3 ms·
The article makes it sound like an ominous surveillance feature with not justifiable product reasons, so I should point out that this powers beneficial features
by wlesieutre 7y ago
The article makes it sound like an ominous surveillance feature with not justifiable product reasons, so I should point out that this powers beneficial features like face recognition for image accessibility. Thanks to face recognition, blind people can know who's in a photo.
https://www.facebook.com/accessibility/videos/new-face-face-recognition-features/1628143837229335/ https://www.facebook.com/accessibility/videos/new-face-face-...
Remove yourself if you want to, but people should be aware there's also a useful side of this.
- JohnFen 7y agoThat there exists useful product reasons is beside the point. The point is that people who don't want their data to be involved should not have their data be involved.
- wlesieutre 7y agoYes, it's good that you can opt out now. But I think articles like this are doing a disservice by glossing over the negative effects of opting out. People choosing to remove their data from this should be aware that if they have visually impaired friends on facebook (or even friends of friends, depending on sharing settings) you will be degrading accessibility features that they probably use. And it's great to let people make their own choice about whether they're OK with Facebook having face recognition of them, but encouraging people to disable it without at least mentioning that image tags are an accessibility feature is a dick move. It's framed as just "this will remove features that you might not care about," but blind people need the image tags more than you do.