56

Post by _carbyau_ »

Basically, "small cameras/microphones, cheap enough to be everywhere" completely changes the "free to take photos/video in public" equation - so that's probably worth revisiting legally.

Clearly there is a difference between someone waving a SLR camera around (digital or film) and the possibilities of today and where the content ends up.

However... the pub/bar/nightclub, gym, pool, etc etc etc isn't public. It is the private property of the owner. So if people don't like them - as is evident it seems - these glasses should hit social resistance.

Re: Guerrilla London bus ads mock Kylie Jenner’s Meta glasses campaign

#57

Post by gumby »

The real killer app form me requires a camera (though it doesn’t need to record photos or video for me to access — I have a phone for that).

I need a device that tells me who I’m talking to if I’ve been introduced to them before and tell me how I know them (This is Bob Dobbs, you first met him in Texas in 1985 and he saved you at that party when you needed some Slack)”. Especially great when I meet someone out of context.

But bad actors mean I’ll probably never get this prosthesis.

Re: Guerrilla London bus ads mock Kylie Jenner’s Meta glasses campaign

#58

Post by Barbing »

afavour wrote: post #42
infinite_spin wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Help me understand this attitude, because I've mostly seen women wearing these types of products, and they stand to gain a lot in terms of security from wearing them. So why the ad hominems? What is your best argument against these devices? When I go to a coffee shop I do so with the understanding that the establishment is likely recording me, are we going to accept this same rhetoric for anyone that films others in…

> I've mostly seen women wearing these types of products, and they stand to gain a lot in terms of security from wearing them How?

Sounds like Flock CEO thinking. If everyone wore a bodycam, the world would be crime free. (The thinking must stop before downsides are considered.)

Re: Guerrilla London bus ads mock Kylie Jenner’s Meta glasses campaign

#59

Post by Barbing »

Nursie wrote: post #9
infinite_spin wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Help me understand this attitude, because I've mostly seen women wearing these types of products, and they stand to gain a lot in terms of security from wearing them. So why the ad hominems? What is your best argument against these devices? When I go to a coffee shop I do so with the understanding that the establishment is likely recording me, are we going to accept this same rhetoric for anyone that films others in…

Easy - covert recording of other people in public is not OK. This ridiculous idea that "it's in public so you have no expectation of privacy" is a semantic retcon, the pervasiveness of cameras is new and fundamentally changes your level of exposure in the public sphere. Overtly recording people in public is not really OK. Face-mounted, covert recording is another step too far and offensive to most people. If you genu…

What was your favorite article on Glassholery?

Re: Guerrilla London bus ads mock Kylie Jenner’s Meta glasses campaign

#60

Post by Barbing »

deejaaymac wrote: post #27

People wearing cameras is going to increase over time, no matter what. Why would it slow down? Don't get me wrong, I'm extremely anti a lot of things, including people wearing cameras all the time, but I see no logical way to stop it without stomping on freedoms. In this case, defense will be your ally, whatever form that may take,eg wearing a mask. If I had to choose between flock cameras and meta glasses existing,…

>If I had to choose between flock cameras and meta glasses existing, I'd choose the glasses.

Whatever happened to give me liberty or give me death

Post reply on HN