4 ms·

Tech is so frustrating in real life. I feel like we have all the cool sci fi stuff I always wanted, but everything comes with a monkey's paw style gotcha. The i

• Octoth0rpe 2mo ago
  > I would use them because the company that makes it can’t be trusted. I think this gets at only half of the problem. Not only can meta not be trusted, even if I trust _you_ if you were friend, I wouldn't trust any _other_ random user of such a product. As such, better to not have such a product around.
  • rtkwe 2mo ago
    Correct the issue isn't Meta people just don't like the idea they could be being recorded at any time to get blasted out to the whole world. Yes, in theory you're always open to being recorded in public but the glasses make it far more subtle /and/ up close so more normal interactions become subject to the intrusion in a way that would normally be quite obvious. It's basically the same backlash that hit Google Glass over a decade ago. Nothing has really changed about the product and the reason people reject is so viscerally when they're not the user.
    • jimmydddd 2mo ago
      At my kid's daycare, they sent home an authorization form to allow them to use your kid in pics that might be posted to the internet. Some parents declined out of privacy concerns. Now I guess we are just blasting past all of that. Kind of like AI and copyright.
      • JoeBOFH 2mo ago
        10 years ago we had the same form with my kid’s daycare. They kinda got pissy about it tho as they didn’t want to have to scrub photos they posted to their Facebook and insinuated that your kid may not have as much fun if they have to “separate” them when it comes to photo time. We told em tough don’t use our kid’s photo. So even if institutions implement this kinda thing almost non want to do it.
    • bonoboTP 2mo ago
      Phones already make people much more reserved and less "wild" eg at parties compared to pre-phone-cameras (that are always online and can upload to social media effortlessly).
      • rtkwe 2mo ago
        It's true but phones are much more obvious that you have them out and probably filming where the glasses aren't so can be more controlled and at least reacted to. The glasses create more uncertainty about if the person is filming.
        • bonoboTP 2mo ago
          It's more obvious, but since people use their phones all the time anyway, you really have to look at the angle they hold the phone to be sure. So it's not super hard to be sneaky about it even with a phone.
          • rtkwe 2mo ago
            Most people are pretty obvious about it if you're looking. It's still the fact they could be doing it right in front of you without you knowing that really makes people hate the subtle-camera-on-face-products.
      • wolvoleo 2mo ago
        True, though there's a lot of parties that now ban phones or put stickers on them.
      • specproc 2mo ago
        I've found being over 40 has made me way less wild at parties.
        • harambae 2mo ago
          Skill issue.
    • specproc 2mo ago
      I'm really happy to see this turning out the same way as Glass. It's rare we get serious wins over big tech. It's tough to think of something else that's been so roundly societally rejected, not so much as a bad product, but as something that's loathed so much it has no future.
      • rtkwe 2mo ago
        I wish there was a way to do it without all the problems of having cameras on people's faces. The tech of AR glasses would be pretty neat to get working given I was raised on Sci-fi with visual overlays on people's vision being a pretty common piece of tech. You'd have to trust they couldn't get jailbroken to add recording though even if a company with enough trust made a set with cameras only able to be used by the inside out tracking system.
        • reaperducer 2mo ago
          I wish there was a way to do it without all the problems of having cameras on people's faces. Just make it obvious that they're not ordinary glasses, but recording devices. Not just a tiny LED that can be covered, but something like the camera is on an arm that swings out in front of the wearer so there's no mistaking that a recording is in progress. The fact that they're designed for stealth shows the nefarious intent.
          • rtkwe 2mo ago
            For AR glasses the current best option for tracking is inside out tracking so the camera would basically always be deployed. I don't think we have to go so far as assigning nefarious intent here, there are a lot of reasons they're designed as they are. For example your proposed solution is bulky, expensive and prone to damage, so there's plenty of non-nefarious reasons they don't have it operate that way.
  • fusslo 2mo ago
    I think I agree with this sentiment most. I am having trouble articulating it. I think wearing smart glasses in some situations is on a scale between rude, offensive, and wrong. I think that's what culture teaches us about what is and what isn't acceptable behavior, right? Like some places teach us it's rude to speak over each-other. Here in New England it is rude not to. I am 100% on board with calling smart glasses "Pervert glasses" if worn in situations that call for it
    • adolph 2mo ago
      What situations call for "Pervert glasses?"
      • bluefirebrand 2mo ago
        Wearing them in a locker room or at a pool party or at the beach or really anywhere you might be likely to catch a recording of someone in a state of undress that they wouldn't want you to have a recording of?
        • 8note 2mo ago
          it feels like theyre really designed for people that dont need glasses. i dont want to have a camera stuck to my face that i dont really control in order to see
      • fusslo 2mo ago
        I think maybe I in-artfully wrote it - I mean: there are situations when wearing smart glasses should be labelled 'pervert glasses'. Not that there are situations that require wearing of the glasses
        • valleyer 2mo ago
          They're just being intentionally obtuse.
      • axus 2mo ago
        Active duty police officers. Anything that applies to bodycams should apply to other public recording devices.
• zamadatix 2mo ago
  The glasses & software could have come from the Linux Foundation & the same concerns from people would remain.
  • abirch 2mo ago
    Probably different concerns. If you had a home video and I was in the background I wouldn't care. The odds of anyone recognizing me would be low. If you upload it to anyone using mass AI (YouTube, Meta, etc.) then I care a lot.
    • willtemperley 2mo ago
      I suspect you're not a pretty girl that gets stared at. Neither am I, but if I were I'd rather the stares weren't recordable.
      • alickz 2mo ago
        If I was a pretty girl that gets stared at I think I'd want to record the ones doing the staring People generally commit less crime if they think they're on camera If they do commit a crime, at least there would be video evidence Or if they just want to be creepy, I'd send those stares to their wife Considering motivated perverts would use hidden cameras, as opposed to cameras literally on their face, I think the asymmetry here is in favor of recording the perverts rather than vice versa
        • soraminazuki 2mo ago
          There's plenty of evidence to the contrary, considering that's the same old argument that NRA has been making for our entire lives.
          • alickz 2mo ago
            I think there's a difference between brandishing a weapon and brandishing a recording device Unlike the sword, the camera itself does not incite deeds of violence My understanding at least is that cameras (or even signs) reducing/preventing crime by _some_ amount has been independently corroborated across multiple studies
• daheza 2mo ago
  After covid I forgot the names of coworkers, I'm really bad at remembering them. Having something that could just show me peoples names would be nice. Maybe I'm just a bad person for not remembering them and it could be a nice challenge to my existing social behaviors to ask again. I wouldn't trust meta enough to use these glasses, I dont even use instragram.
  • danparsonson 2mo ago
    I feel you - I've always had a blackspot in my brain for names; I once was showing a new hire around, and about halfway through introducing my colleagues, my brain gave up and I couldn't remember anyone any more. Just awful.
    • Tempest1981 2mo ago
      "I'll let you guys introduce yourselves..."
      • oneeyedpigeon 2mo ago
        Absolutely this. Even better, if you ever find yourself playing one of the "guys" in this situation, just act pre-emptively and introduce yourself!
        • kstrauser 2mo ago
          Works 100% of the time: Extend hand for a handshake. Hey, I'm [name]. We've met before but it's been a while. First, it lets the other person off the hook, because they're almost certainly experiencing the same momentary anxiousness. Second, literally every time I've done this, they've replied like "Hi, nice to talk to you again! And I'm [name]."
          • kyleee 2mo ago
            It does work 100% of the time, but about maybe 5% of the time people are very very slightly annoyed that I’ve assumed they don’t remember my name. So it’s not totally fool proof but agreed it is a great strategy
• karlgkk 2mo ago
  Check out the even reality g2. No camera
  • rapind 2mo ago
    I suspect he wants the AR features (which require a camera). The no camera HUD is exactly what I want, except I also want SSH (Mosh) and sending text to speech to it before I'd buy these.
• andy_ppp 2mo ago
  Why do you want this? I honestly think we’ve completely forgotten how to be present and notice the real world without the idea of augmenting it.
  • jayd16 2mo ago
    Because its cool. I mean, the real answer is that we have the technology to be tech wizards. You could conjure spatially anchored widgets and screens and gauges. You could put a cooking show screen above the stove, where a physical screen wouldn't work. You could put a synced calendar on the wall. Notes app on the fridge, weather reminders by the door. ...a million mundane conveniences in the house alone. But still, its too heavy and to do the spatial anchoring you need a device with a constant camera feed and the only folks who make that at the moment have questionable morals.
    • eldaisfish 2mo ago
      but then you are not present, you are distracted by a computer. Just because that computer does not have a clunky monitor, doesn't mean that you aren't any less distracted. Some of the attitudes on this website, especially ones like yours, are the literal reason we are in this mess today. Please, please, if you have the power, push back on this nonsense from the inside. We need more people talking to other people like real humans, not like notes in a digital diary.
      • jayd16 2mo ago
        Nothing I described replaces or impacts talking to a human. If someone is going to distract themselves in XR, they can already do it more efficiently on a handset. The only change would be your posture and eye strain could possibly improve.
        • eldaisfish 2mo ago
          Why then are you trying to justify invasive hidden cameras in more places? Really, why not just use the existing solutions? This push for « convenience » is how we ended up with microphones in people’s most private spaces. I urge you to consider whether humanity really needs more technological solutions to social problems.
• threethirtytwo 2mo ago
  Bro, read the article. As much as I hate corporations, this is not there fault. It's women who don't like perverts using the glasses and the perverts who use these glasses to look at women. This is a phenomenon among the masses of consumers who use this tech, the corporation has nothing to do with it. In fact the corporation is trying to reign in your freedom to use these tools by stopping this perverted stuff from happening. Blame US, consumers, not our corporate overlords. Here's what I think: I think it is essential to protect freedom of the press and freedom of speech. This is just an unfortunate consequence of those freedoms. If you want to protect womens discomfort then you have to restrict these freedoms. I'm against that. This is an unfortunate situation but the alternative is worse. Because ONCE those rules are in place and codified into law, censorship and freedoms can become bigger and worse. Women just need to deal with it. Assume that whenever you're in a public place, ALL your actions are PUBLIC. A women (and men) should dress and talk in a way conducive to the public arena. Either way, despite what I believe, it's already to late. This freedom is already restricted by Wiretapping law. If someone threatens to kill you and you wiretap it as evidence... that evidence is dismissible in court even after said subject (you) was found dead. We are rapidly moving towards a world where a persons discomfort can control your freedoms and even dictate reality (evidence).
  • dgellow 2mo ago
    What does that have to do with freedom of speech? How is recording people without their consent or knowledge freedom of speech? That sounds absurd to me
    • ipaddr 2mo ago
      The law allows recording of people without consent or knowledge now. From flock cameras to door bell cameras to store cameras your pcture is taken hundreds of times daily. To just restrict glasses can be seen as a freedom of speech issue.
      • oneeyedpigeon 2mo ago
        I'm guessing you're in the US; in the UK, door bell cameras are only legally allowed to film your own property.
• jddj 2mo ago
  I think, sadly, this is the expected result. Imagine if tomorrow we invented ubiquitous instant teleportation to arbitrary locations. There would be a moment where we hear how great it is to eliminate commutes, or air travel, followed shortly afterwards by the collapse of civilisation as societies grapple with the elimination of property, what remains of private space, and so on.
• customguy 2mo ago
  Startup idea: customers give you their Meta glasses, you smash the camera and microphone (with a tiny sledge hammer), and wrap most of the glasses and particularly where mic/camera would have been in a special casing with a very unique and patented design you also make a huge fuss on social media about, so everybody knows it. The wrapper is hard/impossible to remove, only the company can trigger the self-release mechanism, and customers have to sign that they owe you a lot of money when they remove or damage it (which is risky, so they have to be careful or it's their problem). You basically just rent it to them, for lots of money per month, so they can show off their Good Guy Glasses (hey that's actually a name! can I have 10% please if anyone does this, I'll also help out if you want, maybe with the tiny sledge hammer. thanks!). "Oh, you can afford Meta glasses to be a perv? Well, I can't afford the equivalent of a bunch of them every year, but I still do it because I'm a good person." The ad could be some street kid in the rain with some guy (Morgan Freeman maybe) offering to sell it these glasses, saying "you can pay in tiny rates" and whatnot, and the kid just sadly shakes its head.. so the guy goes down on one knee, eye to eye with the kid and says... "When I was your age, I thought everything is about money, too. But some things are about being a good person. If you had a mommy, surely she would want you to be a good person, right?" The kid nods, still hesitates, but by the way the music swells as the ad fades you just know it's gonna be alright.
  • apothegm 2mo ago
    And two months later, knock-offs that leave the camera and mic operable are available for $5 on Temu.
• throwaway_7274 2mo ago
  It’s so interesting to me that there are still so many people who see the monkey’s-paw thing as somehow secondary or incidental, even those who acknowledge that it’s often there! I don’t really understand why this is, or why I feel differently. To me at least, the monkey’s-paw aspect is primary now, to the point that the gee-whiz aspect hardly bears on my thinking at all. I’m not telling you that I think you’re wrong or foolish, to be clear! I just have this different instinct from you, although it sounds like we basically agree on the reflective level. I’m interested in what it is that directs peoples’ attention and interest in such a way that new information technology products pattern-match to “cool, shiny, new, handy, exciting; freedom” or to “dystopian social control, creepy surveillance capitalism; unfreedom.” People have different System 1 intuitions, orthogonal to their System 2 thinking! It’s so weird because I used to be the other way. I can’t put my finger on when or how the phase transition took place in my mind.
  • JKCalhoun 2mo ago
    It's still "be careful what you wish for." We got tech and only then realized all the things that we then lost.
    • throwaway_7274 2mo ago
      Well, you know, it depends on who “we” are! Lots of people predicted what would be lost. I thought many of them were a bit silly for a long time, but they were right in the end. Many others still think they’re a bit silly.
  • noman-land 2mo ago
    The web is truly taken over by the biggest scumbags on the planet preying on the technological naivety of a populous they helped entrap. In the beginning they stepped in with the cloud to bring the "always available" thing to the masses, while simultaneously socially and legally destroying the burgeoning p2p ecosystem. Convenience at the cost of freedom. That had the effect of kneecapping the technological progress and knowhow of ordinary people and has left them trapped on platforms they moved their lives to but are owned by their abusers. The abusers are now in complete control and the abused have no ability to even imagine an alternative. The alternative is to leave these platforms. Form alternate social groups with open technologies that stay resilient to outages and attacks. We don't need the cloud anymore for the vast majority of civic and social life.
• 8note 2mo ago
  i thonk sci-fi was too focused on the tech existing and not enough about what it means to give it to people. black mirror is a breath of fresh air in that, but even that lacks in how to think about how technology and society really interact