3 ms·
if Google Glass had come out later you can be guaranteed that it would've been billed similarly. There is a formula here : Make a product with a semi-useless p
by serf 3y ago
if Google Glass had come out later you can be guaranteed that it would've been billed similarly.
There is a formula here : Make a product with a semi-useless privacy-intrusive camera, when the audience balks at having a camera on it you say "it's AI!" -- suddenly the people in front of the camera seem to stop caring that they have a new angle of the panopticon to avoid.
It's the damnedest thing. my gut feeling is that trick would have worked to make the Glass palatable -- similar tricks worked for the current iteration of VR sets : 'It's okay that the device has six cameras pointed at you recording to god knows where, they're used for tracking.'
the trick being that the tracking included is unlikely to only be your hands/posture/VR-significant things if it stands to produce company X or Y a revenue stream.
- navaed01 3y agoTrue, the utility of a camera draws attention away from any nefarious possibilities. I also think our relationship with cameras is different from when google glasses came out. My seven year old niece will film herself dancing using her mums phone and even though its just recorded to the phone she'll intro the video 'hi everyone', probably from the content she's exposed to, tik tok etc. 'Audience by default'
- JKCalhoun 3y agoAlso, it was Google. I still would not wear something like that if it came from Google (or Meta, or any number of companies that make their money off our data).