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

241–250 of 277 posts

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

#241

Post by dgellow »

ipaddr wrote: post #93
dgellow wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What does that have to do with freedom of speech? How is recording people without their consent or knowledge freedom of speech? That sounds absurd to me

The law allows recording of people without consent or knowledge now. From flock cameras to door bell cameras to store cameras your pcture is taken hundreds of times daily. To just restrict glasses can be seen as a freedom of speech issue.

But what part of that has anything to do with free speech? What is the expression that is restricted?

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

#242

Post by JeremyNT »

wombat-man wrote: post #217
JeremyNT wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

These exist already; they're sometimes called "XR glasses." They simply act as a monitor for a connected device. The market is maturing and the hardware is pretty cool. The software situation is pretty dire though; phone OSes don't have a way to use them effectively. Samsung Dex is probably the best experience right now to just use them as a desktop display.

You mean like xreal? I think I'd like something I can wear around a bit more casually. the xreals look great but I need them to get a little higher quality before buying. I would probably use them to watch movies on airplanes, or maybe work from home.

Yep - there are issues still with this class of product (bulky, wired) but they're getting much better. It's not quite portable enough yet and the ux is a train wreck since phone OSes don't handle them appropriately yet, but they're impressive pieces of tech and you can imagine a few iterations getting them where they need to be for general use.

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

#243

Post by dgellow »

threethirtytwo wrote: post #167
dgellow wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What does that have to do with freedom of speech? How is recording people without their consent or knowledge freedom of speech? That sounds absurd to me

freedom of press. It has to do with freedom of speech, because recording a speech is the counterpart to that. Should I be able to have the freedom to threaten someone with my speech but then have the ability to censor a recording of that? Sounds absurd only because you don't understand.

Or I have a completely point of view. I’m pretty sure I understand your point and still find it nonsensical

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

#244

Post by neko_ranger »

>ctrl-f "headphones" and "speaker"

>0 results

I have the meta glasses (never wear them outside because of the stigma), and the actual killer feature is the headphones, not the camera/ai stuff. Not the sound quality per se (though it's pretty good and someone else has to be really close to hear leakage on max volume), but it's nice just being able to have a pair of sunglasses on and be able to listen to music and your surroundings while on a walk or cooking without stuff jammed in your ears. And removing the camera stuff will make the glasses look nicer since less tech needed. I know there are brands that specifically do audio only glasses, but "reddit" says they're all middle quality from my research. If anyone has experience, please share.

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

#245

Post by dylan604 »

otterley wrote: post #238
dylan604 wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

perot museum dallas

They're probably doing it 1/to people who are on their property (the Museum can permit certain activities on its property while prohibiting others), and 2/for security purposes, e.g., to help slow the identification of building or security vulnerabilities, or to prevent harassing the staff. If they said it's because the design of the building is copyrighted, they're just wrong. Nor can they prohibit the taking of pho…

To frame the building properly, the best position is across the street not on their property. The building has been there for 20 years now, so disovering security vulns from snapping pics of the exterior are pretty established. But I'm glad you've come to the same ultimate conclusion as previously stated

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

#247

Post by wombat-man »

JeremyNT wrote: post #242
wombat-man wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You mean like xreal? I think I'd like something I can wear around a bit more casually. the xreals look great but I need them to get a little higher quality before buying. I would probably use them to watch movies on airplanes, or maybe work from home.

Yep - there are issues still with this class of product (bulky, wired) but they're getting much better. It's not quite portable enough yet and the ux is a train wreck since phone OSes don't handle them appropriately yet, but they're impressive pieces of tech and you can imagine a few iterations getting them where they need to be for general use.

Yeah they are getting really close to being awesome. I'll use my tablet until they iron things out.

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

#248

Post by threethirtytwo »

petsfed wrote: post #214
threethirtytwo wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bro, read the article. As much as I hate corporations, this is not there fault. It's women who don't like perverts using the glasses and the perverts who use these glasses to look at women. This is a phenomenon among the masses of consumers who use this tech, the corporation has nothing to do with it. In fact the corporation is trying to reign in your freedom to use these tools by stopping this perverted stuff from h…

>Women just need to deal with it. Assume that whenever you're in a public place, ALL your actions are PUBLIC. A women (and men) should dress and talk in a way conducive to the public arena. People have been the subject of stalking, harassment, rape irrespective of how they dress for ages. If you consider "being polite to a customer at a coffee shop" as an invitation to any of the above, then I guess you can claim tha…

Is that really a big deal? Someone who monetizes me saying don’t film me?

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

#249

Post by disqard »

hn_submit wrote: post #58

Why is Meta insisting on forcing these "pervert" glasses on us? I can tell you why: advertising. I bet some "pervert" within Meta (may Zuck himself) has already thought up that whatever you look at will result in you getting an ad for that item. "I see you're looking at a car. How about this new Toyota RAV4?" "I see you're looking at a mobile phone. How about this new Samsung Galaxy Fold which is on sale." "I see you…

I didn't see anyone else link Keiji Matsuda's "Hyper-Reality", so here it is:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YJg02ivYzSs

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

#250

Post by threethirtytwo »

dgellow wrote: post #243
threethirtytwo wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

freedom of press. It has to do with freedom of speech, because recording a speech is the counterpart to that. Should I be able to have the freedom to threaten someone with my speech but then have the ability to censor a recording of that? Sounds absurd only because you don't understand.

Or I have a completely point of view. I’m pretty sure I understand your point and still find it nonsensical

Well then what can I say? I show you the logical connection: 1 + 1 = 2, and you still find it nonsensical then the only conclusion is: you are illogical.
Post reply on HN