> If you can't be bothered to have your camera on in meetings then you probably shouldn't be in that meeting in the first place. I don't understand how this co

> If you can't be bothered to have your camera on in meetings then you probably shouldn't be in that meeting in the first place. I don't understand how this could possibly be justified. We used to have conference calls all the time, they did seem to work so we kept having them... it's just that everyone has cameras now. I don't understand why some people feel the need to harass people to turn their cameras on. Is there some kind of business reason why the cameras need to be turned on? Or is it just preference? > There is nothing more annoying than to have an in-person meeting from the past devolve into staring at a wall of stills or icons and then to figure out who says what and to keep a conversation going. That's an interesting experience, I wonder why that's happening to your team. This does not match my experience with voice-only calls. There are valid reasons to ask people to turn their cameras on, and there are reasonable policies for using cameras in meetings, but it doesn't seem to me that an "always use cameras" or "never use cameras" policy is going to work as well as a more flexible policy. Even interviews--I've done interviews both over voice and with a camera, and I've never felt like the camera gave me some significant benefit... either as interviewer or candidate. There are definitely exceptions, like for people who are partially deaf, but in general it's better to be flexible. People have different preferences and the interaction tends to go more smoothly if you're not a stickler for keeping your camera one way or another.