3 ms·

Can we maybe blame the people who use them irresponsibly instead of blaming the technology? These glasses have been a life changer for so many visually impaired

Can we maybe blame the people who use them irresponsibly instead of blaming the technology? These glasses have been a life changer for so many visually impaired people.

graceful6800 2mo ago
Sure, we can all agree that crushing puppies is a bad thing, but you should blame the people using the puppy crusher 9000 to crush puppies and not the technology itself. After all, it's made an amazing profit for shareholders! Sometimes a thing is bad in and of itself. A thing designed specifically and explicitly to do bad things is still bad even if it helps a small number of people.
- syrrim 2mo ago
  I don't think that product exists, and I think an ordinary trash compactor would be far more likely to be used instead. Should we blame the people compressing their garbage for all the people crushing puppies?
  - solarkraft 2mo ago
    If there is a repeated, ongoing problem with a lot of people using the devices to crush puppies, the manufacturers would be expected to come up with ways to make this less likely to happen (safety measures etc). And if that didn’t help, there might be a push to limit access to these machines because clearly a too significant part of the population is unable to use them responsibly.
    - syrrim 2mo ago
      There isn't such a problem, it is at best an incidental use case that has been blown out of proportion. Such glasses would only be useful for illicit purposes in instances where a person is permitted to look at something, but not to photograph it. In such a case, they can be politely requested to remove the glasses, just the same as you would ask someone pointing a smartphone at you to put it down, even if they were just scrolling instagram. It's a non problem that spiraled into a moral panic.
      - voakbasda 2mo ago
        It is not always immediately obvious when someone is wearing a pair versus normal glasses. Certainly not from any real distance.
        syrrim 2mo ago
        Who's taking creep shots from any real distance?
Planktonne 2mo ago
> These glasses have been a life changer for so many visually impaired people. That's not why they're making them though; that's just insincere cover. If they were intended to be assistive devices, the marketing would be totally different.
otterley 2mo ago
The problem is that 99% of people who have them make the rest look bad.
- gmerc 2mo ago
  Metas job is to maximize those 1% because that’s where the business value is. Like every other product they’ve done. 17 strikes policy for grooming for the win.
  - otterley 2mo ago
    The 1% in this case would be those with vision impairment.
    - gmerc 2mo ago
      Lol
mock-possum 2mo ago
Agreed, they’re cool tech that some people are using poorly. It doesn’t deserve the flippant ‘pervert glasses’ nickname.

Can we maybe blame the people who use them irresponsibly instead of blaming the technology? These glasses have been a life changer for so many visually impaired people.

graceful6800 2mo ago

Sure, we can all agree that crushing puppies is a bad thing, but you should blame the people using the puppy crusher 9000 to crush puppies and not the technology itself. After all, it's made an amazing profit for shareholders! Sometimes a thing is bad in and of itself. A thing designed specifically and explicitly to do bad things is still bad even if it helps a small number of people.

syrrim 2mo ago
I don't think that product exists, and I think an ordinary trash compactor would be far more likely to be used instead. Should we blame the people compressing their garbage for all the people crushing puppies?
- solarkraft 2mo ago
  If there is a repeated, ongoing problem with a lot of people using the devices to crush puppies, the manufacturers would be expected to come up with ways to make this less likely to happen (safety measures etc). And if that didn’t help, there might be a push to limit access to these machines because clearly a too significant part of the population is unable to use them responsibly.
  - syrrim 2mo ago
    There isn't such a problem, it is at best an incidental use case that has been blown out of proportion. Such glasses would only be useful for illicit purposes in instances where a person is permitted to look at something, but not to photograph it. In such a case, they can be politely requested to remove the glasses, just the same as you would ask someone pointing a smartphone at you to put it down, even if they were just scrolling instagram. It's a non problem that spiraled into a moral panic.
    - voakbasda 2mo ago
      It is not always immediately obvious when someone is wearing a pair versus normal glasses. Certainly not from any real distance.
      - syrrim 2mo ago
        Who's taking creep shots from any real distance?

Planktonne 2mo ago

> These glasses have been a life changer for so many visually impaired people. That's not why they're making them though; that's just insincere cover. If they were intended to be assistive devices, the marketing would be totally different.

otterley 2mo ago

The problem is that 99% of people who have them make the rest look bad.

gmerc 2mo ago
Metas job is to maximize those 1% because that’s where the business value is. Like every other product they’ve done. 17 strikes policy for grooming for the win.
- otterley 2mo ago
  The 1% in this case would be those with vision impairment.
  - gmerc 2mo ago
    Lol

mock-possum 2mo ago

Agreed, they’re cool tech that some people are using poorly. It doesn’t deserve the flippant ‘pervert glasses’ nickname.