Meta in row after workers who saw smart glasses users having sex lose jobs • Hacker News Board

Re: Meta in row after workers who saw smart glasses users having sex lose jobs

#461

Post by bpt3 » Wed, May 06, 2026, 6:09 PM UTC

freejazz wrote: post #460

bpt3 wrote: post #459

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Thinking that Facebook should solve its own child pornography problem is not a weird perspective at all. What is weird about that? What do I need to elaborate on? That's my position. Are you saying it's unfounded? Again, the person you originally were talking to about this and myself have pointed out that it's not just Facebook's problem, it's society's problem, and all I have said is that there are tradeoffs, whic…

> You could start by sharing a coherent thought beyond "Facebook bad" on this topic. There's nothing incoherent about that thought, which is also not what I expressed anyway. It's not my burden to solve Facebook's problem just because I pointed out that it should be solved. The proposition that it is my burden is, again, ridiculous. >Why does this thread end with my question: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4798…

> It doesn't. It ends with me providing the common definition of meaningful, which is apparently something you were otherwise incapable of determining yourself?

Your post was marked as dead by the mods, and I didn't have deadlinks enabled. I'm glad we now have external confirmation that you are commenting in bad faith and the substance of your comments is obnoxious and useless enough that this site hides some of them by default.

I think that's a good ending point for this thread, because you have absolutely nothing of substance to say on any topic remotely related to technology. I'm betting you're a lawyer?

Re: Meta in row after workers who saw smart glasses users having sex lose jobs

#462

Post by freejazz » Wed, May 06, 2026, 7:27 PM UTC

bpt3 wrote: post #461

freejazz wrote: post #460

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You could start by sharing a coherent thought beyond "Facebook bad" on this topic. There's nothing incoherent about that thought, which is also not what I expressed anyway. It's not my burden to solve Facebook's problem just because I pointed out that it should be solved. The proposition that it is my burden is, again, ridiculous. >Why does this thread end with my question: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4798…

> It doesn't. It ends with me providing the common definition of meaningful, which is apparently something you were otherwise incapable of determining yourself? Your post was marked as dead by the mods, and I didn't have deadlinks enabled. I'm glad we now have external confirmation that you are commenting in bad faith and the substance of your comments is obnoxious and useless enough that this site hides some of them…

Non-responsive slop from someone also willfully misrepresenting how dead posts work here and a pejorative jab too! I'll play your game: enjoy your child porn on Facebook!

Re: Meta in row after workers who saw smart glasses users having sex lose jobs

#463

Post by divan » Tue, May 12, 2026, 7:32 PM UTC

jmholla wrote: post #457

divan wrote: post #441

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How does not talking to people will solve privacy problems of the new technology? Are you assuming that Meta will see that you ignored your coworker with smart glasses and shut down the project, along with Apple and other smart-glasses manufacturers? I'd love to follow your logic, if you can't follow mine.

Ostracization has worked before. And ostracization can lead to decreased sales, which they will definitely notice. If engaging with people to talk about privacy implications involves sacrificing your privacy, I feel that it is reasonable approach. It's like if I had to be punched by someone to talk to them about why them punching people all the time wasn't alright, then I'd find it very reasonable to just not associa…

> Ostracization has worked before.

It also hasn't worked before.

Except of hope that it will decrease sales (which is still not solving privacy issue), can you see other possible negative effects of the ostracization based on the gadgets they use?