4 ms·

I’ll never forget the time I wore google glass to a bar in Palo Alto and a very annoyed bartender told me to take them off. I wasn’t even using them for video o

by madrox 5y ago

I’ll never forget the time I wore google glass to a bar in Palo Alto and a very annoyed bartender told me to take them off. I wasn’t even using them for video or picture taking, which I wanted to explain but he had no patience for. Maybe attitudes have changed but I can’t imagine it going much better.

motohagiography 5y ago
The world just wasn't ready for glassholes. I remember those and thinking how alien someone's socialization would need to be to consider recording in strange peoples faces to be appropriate, but now that we are just getting comfortable with totalitarianism, they can do their part and keep society safe from people with personal boundaries. Nobody is ever recorded in public to exonerate them. The idea someone could have an objection to carrying firearms as public aggression but not see how recording people is effectively brandishing with an implied threat is going to be one of those things we will look back and laugh at.
- madrox 5y ago
  Tell that to everyone who saw the George Floyd video. I watched an excellent interview with Khary Payton where my ideas on surveillance really changed. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=GnZ1HCRqdB4 https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=GnZ1HCRqdB4 I think socially there’s a difference at play between recording in general and headwear for it, specifically.
- 10x-dev 5y ago
  I personally separate things into different categories. Weapons that can be used to kill me are in a different category from dogs that can bite me, from phones that can take pictures of me and from glasses that can film me. People will attempt to blur the lines between adjacent categories to argue their point, but you're going from the first straight to the last, skipping over everything in the middle. That's what I call 'a stretch'.
  - motohagiography 5y ago
    I'd argue that's a false dichotomy. They are both expressions of unprovoked aggression. The difference is one has clear conseqeunces, the other is a vague threat of blackmail without an expiry. Low level violence and physicality used to snap people who exploited this latter nerd version back into moderation, but now terrible people have become sacred cows, and here we are.
HWR_14 5y ago
> I wasn’t even using them for video or picture taking, which I wanted to explain but he had no patience for. I would have also asked you to take them off. For one, normalizing wearing them even if not recording is a step towards normalizing them at all. For another, I don't really trust you when you say they're not recording. I remember having to alter my paths through crowds to avoid glassholes back then, and I don't want to go back. Why would you even want to wear it in a bar? > Maybe attitudes have changed but I can’t imagine it going much better. I hope attitudes haven't changed. I hope people still ostracize beaming pictures of everyone around them into the cloud without consent.

by madrox 5y ago

motohagiography 5y ago

The world just wasn't ready for glassholes. I remember those and thinking how alien someone's socialization would need to be to consider recording in strange peoples faces to be appropriate, but now that we are just getting comfortable with totalitarianism, they can do their part and keep society safe from people with personal boundaries. Nobody is ever recorded in public to exonerate them. The idea someone could have an objection to carrying firearms as public aggression but not see how recording people is effectively brandishing with an implied threat is going to be one of those things we will look back and laugh at.

madrox 5y ago
Tell that to everyone who saw the George Floyd video. I watched an excellent interview with Khary Payton where my ideas on surveillance really changed. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=GnZ1HCRqdB4 https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=GnZ1HCRqdB4 I think socially there’s a difference at play between recording in general and headwear for it, specifically.
10x-dev 5y ago
I personally separate things into different categories. Weapons that can be used to kill me are in a different category from dogs that can bite me, from phones that can take pictures of me and from glasses that can film me. People will attempt to blur the lines between adjacent categories to argue their point, but you're going from the first straight to the last, skipping over everything in the middle. That's what I call 'a stretch'.
- motohagiography 5y ago
  I'd argue that's a false dichotomy. They are both expressions of unprovoked aggression. The difference is one has clear conseqeunces, the other is a vague threat of blackmail without an expiry. Low level violence and physicality used to snap people who exploited this latter nerd version back into moderation, but now terrible people have become sacred cows, and here we are.

HWR_14 5y ago

> I wasn’t even using them for video or picture taking, which I wanted to explain but he had no patience for. I would have also asked you to take them off. For one, normalizing wearing them even if not recording is a step towards normalizing them at all. For another, I don't really trust you when you say they're not recording. I remember having to alter my paths through crowds to avoid glassholes back then, and I don't want to go back. Why would you even want to wear it in a bar? > Maybe attitudes have changed but I can’t imagine it going much better. I hope attitudes haven't changed. I hope people still ostracize beaming pictures of everyone around them into the cloud without consent.