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

101–110 of 166 posts

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

#101

Post by Nursie »

UberFly wrote: post #61
Nursie wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Meta monitoring your social media posts to their platforms. Monitoring everything around you, all the time. And what you've heard about the UK police is likely to have been comically exaggerated by people with an agenda. There are problems, yes, they do not arrest thousands of people a year for being mean on twitter, no. (I'm rate limited and can't reply below - when people look into these figures what they tend to…

"comically exaggerated". Tell that to the 10-12,000 people arrested per year for "inappropriate" speech. Please don't go out of your way to defend it. https://www.thetimes.com/uk/crime/article/police-make-30-arr...

That's exactly what I mean by comically exaggerated. I don't need to defend it, or go out of my way at all. Do you understand what that figure covers?

It's everything from sending death threats in an email or SMS to your ex who finally got up the courage to leave your abusive ass, to sending unsolicited dick-pics on whatsapp, to bomb threats old-school paper-mailed to a school, to direct, public incitements to mass murder on twitter during a riot, hoax calls to emergency services and a ton of other stuff. But it gets thrown around as if it's all about people making 'edgy' social media posts. I believe at least some of these would be grounds for arrest in the bastion of free speech that is the USA too?

Is there a problem with police in the UK overreaching on speech on social media? Yes I believe there is, and there are specific examples to show that. Is that figure you've got there in any way meaningful? On its own, no. Is it a delicious tidbit for people with scant regard for the truth and a specific agenda to push? You betcha.

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

#102

Post by Nursie »

brigandish wrote: post #79
Nursie wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Meta monitoring your social media posts to their platforms. Monitoring everything around you, all the time. And what you've heard about the UK police is likely to have been comically exaggerated by people with an agenda. There are problems, yes, they do not arrest thousands of people a year for being mean on twitter, no. (I'm rate limited and can't reply below - when people look into these figures what they tend to…

> they do not arrest thousands of people a year for being mean on twitter, no. It doesn't need to be thousands for it to be worrying. From [1]: > The Metropolitan Police has awarded Father Ted creator and Irish comedian Graham Linehan £25,000 and an unreserved apology after they arrested him last year as his plane touched down at Heathrow airport. > Last year, Graham Linehan — who now lives in Arizona, United States…

> It doesn't need to be thousands for it to be worrying.

I very much agree, which is another reason I think facts are important. There are real issues and discussing them using real data is great, productive etc.

But instead of rational debate what I see time and again is spurious figures like these thrown around by talking heads, repeated by posters like those above, trying to ... well I don't know, I don't fully understand why the US right wing thinks it's a smart move to demonise its allies at the moment, but here we are.

> Armed police for 3 tweets on a political topic, seems like overkill in an unfortunately possible literal use of the word.

Yeah, it's a gross abuse of police power. Linehan seems like he's a bit of a nob, but being a bit of a nob in public shouldn't attract anything like this sort of attention. The police need to be reined in seriously, and to have pointed questions put to them about what they think is their damn job and where the money is going. At least it looks like he won the day in court, and the policy has changed - https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2026/jul/09/graham-lineh... - but IMHO heads should be rolling over this.

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

#103

Post by Yizahi »

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…

The whole VR shtick they were hyping up for a decade now and even rebranded whole corporation for, only really works if everyone is wearing these cameras 24/7. They failed at advertising the experience itself, so while that is shelved they are exploring other paths. These glasses are intended to normalize widespread pervasive recording as a primary objective, and to collect vast amounts of data for the LLM "training" as a secondary.

PS: two of my friends found no issues with these, bought a pair each and excitedly recorded with many other people present. Like, the issue didn't even register. I foresee that a lot of people will follow, if the price will be accessible, and one day it will be.

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

#104

Post by Nursie »

charcircuit wrote: post #40
Nursie wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Meta monitoring your social media posts to their platforms. Monitoring everything around you, all the time. And what you've heard about the UK police is likely to have been comically exaggerated by people with an agenda. There are problems, yes, they do not arrest thousands of people a year for being mean on twitter, no. (I'm rate limited and can't reply below - when people look into these figures what they tend to…

>they do not arrest thousands of people a year for being mean on twitter, no They arrest thousands of people for posts they make online. The public data does not break down what site it the arrests were from.

They arrest thousands of people under the communications act, which covers everything from the mail to Whatsapp. If I was your neighbour and I called you up on the phone and threatened to break your legs if your dog didn't stop barking, and you called the police on me, I'd likely be in those stats.

It's clear they arrest some people for posts online, and that is bad. But the numbers aren't clear at all, and the one bandied around most in public at the moments is so not informative that its use is basically propaganda.

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

#105

Post by drdaeman »

somenameforme wrote: post #88
drdaeman wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

No. People simply stop behaving naturally when being casually recorded. It creates completely artificial scenarios. For instance if for some reason I had a friend pick up one of these glasses I certainly wouldn't allow him into my house with them on, even if he assured there was no recording, and I completely believed him. The mere presence of a such would just create a dampening effect on normal behavior. It'd be ak…

Thank you. I think (or hope) I see your point.

I happen to were in exact scenario that you have mentioned, and I think I understand what you mean. Just as an anecdote - no, it doesn’t always work that way. At least it didn’t worked that way with me, because I held a different belief. It irked me for a moment - when I recognized a camera the association of topic-adjacent controversies sprung to mind. However, I dismissed it, and in retrospect I can assure that my behavior returned to natural. And if not for Meta specifically, it probably wouldn’t have bothered me at all.

(The person with glasses had an - IMHO - very legit use case for having a device like that, if this matters.)

But that’s just me with my weird beliefs. In my head a camera is a sensor. It’s no fundamentally different from wearer’s own eyes to me.

When I emphasized “actually” I was (very poorly) trying to say that it ideally shouldn’t be a problem, because its not what causes harm, only provides a way to cause it. But you’re right, when the abuse is de-facto the only prevalent spoken about use case, and legal side doesn’t match social expectations, it creates all those ill effects, so even if it possibly shouldn’t be problematic - it becomes such, in a sort of self-fulfilling prophecy’s way.

People nearly always go for the lowest hanging fruits, I shouldn’t hate us for this. But it’s really depressing, to be honest.

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

#106

Post by drcongo »

alex_suzuki wrote: post #90
dom2 wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can actually accomplish this pretty easily with off the shelf components! You can just say, "Hey, I think we've met before but I can't remember exactly where?"

It also works really well as a conversation starter for me. I forget people’s names and the context all the time, but the faces stay familiar, and of course you can tell from their facial expression that we’ve met.

Showoff. I can't remember names or recognise faces. I've settled on a strategy of simply greeting everyone as though I've met them before, which feels a lot more empathic than sending everyone I meet's details to a mass surveillance company.

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

#107

Post by infinite_spin »

smokedetector1 wrote: post #10
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…

you genuinely dont see a difference between (1) a single or handful of security-angled cameras controlled by a local business for security purposes (2) any individual possibly recording you at eye level at any second without you knowing, and having the ability to use and manipulate that footage and upload it to the internet

Not a substantial difference, recordings of both kinds are uploaded to the internet all the time. So if we're not going to forbid one, then I don't see a significant enough reason to forbid the other. What it seems like is that you offer your trust for one situation, because you benefit from it, but are unwilling to trust the other, because you don't. This seems like selfishness, especially after years of being told there is no presumption of privacy in public spaces.

From my vantage, this appears to be a "rules for thee but not for me" situation. If you support filming in public spaces, but believe restricting that to only those you trust, then this is hypocrisy.

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

#108

Post by infinite_spin »

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?

How does having a video record of encounters benefit women? I'm sure you can figure that out. You only have to remind yourself of what catcalling is.

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

#109

Post by infinite_spin »

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…

> covert recording of other people in public is not OK

This rules out the use of dash cams then.. but I'm sure you realize the public benefit those offer, so I'm reluctant to accept this argument.

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

#110

Post by infinite_spin »

photios wrote: post #30
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…

It's okay to record everyone around you all the time because: 1. Women do it. 2. The government does it. 3. Private businesses do it. What?!

4. Dash cams do it 5. News agencies do it 6. Parents with babysitters do it

I'm not sure this is helping your argument. Why are some entities given the benefit of the doubt, while most individuals are not?

Post reply on HN