5 ms·

In this instance, it's directed at people who are literally at the top of the world, having amassed almost unthinkable power and influence, and want to start a

In this instance, it's directed at people who are literally at the top of the world, having amassed almost unthinkable power and influence, and want to start a fashion trend specifically to grow their business empires. So yeah, it's a tiny bit different than bullying a classmate for having bad eyesight.

BeetleB 4mo ago
> it's directed at people who are literally at the top of the world The very first sentence in the article associates people who wear these with "pervs". So no, this is not merely directed at "the top of the world". As an aside: VRs were "the cool thing" in the 90's and 00's. They never became practical, and fell out of favor. "Normal" people never stopped mocking those who used them. Now that Meta has made glasses that actually come close to looking normal, tech folks mock back ...? I just don't get it. Yes, I get all the privacy concerns. But making fun because of very subjective reasons like appearance? It undercuts all the privacy concerns. People need to grow up.
- bigfishrunning 4mo ago
  This would be a great argument if there were any non-pervy application for these glasses. They're marketed at people who already have screens and better cameras in their pockets and on their wrists. "Clandestine" use cases are the only application here.
  - Brendinooo 4mo ago
    Ugh, trying not to get baited into stuff like this but - There are absolutely non-pervy reasons why your hands might be occupied but you want to record a video.
    - bigfishrunning 4mo ago
      This is why gopros exist.
      - Brendinooo 4mo ago
        I mean, this is logically no different than saying that we shouldn't use smartphone cameras because DSLRs exist.
        queenkjuul 4mo ago
        Ah yes, because DSLRs are hands free?
        bigfishrunning 4mo ago
        It is, because when you're using a smartphone camera you're not trying to hide the fact that you're filming, or at least it's harder to do so. There are already ways to film without having to hold a camera, and those ways produce a better product. The advantage of the glasses is you can be a creep but be less obvious about it.
        Brendinooo 4mo ago
        - glasses are only for "clandestine" use - any use case I could suggest will be dismissed because other tools exist - those tools are "better" partly because they're not covert - which re-asserts that covertness is the glasses' only distinguishing feature - therefore the only use is being a creep Am I reading this right? If so, it's circular, and I don't think I can do much more than just point that out.
    - preg_match 4mo ago
      I agree but I also feel like surely these are so few and far between that no reasonable person would introduce a new tech device into their day-to-day wear for this purpose? You really just don’t require constant recording of your surroundings, in a way that is not socially acceptable, in order to get around your hands being full. In the situations where we DO need that capability, we already have solutions, like go pros. What makes this different is that these are for all the time, and targeted at candid strangers in public. Not, like, the mountain bike path. So, to me, that makes them fundamentally perverted.
  - BeetleB 4mo ago
    > This would be a great argument if there were any non-pervy application for these glasses. Have you even bothered researching it? Can you please go and respond to the comments in this submission and let them know you are denying their reality?
    - bigfishrunning 4mo ago
      Use a GoPro or something. You'll get better quality video and you won't look like you're trying to hide the fact that you're filming.
      - BeetleB 4mo ago
        So it's clear you're not going to bother researching into why people use it.
        bigfishrunning 4mo ago
        No, I don't need to research it. I have all the evidence I need.
- queenkjuul 4mo ago
  > The very first sentence in the article associates people who wear these with "pervs". But they're literally the target market. Nobody else needs a hidden camera on their face.

BeetleB 4mo ago

> it's directed at people who are literally at the top of the world The very first sentence in the article associates people who wear these with "pervs". So no, this is not merely directed at "the top of the world". As an aside: VRs were "the cool thing" in the 90's and 00's. They never became practical, and fell out of favor. "Normal" people never stopped mocking those who used them. Now that Meta has made glasses that actually come close to looking normal, tech folks mock back ...? I just don't get it. Yes, I get all the privacy concerns. But making fun because of very subjective reasons like appearance? It undercuts all the privacy concerns. People need to grow up.

bigfishrunning 4mo ago
This would be a great argument if there were any non-pervy application for these glasses. They're marketed at people who already have screens and better cameras in their pockets and on their wrists. "Clandestine" use cases are the only application here.
- Brendinooo 4mo ago
  Ugh, trying not to get baited into stuff like this but - There are absolutely non-pervy reasons why your hands might be occupied but you want to record a video.
  - bigfishrunning 4mo ago
    This is why gopros exist.
    - Brendinooo 4mo ago
      I mean, this is logically no different than saying that we shouldn't use smartphone cameras because DSLRs exist.
      - queenkjuul 4mo ago
        Ah yes, because DSLRs are hands free?
      - bigfishrunning 4mo ago
        It is, because when you're using a smartphone camera you're not trying to hide the fact that you're filming, or at least it's harder to do so. There are already ways to film without having to hold a camera, and those ways produce a better product. The advantage of the glasses is you can be a creep but be less obvious about it.
        Brendinooo 4mo ago
        - glasses are only for "clandestine" use - any use case I could suggest will be dismissed because other tools exist - those tools are "better" partly because they're not covert - which re-asserts that covertness is the glasses' only distinguishing feature - therefore the only use is being a creep Am I reading this right? If so, it's circular, and I don't think I can do much more than just point that out.
  - preg_match 4mo ago
    I agree but I also feel like surely these are so few and far between that no reasonable person would introduce a new tech device into their day-to-day wear for this purpose? You really just don’t require constant recording of your surroundings, in a way that is not socially acceptable, in order to get around your hands being full. In the situations where we DO need that capability, we already have solutions, like go pros. What makes this different is that these are for all the time, and targeted at candid strangers in public. Not, like, the mountain bike path. So, to me, that makes them fundamentally perverted.
- BeetleB 4mo ago
  > This would be a great argument if there were any non-pervy application for these glasses. Have you even bothered researching it? Can you please go and respond to the comments in this submission and let them know you are denying their reality?
  - bigfishrunning 4mo ago
    Use a GoPro or something. You'll get better quality video and you won't look like you're trying to hide the fact that you're filming.
    - BeetleB 4mo ago
      So it's clear you're not going to bother researching into why people use it.
      - bigfishrunning 4mo ago
        No, I don't need to research it. I have all the evidence I need.
queenkjuul 4mo ago
> The very first sentence in the article associates people who wear these with "pervs". But they're literally the target market. Nobody else needs a hidden camera on their face.