531–540 of 870 posts
Page title - Meta’s AI Smart Glasses and Data Privacy Concerns: Workers Say “We See Everything” Original HN title - The workers behind Meta’s smart glasses can see everything Editorialized HN title v1, 7 hours after post - A hidden workforce behind Meta’s new smart glasses Editorialized HN title v2 - Meta’s AI smart glasses and data privacy concerns
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…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Terms like "hidden" and "see everything" are in a title are clickbait. That's why the title would have been changed. I've changed it again to match the article's original title, removing the clickbait part.
> Terms like "hidden" and "see everything" are in a title are clickbait. The one containing "hidden" is the one you apparently changed it to originally - I don't think GP can, nor has any reason to - so you initially changed it to.. clickbait? It seems a serious reach to call "see everything" clickbait. > First-ever in-utero stem cell therapy for fetal spina bifida repair is safe, study finds Currently 9th on the fro…
OK I've looked in the logs and here's what happened.
The originally submitted title was: The workers behind Meta’s smart glasses can see everything.
That title was created by the submitter; it's not the original title and it's not a verbatim line of text from anywhere in the article.
It's also, arguably, clickbait, which I gather is why another moderator changed it to: A hidden workforce behind Meta’s new smart glasses.
Their intention was to make the title less baity and be closer to a verbatim line from the article (a line in the subheading is "Behind Meta’s new smart glasses lies a hidden workforce").
That's what triggered all the complaints.
I then changed it to a title that is a verbatim string from the HTML title, with the baity part at the end removed. That is bog standard title editing of the kind I've done every day for the several years I've been doing this job.
> First-ever in-utero stem cell therapy for fetal spina bifida repair is safe, study finds
"Is safe" is not an absolutist claim, but even since your comment was submitted, another moderator has – correctly – changed "first-ever" to "first", because "first-ever" is absolutist and baity.
> The large number of replies this renaming got in a short timeframe is because it's not in line with what we're used to when it comes to title changes on HN.
What I've described above is what HN moderators do several times each day. I think the reaction to this one is because it's a topic that inherently gets people riled up (understandably), and people's riled-up-ness will spill over to any perception that we're "suppressing" the story. But we're not suppressing the story; it is still at top spot, and it will stay on the front page for several hours and everyone will have every chance to read it and discuss it.
The title we've arrived at now is the one that's most consistent with the guidelines.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I never understand why a company would put something like this in writing. I worked at a midsize financial company before and whenever there was something even approaching a legal or ethical grey area, we'd pick up the phone and say come to my office to talk, and then you'd close the door. We weren't doing anything nearly as nefarious as Meta, yet everyone was always aware that email and phone conversations were reco…
When you have no fear about repercussions of being caught. Case in point, nothing will happen about this.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
While I'd like to agree with you, and do in some cases, there are many cases where this just isn't a feasible approach. For example, a peer coworker has a pair of these. I just don't interact with her while she is wearing them. If my boss were to get a pair there is no way I can justify slapping them off his face.
They're incredibly popular in the blind community, and for good reason. I think even the political activists will be extremely divided on this one. You have privacy on one hand, accessibility and a genuinely life-changing technology on the other.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Are there any less obviously aggressive tactics we can use? Wear something that is blinding to the cameras, or something else to obfuscate?
I've always wanted to sew very bright IR LEDs into a hat that would blind a camera. Your face would naturally be shadowed by the bill of the hat as that's its intended purpose. The IR would hopefully make the camera want to adjust shutter speed and gain/ISO while assuming a fixed aperture lens.
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…
But there is total transparency though? Meta is using all your data, always. And the harder they say they’re not, the sneakier they’re doing it.
Page title - Meta’s AI Smart Glasses and Data Privacy Concerns: Workers Say “We See Everything” Original HN title - The workers behind Meta’s smart glasses can see everything Editorialized HN title v1, 7 hours after post - A hidden workforce behind Meta’s new smart glasses Editorialized HN title v2 - Meta’s AI smart glasses and data privacy concerns
I find v2 title okay-ish: it’s derived from the page title, and you can see what it’s about (as compared to v1). It doesn’t capture the degree of what Meta can see, though.
Meta aims to introduce facial recognition to its smart glasses while its biggest critics are distracted, according to a report from The New York Times. In an internal document reviewed by The Times, Meta says it will launch the feature “during a dynamic political environment where many civil society groups that we would expect to attack us would have their resources focused on other concerns.” https://www.theverge.co…
I never understand why a company would put something like this in writing. I worked at a midsize financial company before and whenever there was something even approaching a legal or ethical grey area, we'd pick up the phone and say come to my office to talk, and then you'd close the door. We weren't doing anything nearly as nefarious as Meta, yet everyone was always aware that email and phone conversations were reco…
Do you believe these companies and individuals will ever see consequences for putting this in writing? I don't think they will, and I assume they believe the same based on their actions. Why waste time being "moral" when you don't lose anything for being immoral and stand to gain something if your gamble wins?
I mean, there's a whole philosophical outlook about being a good person and some people just want to do without needing enforcement, but those people also dont tend to become one of the largest corporations on the planet.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You keep restating that Meta employees are enormously privileged as though that contradicts me. It doesn't - it's the premise . The entire phenomenon I'm describing, in response to "I cannot comprehend why", is that privilege and felt optionality are different things, and the gap between them is where people get stuck.
So what you have over them isn't freedom of choice, it's knowledge of your freedom of choice. That's a very important difference.