3 ms·

Why is Meta insisting on forcing these "pervert" glasses on us? I can tell you why: advertising. I bet some "pervert" within Meta (may Zuck himself) has already

Why is Meta insisting on forcing these "pervert" glasses on us? I can tell you why: advertising. I bet some "pervert" within Meta (may Zuck himself) has already thought up that whatever you look at will result in you getting an ad for that item. "I see you're looking at a car. How about this new Toyota RAV4?" "I see you're looking at a mobile phone. How about this new Samsung Galaxy Fold which is on sale." "I see you're looking at a cup of coffee. How about this new Latte from Starbucks down the road just a mile from here." Just thinking about it drives me nuts with rage!

abirch 2mo ago
If someone signs in and gives up their privacy, I don't care. Where I do care is when someone with their pervert glasses captures an image of me at my kid's little league game and now I'm getting ads based on that.
- ipaddr 2mo ago
  A little league game has hundreds of people taking pictures and video. Unless your child plays naked there is nothing you can do to stop them. If you really want to stop anyone from seeing your child in public you would need a Burka or don't allow them to be in public. I think you are fighting a losing battle if you choose to allow your kids to enter society.
  - rurp 2mo ago
    Scale matters. Parents taking their phones out to record discrete events in a visible way is one thing, and the data may or may not make its way to Facebook. Parents wearing glasses that record and upload 100% of what they are seeing to Facebook is qualitatively different. Similar to how cops getting a warrant and tapping a single person's phone is different from the government spying on all citizens at all times.
    - ipaddr 2mo ago
      Not sure I see the difference. Family uploads photo to facebook friends and family see and facebook scans their face. Video uploaded to meta platform instagram facebook scans there face and no friends and family see and probably no strangers because its a boring video. Probably safer with a stranger considering children attacked by people they know. People should be more worried at facebook scanning faces and linking photos to real identities.
      - abirch 2mo ago
        The difference is the quantity. Meta has already had a face logging feature in its glasses https://www.wired.com/story/meta-smart-glasses-face-recognition-nametag-connections/ https://www.wired.com/story/meta-smart-glasses-face-recognit... So it'd be less likely that someone would film me and upload it to instagram or facebook.
simonw 2mo ago
It's platform anxiety. Meta are still frustrated that they missed out on controlling the mobile platform and have to pay those 30% fees to Google and Apple. The metaverse was the same thing: they are willing to spend an inordinate amount of money on the chance that something new - in this case face-computers - will be the next big platform.
- djhn 2mo ago
  Meta makes money on advertising. They are not paying 30% fees on ad spend. Meta does lose revenue when Apple and Google introduce privacy features and decrease ad tracking efficacy. They also hate that unlike the web, where their cookies and tracking pixels provided near 100% coverage of your behaviour, on your phone you might be doing something that they can’t log and analyse.
stasomatic 2mo ago
The users are the problem. It's not the same as gun control, but smells a bit similar. Let's revisit this when Apple ships? I wonder what the sentiment will be then. In the meantime, I use the Metas on dog walks, take fast pics of wild life, while biking, things like that, AirPods annoy me even if I own a few pairs. I don't even like the Metas, they are too heavy on the face, they are far from attractive, but they are the only thing of its kind I can buy in the states with my vision insurance (hello, Luxotica and LensCrafters). So please, don't come at me when you see me outside, I'm simply walking my dog.
disqard 2mo ago
I didn't see anyone else link Keiji Matsuda's "Hyper-Reality", so here it is: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YJg02ivYzSs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YJg02ivYzSs
hackeraccount 2mo ago
Meta can't literally force this on people. The idea that looking around would instantiate ads sounds pretty bad. (though the devil's advocate position would be - compare that world to the one we live in today where the ads are viewable to everyone all the time). For that to happen Meta couldn't force people to buy it, the product would have to be so compelling that people wanted it despite that. Think about how good that product would need be?
- hn_submit 2mo ago
  No one is going to buy glasses that only show ads, that's obvious. They'll start out with something useful like glasses that recognize people and show you their public Facebook profile info. Or you look at things and it will identify what it's made of. Or show you a recipe of a dish you see in the restaurant. Later on, when everyone's hooked they'll start showing these "relevant ads" when you look at things. Slowly at first but over time it will become a torrent. I'm going to torch these things publicly in the street if this ever becomes a reality.

abirch 2mo ago

If someone signs in and gives up their privacy, I don't care. Where I do care is when someone with their pervert glasses captures an image of me at my kid's little league game and now I'm getting ads based on that.

ipaddr 2mo ago
A little league game has hundreds of people taking pictures and video. Unless your child plays naked there is nothing you can do to stop them. If you really want to stop anyone from seeing your child in public you would need a Burka or don't allow them to be in public. I think you are fighting a losing battle if you choose to allow your kids to enter society.
- rurp 2mo ago
  Scale matters. Parents taking their phones out to record discrete events in a visible way is one thing, and the data may or may not make its way to Facebook. Parents wearing glasses that record and upload 100% of what they are seeing to Facebook is qualitatively different. Similar to how cops getting a warrant and tapping a single person's phone is different from the government spying on all citizens at all times.
  - ipaddr 2mo ago
    Not sure I see the difference. Family uploads photo to facebook friends and family see and facebook scans their face. Video uploaded to meta platform instagram facebook scans there face and no friends and family see and probably no strangers because its a boring video. Probably safer with a stranger considering children attacked by people they know. People should be more worried at facebook scanning faces and linking photos to real identities.
    - abirch 2mo ago
      The difference is the quantity. Meta has already had a face logging feature in its glasses https://www.wired.com/story/meta-smart-glasses-face-recognition-nametag-connections/ https://www.wired.com/story/meta-smart-glasses-face-recognit... So it'd be less likely that someone would film me and upload it to instagram or facebook.

simonw 2mo ago

It's platform anxiety. Meta are still frustrated that they missed out on controlling the mobile platform and have to pay those 30% fees to Google and Apple. The metaverse was the same thing: they are willing to spend an inordinate amount of money on the chance that something new - in this case face-computers - will be the next big platform.

djhn 2mo ago
Meta makes money on advertising. They are not paying 30% fees on ad spend. Meta does lose revenue when Apple and Google introduce privacy features and decrease ad tracking efficacy. They also hate that unlike the web, where their cookies and tracking pixels provided near 100% coverage of your behaviour, on your phone you might be doing something that they can’t log and analyse.

stasomatic 2mo ago

The users are the problem. It's not the same as gun control, but smells a bit similar. Let's revisit this when Apple ships? I wonder what the sentiment will be then. In the meantime, I use the Metas on dog walks, take fast pics of wild life, while biking, things like that, AirPods annoy me even if I own a few pairs. I don't even like the Metas, they are too heavy on the face, they are far from attractive, but they are the only thing of its kind I can buy in the states with my vision insurance (hello, Luxotica and LensCrafters). So please, don't come at me when you see me outside, I'm simply walking my dog.

disqard 2mo ago

I didn't see anyone else link Keiji Matsuda's "Hyper-Reality", so here it is: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YJg02ivYzSs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YJg02ivYzSs

hackeraccount 2mo ago

Meta can't literally force this on people. The idea that looking around would instantiate ads sounds pretty bad. (though the devil's advocate position would be - compare that world to the one we live in today where the ads are viewable to everyone all the time). For that to happen Meta couldn't force people to buy it, the product would have to be so compelling that people wanted it despite that. Think about how good that product would need be?

hn_submit 2mo ago
No one is going to buy glasses that only show ads, that's obvious. They'll start out with something useful like glasses that recognize people and show you their public Facebook profile info. Or you look at things and it will identify what it's made of. Or show you a recipe of a dish you see in the restaurant. Later on, when everyone's hooked they'll start showing these "relevant ads" when you look at things. Slowly at first but over time it will become a torrent. I'm going to torch these things publicly in the street if this ever becomes a reality.