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

121–130 of 166 posts

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

#121

Post by lesostep »

infinite_spin wrote: post #114
sapphicsnail wrote: post #24

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. How? This is just going to give a bunch of creepy men an easier way to film me. I'm dreading these getting mainstream adoption.

I'll give a personal example. At a coffee shop I go to, someone repeatedly threatened to kill me. The owners would call the police, and they'd take a report, but without direct evidence the police claimed to have no power other than to trespass this individual. Which they did. Since that first time, he's threatened to kidnap, torture, and then murder me on several occasions. For my own safety, it would have been nice…

I'm sorry, there is a guy in a coffee shop that routinely threatens you, and it's still is your go to place?

Damn, just how good is that coffee?

(if that's real, and pulling phone out really is dangerous, can't you just ask the employee to film next time it happens for 10 bucks?)

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

#122

Post by theNotFractured »

boomboomsubban wrote: post #66
wolvoleo wrote: post #5

Wow really well done with the lenticular effect. I immediately recognised the reference to They Live too. That must have cost a lot. To get posters like that made.

I doubt it's that pricy. I believe you print a regular poster with a special image then apply the textured layer on top.

You literally only need a special image and a "lens": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tRTe_MRSbsY

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

#123

Post by brigandish »

Nursie wrote: post #102
brigandish wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 un…

The facts are:

- people are being arrested, charged, and prosecuted, for opinions

- that number is greater than 1

- the number of people being arrested under speech laws, per year, is reportedly[0] over 12,000

- some substantial number of those are for opinions, some are not but we don't know how many either way [0] (and considering the government were attempting to delete the Courtdesk archive[1], I'd say that's by design)

- "convictions and sentencings for the relevant offences had decreased dramatically" [0]

This points to overzealous policing and vague laws.

The criticisms by Americans, who are surely aghast at this state of affairs given their founding principles, cannot be dismissed until better numbers are available, but while the number we do know is > 1, the criticisms are valid if not entirely sound (but may be entirely sound).

[0] https://lordslibrary.parliament.uk/select-communications-off...

[1] https://www.legalcheek.com/2026/02/ministry-of-justice-order...

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

#124

Post by Nursie »

Barbing wrote: post #59
Nursie wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Honestly it's been so long I'd be a liar if I told you I remembered anything specific at this point!

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

#125

Post by lII1lIlI11ll »

infinite_spin wrote: post #108
afavour wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

> You only have to remind yourself of what catcalling is.

What do you think all these glasshole-women are going to do with bunch of (poor quality, grainy night) videos of some drunk bro on the street telling them "nice rack you have there, sweetheart"? Call FBI so they would give chase on a helicopter immediately?

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

#126

Post by cindyllm »

lII1lIlI11ll wrote: post #125
infinite_spin wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> You only have to remind yourself of what catcalling is. What do you think all these glasshole-women are going to do with bunch of (poor quality, grainy night) videos of some drunk bro on the street telling them "nice rack you have there, sweetheart"? Call FBI so they would give chase on a helicopter immediately?

[dead]

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

#127

Post by infinite_spin »

lesostep wrote: post #121
infinite_spin wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'll give a personal example. At a coffee shop I go to, someone repeatedly threatened to kill me. The owners would call the police, and they'd take a report, but without direct evidence the police claimed to have no power other than to trespass this individual. Which they did. Since that first time, he's threatened to kidnap, torture, and then murder me on several occasions. For my own safety, it would have been nice…

I'm sorry, there is a guy in a coffee shop that routinely threatens you, and it's still is your go to place? Damn, just how good is that coffee? (if that's real, and pulling phone out really is dangerous, can't you just ask the employee to film next time it happens for 10 bucks?)

The coffee isn't why I go there, it's where my friends meet up, and I go to the gym next door. He's also threatened employees, one quit. I'm not sure why you're making jokes, but since you are it seems like I should double down and insist that I have the right to film such encounters.. especially when my account of these events isn't taken seriously.

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

#128

Post by lII1lIlI11ll »

lotsofpulp wrote: post #12
toofy wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> … are we going to accept this same rhetoric for anyone that films others in public and/or commercial spaces? yes, please. i think that is exactly the direction we should be pushing. this creepy compulsion to record random people is weird af.

Is there a better way to modulate others’ behavior? Before, when it was he said, she said, it was always tenuous for the person with less power to pursue the issue. Now, they can finally access consequences for people violating their freedoms.

Same can be said about what is going on in bedrooms but I don't think that having stronger evidence for home abuse justify the invasion of privacy. And I don't think random people filming everything in bars/restaurants/night-clubs is a price I'm willing to pay just to make it easier to prosecute some crazies or drunken catcallers.

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

#129

Post by infinite_spin »

lII1lIlI11ll wrote: post #125
infinite_spin wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> You only have to remind yourself of what catcalling is. What do you think all these glasshole-women are going to do with bunch of (poor quality, grainy night) videos of some drunk bro on the street telling them "nice rack you have there, sweetheart"? Call FBI so they would give chase on a helicopter immediately?

> glasshole-women

Please stop using ad hominem attacks, this is not the appropriate forum for such remarks.

> "nice rack you have there, sweetheart"

I assume that would be considered sexual harassment in most jurisdictions, which local police should concern themselves with, especially if it's happening to minors.

I'm at a loss for why you brought up the FBI.

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

#130

Post by infinite_spin »

Nursie wrote: post #119
infinite_spin wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

I think it can be a general rule without being a concrete one, and is heavily context dependent. I agree that dash cams are for the most part OK, because for the most part they're recording for safety reasons and evidence in case of accidents. But sitting in a coffee shop as a private citizen, recording everyone that comes in without any particular justification would not really be OK, covertly or overtly. Even thoug…

I'm not a fan of rules that aren't concrete, especially when the opposition tends to muddy the water and use ad hominems to justify their opinions. Lacking a clear set of rules has never led us to a safer community.
Post reply on HN