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

191–200 of 280 posts

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

#191

Post by asdff »

bigblind wrote: post #46
andy_ppp wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why do you want this? I honestly think we’ve completely forgotten how to be present and notice the real world without the idea of augmenting it.

I think you can be present in the moment, but still find value in a tool like this. I may not be "the norm" because I'm legally blind, but in some sense, a tool like this could make me even more present. I currently use my phone a lot to zoom in on signs to read them. I'd love it if I wouldn't have to hold a phone in front of my face, just to know whether the place I'm standing in front of is, in fact, Jimmy's Barber…

If you used a set of binoculars people would guess you are bird watching

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

#192

Post by TRiG_Ireland »

baxtr wrote: post #68

> Gaby Luisa was standing outside a dance club in Arizona earlier this summer when a man wearing glasses threw out a pickup line. “Did I just run into my future wife?” he asked. She politely let him know she wasn’t interested and moved on with her evening. She was shocked to find out later that their interaction was recorded and posted on YouTube without her knowledge or permission, using smart glasses which, she sai…

Pick-up artists are not going to behave like decent human beings.

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

#193

Post by 8note »

bluefirebrand wrote: post #103
adolph wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What situations call for "Pervert glasses?"

Wearing them in a locker room or at a pool party or at the beach or really anywhere you might be likely to catch a recording of someone in a state of undress that they wouldn't want you to have a recording of?

it feels like theyre really designed for people that dont need glasses.

i dont want to have a camera stuck to my face that i dont really control in order to see

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

#194

Post by kstrauser »

oneeyedpigeon wrote: post #53
Tempest1981 wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"I'll let you guys introduce yourselves..."

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]."

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

#195

Post by specproc »

rtkwe wrote: post #34
Octoth0rpe wrote: post #10

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…

I'm really happy to see this turning out the same way as Glass.

It's rare we get serious wins over big tech. It's tough to think of something else that's been so roundly societally rejected, not so much as a bad product, but as something that's loathed so much it has no future.

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

#196

Post by watwut »

Windchaser wrote: post #13
Octoth0rpe wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> 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'. Hmm, here's a few that could potentially be implemented in augmented glasses, though I have no idea if they're implemented yet: - Giving me directions via an overlay when I'm walking around without requiring me to pull out my ph…

> overlay of a recipe when I'm cooking something new

I dont understand how this one comes up thay often. It just sounds like the most useless thing ever. These literally make me suspect I am only one who cooks here while others kind of imagine what it might be like or something.

> price comparisons in grocery stores; the glasses read the prices and tell you how they compare to prices in other nearby stores

Like you are going to another store for milk and to yet another for butter? Are you already doing that with phone and need to take it out is what prevents it?

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

#197

Post by asdff »

jayd16 wrote: post #45
andy_ppp wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why do you want this? I honestly think we’ve completely forgotten how to be present and notice the real world without the idea of augmenting it.

Because its cool. I mean, the real answer is that we have the technology to be tech wizards. You could conjure spatially anchored widgets and screens and gauges. You could put a cooking show screen above the stove, where a physical screen wouldn't work. You could put a synced calendar on the wall. Notes app on the fridge, weather reminders by the door. ...a million mundane conveniences in the house alone. But still,…

All things you can already do with the phone you already own. Only it isn't mounted on the wall I guess. But is that really such a showstopper that demands this technology? You could also get a dummy screen that displays this info.

Reminds me of ipad and to a lesser extent, apple watch. It came out with a ton of hype, tons of people got one, only to never really use it because hey, it only does the exact same stuff as the phone you carry around with you all the time anyhow.

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

#198

Post by specproc »

bonoboTP wrote: post #129
rtkwe wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Phones already make people much more reserved and less "wild" eg at parties compared to pre-phone-cameras (that are always online and can upload to social media effortlessly).

I've found being over 40 has made me way less wild at parties.

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

#199

Post by soraminazuki »

alickz wrote: post #139
willtemperley wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I suspect you're not a pretty girl that gets stared at. Neither am I, but if I were I'd rather the stares weren't recordable.

If I was a pretty girl that gets stared at I think I'd want to record the ones doing the staring People generally commit less crime if they think they're on camera If they do commit a crime, at least there would be video evidence Or if they just want to be creepy, I'd send those stares to their wife Considering motivated perverts would use hidden cameras, as opposed to cameras literally on their face, I think the asy…

There's plenty of evidence to the contrary, considering that's the same old argument that NRA has been making for our entire lives.

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

#200

Post by 8note »

foco_tubi wrote: post #144
bigblind wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you can be present in the moment, but still find value in a tool like this. I may not be "the norm" because I'm legally blind, but in some sense, a tool like this could make me even more present. I currently use my phone a lot to zoom in on signs to read them. I'd love it if I wouldn't have to hold a phone in front of my face, just to know whether the place I'm standing in front of is, in fact, Jimmy's Barber…

I do think accessibility is a great market for innovation like this, but it doesn’t mean it’s appropriate for general populations. Take electric mobility devices, for example. Electric wheelchairs are great for people who are paralyzed, but e-scooters have become a scourge for some urban residents as their users park them on sidewalks, block curb cuts, and generally get in the way of pedestrians.

it of course, also sucks to be using an electric wheelchair, with many streets having utter junk for sidewalks and other accessibility.

the new scooters and such will actually fix that as infrastructure gets rebuilt to better support them.

the end of having e-scooters will be that things are a little better for wheelchairs, even if there's a temporary rougher spot

Post reply on HN