501–510 of 870 posts
Why was the title changed from "The workers behind Meta’s smart glasses can see everything" to "A hidden workforce behind Meta’s new smart glasses"? It doesn't go against any guidelines: > Please don't do things to make titles stand out, like using uppercase or exclamation points, or saying how great an article is. It's implicit in submitting something that you think it's important. > If the title includes the name o…
I do think it's completely unacceptable if Meta makes the glasses unable to be used for routine functions without (a) other humans reviewing your private content and (b) AI training on your content. There needs to be total transparency to people when this is happening - these are absolutes. But I'm a bit confused by the article because it describes things that seem really unlikely given how the glasses work. They shi…
The annoying thing is that even if you yourself don't use these glasses, as long as people around you do, you are still affected by it. We really need laws to limit always-on recording devices in places where we have an expectation of privacy.
There are very few places you can expect privacy in public. Restrooms, changing rooms, etc. But in most places in public you should have zero expectation of privacy (in the US). In private settings, as with public, you are typically free to leave a setting where people are recording. The law has no specifications for what type of device can do the recording, pr for how long a recording can be.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> So you ll start rejecting any argument that you supported before, as soon as a "Nazi" agrees with it? I'll fight against any position that supports dehumanizing people for their ethnicity, that sets political ideology on a pedestal and uses it as a tool to attack science, institutions, and justice. As should you. It seems like you're upset by my use of the word Nazi. You should instead focus on the ideas that I'm a…
>I'll fight against any position that supports dehumanizing people for their ethnicity, Ok, but that is not what you said. >I never said that every voice on the right is a Nazi, just that Nazis are among those voices. And that's enough for me
I feel like you're trying to deploy some clever rhetorical trick, but you aren't quite smart enough to pull it off.
Why was the title changed from "The workers behind Meta’s smart glasses can see everything" to "A hidden workforce behind Meta’s new smart glasses"? It doesn't go against any guidelines: > Please don't do things to make titles stand out, like using uppercase or exclamation points, or saying how great an article is. It's implicit in submitting something that you think it's important. > If the title includes the name o…
Why was the title changed from "The workers behind Meta’s smart glasses can see everything" to "A hidden workforce behind Meta’s new smart glasses"? It doesn't go against any guidelines: > Please don't do things to make titles stand out, like using uppercase or exclamation points, or saying how great an article is. It's implicit in submitting something that you think it's important. > If the title includes the name o…
I've changed it again to match the article's original title, removing the clickbait part.
Has the submission title just been editorialized? I swear I’ve seen it mentioning data collection before, now it’s just bland.
Yes it has, in a way that goes directly against HN guidelines. The page title is "Meta’s AI Smart Glasses and Data Privacy Concerns: Workers Say “We See Everything”".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Anecdotal screeching aside, they’re objectively selling far better than any headgear ever made. The sales figures show they’re pretty popular as far as wearables go. That leads me to believe we’re not in the same world as Google glass especially when back then folks were far more trusting of tech (let alone the fact that it’s meta). The times I do I see folks wearing them the normie reaction is typically “oh cool” an…
I don’t know what the downvote is about. I’ve not said anything for or against this tech or the company that makes it. I just don’t think it’s valuable to inform your world view on tech takes that are old enough to be taking the practice SAT.
> screeching
> libertarian allergic reaction to technology
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
Being pro-Jew is not the same as being pro-Israel. > I believe Musk Generally, spreading lies rooted in the Protocols of the Elders of Zion about Jewish conspiracies to displace gentiles is not what I would consider "pro-Jew" behavior. Regarding Musk specifically, I have seen no evidence of any kind that he is "pro" anything other than his own self interest. Like Trump, he is a man without principles, religious or ot…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> well, everyone is _already_ filmed in public. ATM cameras, stoplight cameras, drone cameras, smartphone cameras, security cameras, doorbell cameras. And we probably ought to regulate how all such footage is handled. > banning all non-consensual recordings in all spaces It's a false dichotomy. Even if recording is permitted that doesn't mean the systemic invasion of personal privacy needs to be.
Great, let's regulate it! And why are glasses more offensive than cell phone cameras, or go pros, or drones? I genuinely do not understand why people don't worry about the other form factors, but draw the line at the glasses, so help me here. To be clear - I understand why people find being recorded creepy. I don't understand why the glasses form factor is creepy but random cell phone recordings that are shared on th…
Think about the practical aspect of it. I have to point my phone at you to record you. It's really quite conspicuous. It's also mildly inconvenient for me so I won't be doing it the vast majority of the time.
Whereas the glasses point wherever you're looking, are expected to be recording constantly, and are expected to do things with the data involving third parties. It's the same as a VR headset except in that case the expectation is that the footage is neither sent anywhere nor even retained, merely presented live to the user as if he were looking at you (and his face is already point in your direction).