111–120 of 280 posts
Understatement of the year. That would be true maybe 10 years ago, during the Cambridge Analytics era. We are way, way past that point, and a so called tech analyst talking about "preserving the positive sentiment" is truly bizarre
I do think its a bit odd to automatically and "obviously" default to the idea that people will be using these to be perverts. Its a bit strange of a default assumption to me. Although its even more disheartening that most people's reactions to just about anything these days is dread about how it'll make their lives worse without fail.
> Its a bit strange of a default assumption to me. What is _your_ default assumption re: use case? I honestly can't think of any use cases (outside of very niche a11y uses) that are not in some way offensive, though perhaps not 'perverted'. This product is absolutely toxic, and I can't imagine myself or anyone I know being willing to associate or socialize with someone wearing them (again, excluding some very specifi…
Tech is so frustrating in real life. I feel like we have all the cool sci fi stuff I always wanted, but everything comes with a monkey's paw style gotcha. The idea of meta glasses is so awesome, I want a heads up display to show me whatever I want. But there is no way in hell I would use them because the company that makes it can’t be trusted.
After covid I forgot the names of coworkers, I'm really bad at remembering them. Having something that could just show me peoples names would be nice. Maybe I'm just a bad person for not remembering them and it could be a nice challenge to my existing social behaviors to ask again. I wouldn't trust meta enough to use these glasses, I dont even use instragram.
I hope one of these companies pulls off a compelling set of glasses with a display and no camera.
It won't matter. People will assume it has a camera. The product category is most likely (and rather predictably) dead if it depends on people wearing them ubiquitously and in public.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think they tried that, and people hacked around it: https://www.engadget.com/2227710/a-dollar2-sticker-let-me-by...
If you want to secretly record someone in public, aren't there already plenty of much subtler ways? Pinhole camera in your shirt pocket, normal glasses with a hidden camera, camera integrated into a hat, etc? "Disable the recording light in your smart glasses" would just be one more entry in that list.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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.
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…
Meta and everyone else with experience knows that, for disruptive technologies, backlash is the stage before adoption. In a sense, the backlash means you're achieving market momentum.
Not all backlashes lead to adoption, but if you want to implement regulations (blur all faces in recordings, no identification, etc.), now is the time to move. At the adoption stage it seems to become normalized and people lose interest, like with other mass surveillance - obviously horrific and dangerous, but few will think about doing anything.
I hope one of these companies pulls off a compelling set of glasses with a display and no camera.
How would it analyze your surroundings without a camera
I don't have a pitch deck ready to go, but I think if constrained to not have a camera, product teams may still come up with a compelling product.
It just seems like a no-brainer that these things will invite violence upon you once a critical mass of the population understands what they are, and thus people will eventually stop wearing them in public.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Many buildings are copyrighted Well, let me stop you right there. That's the bit that needs fixing.
Nope, can't stop right there. It is the situation we live in now. You can release a product like a poster or puzzle or whatever and try to YOLO with your protest, but you will lose in court when you are sued by the rights holder. There's a museum with a very distinct building that is infamous for sending security staff out to tell photographers they cannot image the building. They have no idea what someone will do wi…