7 ms·

Currently there's a massive, and understandable, backlash against the Meta/Ray-Ban glasses, but I can't understand how it's not absolutely destroying the Ray-Ba

Currently there's a massive, and understandable, backlash against the Meta/Ray-Ban glasses, but I can't understand how it's not absolutely destroying the Ray-Ban brand? Influencers and stores are damaging their brands by selling or advertising the glasses, but Ray-Ban seems to go completely free. I do wonder if we're just moving to shun people wearing glasses with heavy frames in the near future. The glass only seems to appeal to a certain type of people anyway.

Jcowell 2mo ago
Penalty because it’s based on what people think when they see them. They don’t say Meta Raybands but just Meta glasses. If influential people were to start saying the former enough that it becomes then martins. Also is the question of do other Rayband glasses look like it. If this line is distinct enough than it won’t harm other lines since the visual association isn’t made.
pj_mukh 2mo ago
>> "The glass only seems to appeal to a certain type of people anyway." What type of people is that? I am just a dad who has them and films his kids doing cute things without making the phone camera an ever present intrusion while outdoors. It's fine, it's Meta, suspicion is warranted, but I'm hoping it can be moderated and directed. People like me are kind of left out right now in what seems to be a runaway narrative. P.S: Would love a suggestion that doesn't involve angrily telling parents to not take pictures of their kids as an alternative. It sucks that I have to explain that this will be happening anyway.
- MattDaEskimo 2mo ago
  Because you're not _just_ recording your kids. You are a walking surveillance camera that nobody has consented to.
  - pj_mukh 2mo ago
    Which is true for all parents recording all kids with every kind of camera, also in a way that is totally un-actionable. Good faith question: If your worry is, "I don't know you're recording", what did you do with that information when someone was using a digital camera to video record their kids 15 years ago, with you in the background? P.S: if your answer is just "you could be a creep", I totally empathize, but this is for the situation where I am actually just a parent.
    - everdrive 2mo ago
      My phone's camera is not playing all the time and doesn't send the data to Meta. It just records a file locally, it's not the same at all.
      - pj_mukh 2mo ago
        That's..exactly how the Meta glasses work :/, and there has been no evidence otherwise so far. Would love to see it if I missed this.
        snailmailman 2mo ago
        There have already been stories about meta contractors being able to watch the footage people are recording with the glasses. Recordings included people undressing, on the toilet, and other explicit stuff. https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/meta-workers-seeing-disturbing-things-222335890.html https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/meta-workers-seeing-dist...
        pj_mukh 2mo ago
        Yes, That’s an opt-in feature. You can record all the footage you want and keep it on your phone, and they won’t see any of it, unless you ask for it be analyzed by their AI (as laid out in the article you shared). Of course if there was evidence they’re doing it when I haven’t opted in I’d dump em. It’s made clear during onboarding, but I’m sure it could be better.
  - TiredOfLife 2mo ago
    Everybody has been a walking surveilance camera for at least 26 years if not much longer
    - ben_w 2mo ago
      Walking microphone at best, though I think not "everyone" until early 2010s. Given pockets, I don't think the camera part has ever been an "everyone"-level problem.
- plagiarist 2mo ago
  You say suspicion is warranted, you're still not only charging forward with this but also complaining about other people's perception of you doing so. You're not being left out, you're included in the narrative. You just don't like it. I hope, for the kids' sake, in addition to normalizing the idea that it's okay for dad to be recording them without their awareness, you teach them that most people find the idea of strangers doing this to be creepy and distasteful (for good reason), so they need to be wary around Meta glasses despite seeing them as a quotidian thing.
  - pj_mukh 2mo ago
    If you gave me a non-Meta glass like this, I'd happily switch, and FWIW, if I saw some evidence of Meta doing something untoward with this data, I'd dump them immediately. An unaction'd patent and breathless headlines over "creep glasses" is all I have to go on for now. "in addition to normalizing the idea that it's okay for dad to be recording them without their awareness" They're 2 man. You're at the point of questioning whether parents should be allowed to film their infants. Do we think we're off the deep end a bit?
    - zaphod12 2mo ago
      It's meta - they've been caught doing untoward things at virtually every opportunity. Are you looking for something specific, like the creation of virtual CSAM with them or something? I'm fine with starting out by giving people/companies the benefit of the doubt I guess, but once they have shown you their true colors, you should listen.
      - pj_mukh 2mo ago
        >>like the creation of virtual CSAM with them You think Meta is going to create CSAM with my data? Like I would dump them for using my data for analytics without my permission, but we probably should recalibrate our expectations a bit here.
        r_lee 2mo ago
- everyone 2mo ago
  So its either the "ever present intrusion" of camera or the ever present intrusion of the glasses? Cant you just live your fucking life without recording everything?
- everdrive 2mo ago
  You liberty is worth nothing. You could hold a camera in your hands. Get a go-pro that records locally, or choose any other option. But nope, you're hoping you can record your child, put their faces in a recognition database associate precise location data, and then hope that Meta does not use this data in ways you don't approve of. (or merely sell it to an endless string of data brokers)
  - pj_mukh 2mo ago
    "put their faces in a recognition database" Just so we're clear and can read past the headlines. This database doesn't exist and there has been no evidence that a database built off of meta ray-bans exists. And I would obviously dump the ray bans if this was actually a thing.
    - codeduck 2mo ago
      Doesn't it? The technology exists to build it. The pipelines exist to populate it. The marketing engine exists to leverage it for targeted delivery of content. And yet, somehow, nobody's built it? How sure are you of that?
      - pj_mukh 2mo ago
        How would it be monetized? And if it has been, where can I buy this? And if you can't doesn't that make you question your assumptions?
        ben_w 2mo ago
        > How would it be monetized? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Facebook https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Facebook > And if it has been, where can I buy this? Depending on your preference: their advertising portal, or a stock broker.
      - r_lee 2mo ago
        and the technology exists to spy on everything you do in every single way, ignore gdpr, ignore all kinds of privacy acts, in fact you can also stalk people and find out where they live and break into their homes and look through their stuff and plant hidden cameras and other fun stuff you can do that, but you have no clue as to why people/companies don't tend to do those things?
- sldjfkdsljffkjd 2mo ago
  To say a phone is intrusive but Meta glasses are not is an interesting choice of words. As a parent, I get what you mean but as a privacy aware member of the tech community I think the word you want is "disruptive" or "distracting."
- hamdingers 2mo ago
  > without making the phone camera an ever present intrusion while outdoors You don't have to be constantly filming your kids, that's optional. This is a cute spin, but what you're saying is "I like the glasses because I can film people without them knowing" it just happens the people in this case are (mostly) your children.
  - pj_mukh 2mo ago
    >> what you're saying is "I like the knives because I can cut things" it just happens the "things" in this case are (mostly) your vegetables. Again, I'm not saying this out of some bad faith, I just think this argument doesn't work the way you think it does. We actually have no data as to what its most commonly used for, apart from the headlines. Anecdotally, all my friends who have them use it for the exact same reason I do.
    - hamdingers 2mo ago
      Good analogy. If there was a tool that could do everything a knife can do without being able to cut people, knives wouldn't be nearly as common and anyone who insisted on carrying one in public would be suspect. "I need it to cut vegetables," would not be a reasonable excuse, because there's an alternative. There is an alternative to your stealthy camera glasses, which you are aware of, and your admitted use case for them is filming people who are unaware that you are filming. Yet you can't imagine other people use them for the same purpose? I'm trying to assume good faith but you're not making it easy.
      - pj_mukh 2mo ago
        "your admitted use case is filming people who are unaware you are filming" For the record the "people" here is my 2 year old. And I'm the one making a bad faith argument?
        hamdingers 2mo ago
        So because you use them to stealthily film your 2 year old, there's no way other people use them to stealthy film other people in less acceptable ways? This confirms it, you're being deliberately obtuse.
- HWR_14 2mo ago
  Why shouldn't I tell you not to take pictures of your kids. They're too young to opt into having their faces enrolled in Zuck's facial recognition database.
  - pj_mukh 2mo ago
    What database is that? If your claim is to not post it on Facebook, I agree.
    - HWR_14 2mo ago
      Meta has a history of siphoning any data they technically can. Do you really think those "local only" photographs are going to remain so? There will never be a point where you miss the EULA change and don't opt out in the 45 seconds before the data are all uploaded?
      - pj_mukh 2mo ago
        They have to notify me of the EULA change. Like I said there’s an army of journalists watching Zuckerberg type every key on his keyboard right now. I’m not feeling bad for him, but I’m also betting he’s not about to do something stupid like that.
        HWR_14 2mo ago
        I would not trust my kids safety to "Zuckerberg will be restrained by the possibility of bad press". And at this point, let me say you seem to care about your kids and probably have the technical skills and attention to make sure they never end up in his database. But you are an exception, and society needs to protect the children of parents who care less.
summermusic 2mo ago
It's especially frustrating because the Ray-Ban logo no longer indicates quality or exclusivity: They were acquired by Luxottica Group in 1999.
dimitrios1 2mo ago
Luxottica, the owners of Ray-Ban since 1999, realized after they survived the expose on their blatant monopolistic price gouging that none of this sticks. People just see something they recognize and go with it.
- ben_w 2mo ago
  Counterpoint: Burberry. Early 2000s, for variety of reasons, their iconic check pattern got associated with cheapness and violence. Being expensive means your more exclusive. Being creepy, I don't see that helping.
rapnie 2mo ago
Anecdotal but I hear quite a few people talk negative about Ray-Ban related to the backlash. They are the "pervert glasses" brand now. I think there definitely is reputation damage. Also the "banray" [0] campaign for my country is doing well I think (I regularly see their stickers), and this name reversal may also harm the brand if it sticks. [0] https://banray.eu/en/ https://banray.eu/en/
andsoitis 2mo ago
> I do wonder if we're just moving to shun people wearing glasses with heavy frames in the near future. The glass only seems to appeal to a certain type of people anyway. That's ridiculous.
- ben_w 2mo ago
  As are most fashions; this by itself is not enough for me to think the hypothetical less likely than any alternative.
andsoitis 2mo ago
> but I can't understand how it's not absolutely destroying the Ray-Ban brand? > Ray-Ban seems to go completely free. because reasonable adults can distinguish between Meta and Ray-Ban.
- EGreg 2mo ago
  Reminds me of this: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/oct/17/billy-bush-fired-nbc-donald-trump-tape-groping-women-leaked https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/oct/17/billy-bush-f... Donald Trump - becomes president, after all it was just “locker room talk” Billy Bush - career destroyed for passively chuckling
  - andsoitis 2mo ago
    I don't get the analogy.
- Tadpole9181 2mo ago
  Ray-Ban is choosing to produce these in a partnership. They don't have to participate and by doing so they're guaranteeing they exist and profiting from the bad behavior. And even making them more stylish and therefore more appealing. A "reasonable adult" would have no trouble understanding why someone who thinks the existence of these glasses is a moral and privacy nightmare would also seek to punish Ray-Ban.
  - andsoitis 2mo ago
    Well, if the average consumer isn’t revolting against Ray-Ban, maybe your premise is mistaken.
    - Tadpole9181 2mo ago
      My idea that adults can understand other people's ideas is mistaken because the average consumer is a hedonist that doesn't care about ideals? Not exactly sure how that tracks, but okay, bud.
    - 2mo ago
geodel 2mo ago
Well, RayBan was junk brand in 90s, if it becomes junk it would be just fine.
apercu 2mo ago
I had my ray-ban sunglasses stolen this summer. I replaced them with a brand I was able to confirm was a) Not Ray Ban b) Not a Luxotica brand. c) Owned and operated in America (note, that doesn't mean the glasses were made in USA). d) Cost less than 1/4 of previous ray-bans.
taurath 2mo ago
People still keep using Instagram and X and until that changes there is no backlash. Customers and users have signaled over and over there is nothing that can be done to make them leave, so Mark and Elon get to do whatever they want.
aanet 2mo ago
Don't forget, Facebook (Meta) owns 3% of Ray-Ban's parent Luxottica group [1]. They clearly are exerting control over the future direction. Regardless of what THEY do, what WE as consumers can do is to permanently brand these awful glasses as "pervert glasses" [2] and publicly shame them. I'm here for it. [1] https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/meta-takes-around-3-stake-ray-ban-parent-essilorluxottica-source-says-2025-07-08/ https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/meta-takes-around-3-sta... [2] https://futurism.com/future-society/meta-ray-ban-smart-pervert-glasses https://futurism.com/future-society/meta-ray-ban-smart-perve...
- dylan604 2mo ago
  I didn't know about Meta's ownership. I would love to see some internal discussion if Ray-Ban pushed back and was overridden and forced to make the product.
reaperducer 2mo ago
Currently there's a massive, and understandable, backlash against the Meta/Ray-Ban glasses Is there? "Massive?" Outside of HN and a few tech pubs read by a statistically insignificant number of people, 99.9995% of people don't even know these exist.
- john_strinlai 2mo ago
  out of all of the semi/actually-obscure issues that people on HN talk about, meta glasses are not really all that obscure. my local gym has posters up forbidding them. my non-tech daughter has asked me about them. the college i teach at has policies about them. their banned in courts in various countries. they've been criticized in mainstream outlets like the guardian, BBC, CNN, business insider, national post, yahoo, and the independent. (i dont think any of those outlets are reasonably considered "tech pubs read by a statistically insignificant number of people")
  - ben_w 2mo ago
    > considered "tech pubs read by a statistically insignificant number of people" Thinking of pubs in a different sense of the word, even Wetherspoons has opinions about them: https://www.lbc.co.uk/article/wetherspoons-bans-meta-glasses-in-pubs-amid-privacy-concerns-5HjdfkH_2/ https://www.lbc.co.uk/article/wetherspoons-bans-meta-glasses...
- rangerelf 2mo ago
  You're mistaken; in my family _everyone_ has heard of and read about the "creepo glasses" and that they're associated with Facebook, and want absolutely nothing to do with them or anybody who would voluntarily wear them. Plus, they have zero problem telling anyone wearing those glasses around them to either take them off or leave. Yes, I would consider that "massive" since none of them are HN readers nor work in any tech or media related fields.
- dTal 2mo ago
  useful heuristic: every comment I've seen with excessive 9s was nonsense You really think if I asked 200,000 people in my city, only one would have heard of Meta RayBans? when there are billboards, magazine ads, and window stickers in every glasses store? Couldn't tell you the real number but it's probably closer to 1 in 5. Not uncommon, in comments like these, for there to be so many 9s that the population of Earth is exceeded.
HWR_14 2mo ago
It might be destroying the brand, but does anyone care?

Jcowell 2mo ago

Penalty because it’s based on what people think when they see them. They don’t say Meta Raybands but just Meta glasses. If influential people were to start saying the former enough that it becomes then martins. Also is the question of do other Rayband glasses look like it. If this line is distinct enough than it won’t harm other lines since the visual association isn’t made.

pj_mukh 2mo ago

>> "The glass only seems to appeal to a certain type of people anyway." What type of people is that? I am just a dad who has them and films his kids doing cute things without making the phone camera an ever present intrusion while outdoors. It's fine, it's Meta, suspicion is warranted, but I'm hoping it can be moderated and directed. People like me are kind of left out right now in what seems to be a runaway narrative. P.S: Would love a suggestion that doesn't involve angrily telling parents to not take pictures of their kids as an alternative. It sucks that I have to explain that this will be happening anyway.

MattDaEskimo 2mo ago
Because you're not _just_ recording your kids. You are a walking surveillance camera that nobody has consented to.
- pj_mukh 2mo ago
  Which is true for all parents recording all kids with every kind of camera, also in a way that is totally un-actionable. Good faith question: If your worry is, "I don't know you're recording", what did you do with that information when someone was using a digital camera to video record their kids 15 years ago, with you in the background? P.S: if your answer is just "you could be a creep", I totally empathize, but this is for the situation where I am actually just a parent.
  - everdrive 2mo ago
    My phone's camera is not playing all the time and doesn't send the data to Meta. It just records a file locally, it's not the same at all.
    - pj_mukh 2mo ago
      That's..exactly how the Meta glasses work :/, and there has been no evidence otherwise so far. Would love to see it if I missed this.
      - snailmailman 2mo ago
        There have already been stories about meta contractors being able to watch the footage people are recording with the glasses. Recordings included people undressing, on the toilet, and other explicit stuff. https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/meta-workers-seeing-disturbing-things-222335890.html https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/meta-workers-seeing-dist...
        pj_mukh 2mo ago
        Yes, That’s an opt-in feature. You can record all the footage you want and keep it on your phone, and they won’t see any of it, unless you ask for it be analyzed by their AI (as laid out in the article you shared). Of course if there was evidence they’re doing it when I haven’t opted in I’d dump em. It’s made clear during onboarding, but I’m sure it could be better.
- TiredOfLife 2mo ago
  Everybody has been a walking surveilance camera for at least 26 years if not much longer
  - ben_w 2mo ago
    Walking microphone at best, though I think not "everyone" until early 2010s. Given pockets, I don't think the camera part has ever been an "everyone"-level problem.
plagiarist 2mo ago
You say suspicion is warranted, you're still not only charging forward with this but also complaining about other people's perception of you doing so. You're not being left out, you're included in the narrative. You just don't like it. I hope, for the kids' sake, in addition to normalizing the idea that it's okay for dad to be recording them without their awareness, you teach them that most people find the idea of strangers doing this to be creepy and distasteful (for good reason), so they need to be wary around Meta glasses despite seeing them as a quotidian thing.
- pj_mukh 2mo ago
  If you gave me a non-Meta glass like this, I'd happily switch, and FWIW, if I saw some evidence of Meta doing something untoward with this data, I'd dump them immediately. An unaction'd patent and breathless headlines over "creep glasses" is all I have to go on for now. "in addition to normalizing the idea that it's okay for dad to be recording them without their awareness" They're 2 man. You're at the point of questioning whether parents should be allowed to film their infants. Do we think we're off the deep end a bit?
  - zaphod12 2mo ago
    It's meta - they've been caught doing untoward things at virtually every opportunity. Are you looking for something specific, like the creation of virtual CSAM with them or something? I'm fine with starting out by giving people/companies the benefit of the doubt I guess, but once they have shown you their true colors, you should listen.
    - pj_mukh 2mo ago
      >>like the creation of virtual CSAM with them You think Meta is going to create CSAM with my data? Like I would dump them for using my data for analytics without my permission, but we probably should recalibrate our expectations a bit here.
      - r_lee 2mo ago
everyone 2mo ago
So its either the "ever present intrusion" of camera or the ever present intrusion of the glasses? Cant you just live your fucking life without recording everything?
everdrive 2mo ago
You liberty is worth nothing. You could hold a camera in your hands. Get a go-pro that records locally, or choose any other option. But nope, you're hoping you can record your child, put their faces in a recognition database associate precise location data, and then hope that Meta does not use this data in ways you don't approve of. (or merely sell it to an endless string of data brokers)
- pj_mukh 2mo ago
  "put their faces in a recognition database" Just so we're clear and can read past the headlines. This database doesn't exist and there has been no evidence that a database built off of meta ray-bans exists. And I would obviously dump the ray bans if this was actually a thing.
  - codeduck 2mo ago
    Doesn't it? The technology exists to build it. The pipelines exist to populate it. The marketing engine exists to leverage it for targeted delivery of content. And yet, somehow, nobody's built it? How sure are you of that?
    - pj_mukh 2mo ago
      How would it be monetized? And if it has been, where can I buy this? And if you can't doesn't that make you question your assumptions?
      - ben_w 2mo ago
        > How would it be monetized? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Facebook https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Facebook > And if it has been, where can I buy this? Depending on your preference: their advertising portal, or a stock broker.
    - r_lee 2mo ago
      and the technology exists to spy on everything you do in every single way, ignore gdpr, ignore all kinds of privacy acts, in fact you can also stalk people and find out where they live and break into their homes and look through their stuff and plant hidden cameras and other fun stuff you can do that, but you have no clue as to why people/companies don't tend to do those things?
sldjfkdsljffkjd 2mo ago
To say a phone is intrusive but Meta glasses are not is an interesting choice of words. As a parent, I get what you mean but as a privacy aware member of the tech community I think the word you want is "disruptive" or "distracting."
hamdingers 2mo ago
> without making the phone camera an ever present intrusion while outdoors You don't have to be constantly filming your kids, that's optional. This is a cute spin, but what you're saying is "I like the glasses because I can film people without them knowing" it just happens the people in this case are (mostly) your children.
- pj_mukh 2mo ago
  >> what you're saying is "I like the knives because I can cut things" it just happens the "things" in this case are (mostly) your vegetables. Again, I'm not saying this out of some bad faith, I just think this argument doesn't work the way you think it does. We actually have no data as to what its most commonly used for, apart from the headlines. Anecdotally, all my friends who have them use it for the exact same reason I do.
  - hamdingers 2mo ago
    Good analogy. If there was a tool that could do everything a knife can do without being able to cut people, knives wouldn't be nearly as common and anyone who insisted on carrying one in public would be suspect. "I need it to cut vegetables," would not be a reasonable excuse, because there's an alternative. There is an alternative to your stealthy camera glasses, which you are aware of, and your admitted use case for them is filming people who are unaware that you are filming. Yet you can't imagine other people use them for the same purpose? I'm trying to assume good faith but you're not making it easy.
    - pj_mukh 2mo ago
      "your admitted use case is filming people who are unaware you are filming" For the record the "people" here is my 2 year old. And I'm the one making a bad faith argument?
      - hamdingers 2mo ago
        So because you use them to stealthily film your 2 year old, there's no way other people use them to stealthy film other people in less acceptable ways? This confirms it, you're being deliberately obtuse.
HWR_14 2mo ago
Why shouldn't I tell you not to take pictures of your kids. They're too young to opt into having their faces enrolled in Zuck's facial recognition database.
- pj_mukh 2mo ago
  What database is that? If your claim is to not post it on Facebook, I agree.
  - HWR_14 2mo ago
    Meta has a history of siphoning any data they technically can. Do you really think those "local only" photographs are going to remain so? There will never be a point where you miss the EULA change and don't opt out in the 45 seconds before the data are all uploaded?
    - pj_mukh 2mo ago
      They have to notify me of the EULA change. Like I said there’s an army of journalists watching Zuckerberg type every key on his keyboard right now. I’m not feeling bad for him, but I’m also betting he’s not about to do something stupid like that.
      - HWR_14 2mo ago
        I would not trust my kids safety to "Zuckerberg will be restrained by the possibility of bad press". And at this point, let me say you seem to care about your kids and probably have the technical skills and attention to make sure they never end up in his database. But you are an exception, and society needs to protect the children of parents who care less.

summermusic 2mo ago

It's especially frustrating because the Ray-Ban logo no longer indicates quality or exclusivity: They were acquired by Luxottica Group in 1999.

dimitrios1 2mo ago

Luxottica, the owners of Ray-Ban since 1999, realized after they survived the expose on their blatant monopolistic price gouging that none of this sticks. People just see something they recognize and go with it.

ben_w 2mo ago
Counterpoint: Burberry. Early 2000s, for variety of reasons, their iconic check pattern got associated with cheapness and violence. Being expensive means your more exclusive. Being creepy, I don't see that helping.

rapnie 2mo ago

Anecdotal but I hear quite a few people talk negative about Ray-Ban related to the backlash. They are the "pervert glasses" brand now. I think there definitely is reputation damage. Also the "banray" [0] campaign for my country is doing well I think (I regularly see their stickers), and this name reversal may also harm the brand if it sticks. [0] https://banray.eu/en/ https://banray.eu/en/

andsoitis 2mo ago

> I do wonder if we're just moving to shun people wearing glasses with heavy frames in the near future. The glass only seems to appeal to a certain type of people anyway. That's ridiculous.

ben_w 2mo ago
As are most fashions; this by itself is not enough for me to think the hypothetical less likely than any alternative.

andsoitis 2mo ago

> but I can't understand how it's not absolutely destroying the Ray-Ban brand? > Ray-Ban seems to go completely free. because reasonable adults can distinguish between Meta and Ray-Ban.

EGreg 2mo ago
Reminds me of this: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/oct/17/billy-bush-fired-nbc-donald-trump-tape-groping-women-leaked https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/oct/17/billy-bush-f... Donald Trump - becomes president, after all it was just “locker room talk” Billy Bush - career destroyed for passively chuckling
- andsoitis 2mo ago
  I don't get the analogy.
Tadpole9181 2mo ago
Ray-Ban is choosing to produce these in a partnership. They don't have to participate and by doing so they're guaranteeing they exist and profiting from the bad behavior. And even making them more stylish and therefore more appealing. A "reasonable adult" would have no trouble understanding why someone who thinks the existence of these glasses is a moral and privacy nightmare would also seek to punish Ray-Ban.
- andsoitis 2mo ago
  Well, if the average consumer isn’t revolting against Ray-Ban, maybe your premise is mistaken.
  - Tadpole9181 2mo ago
    My idea that adults can understand other people's ideas is mistaken because the average consumer is a hedonist that doesn't care about ideals? Not exactly sure how that tracks, but okay, bud.
  - 2mo ago

geodel 2mo ago

Well, RayBan was junk brand in 90s, if it becomes junk it would be just fine.

apercu 2mo ago

I had my ray-ban sunglasses stolen this summer. I replaced them with a brand I was able to confirm was a) Not Ray Ban b) Not a Luxotica brand. c) Owned and operated in America (note, that doesn't mean the glasses were made in USA). d) Cost less than 1/4 of previous ray-bans.

taurath 2mo ago

People still keep using Instagram and X and until that changes there is no backlash. Customers and users have signaled over and over there is nothing that can be done to make them leave, so Mark and Elon get to do whatever they want.

aanet 2mo ago

Don't forget, Facebook (Meta) owns 3% of Ray-Ban's parent Luxottica group [1]. They clearly are exerting control over the future direction. Regardless of what THEY do, what WE as consumers can do is to permanently brand these awful glasses as "pervert glasses" [2] and publicly shame them. I'm here for it. [1] https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/meta-takes-around-3-stake-ray-ban-parent-essilorluxottica-source-says-2025-07-08/ https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/meta-takes-around-3-sta... [2] https://futurism.com/future-society/meta-ray-ban-smart-pervert-glasses https://futurism.com/future-society/meta-ray-ban-smart-perve...

dylan604 2mo ago
I didn't know about Meta's ownership. I would love to see some internal discussion if Ray-Ban pushed back and was overridden and forced to make the product.

reaperducer 2mo ago

Currently there's a massive, and understandable, backlash against the Meta/Ray-Ban glasses Is there? "Massive?" Outside of HN and a few tech pubs read by a statistically insignificant number of people, 99.9995% of people don't even know these exist.

john_strinlai 2mo ago
out of all of the semi/actually-obscure issues that people on HN talk about, meta glasses are not really all that obscure. my local gym has posters up forbidding them. my non-tech daughter has asked me about them. the college i teach at has policies about them. their banned in courts in various countries. they've been criticized in mainstream outlets like the guardian, BBC, CNN, business insider, national post, yahoo, and the independent. (i dont think any of those outlets are reasonably considered "tech pubs read by a statistically insignificant number of people")
- ben_w 2mo ago
  > considered "tech pubs read by a statistically insignificant number of people" Thinking of pubs in a different sense of the word, even Wetherspoons has opinions about them: https://www.lbc.co.uk/article/wetherspoons-bans-meta-glasses-in-pubs-amid-privacy-concerns-5HjdfkH_2/ https://www.lbc.co.uk/article/wetherspoons-bans-meta-glasses...
rangerelf 2mo ago
You're mistaken; in my family _everyone_ has heard of and read about the "creepo glasses" and that they're associated with Facebook, and want absolutely nothing to do with them or anybody who would voluntarily wear them. Plus, they have zero problem telling anyone wearing those glasses around them to either take them off or leave. Yes, I would consider that "massive" since none of them are HN readers nor work in any tech or media related fields.
dTal 2mo ago
useful heuristic: every comment I've seen with excessive 9s was nonsense You really think if I asked 200,000 people in my city, only one would have heard of Meta RayBans? when there are billboards, magazine ads, and window stickers in every glasses store? Couldn't tell you the real number but it's probably closer to 1 in 5. Not uncommon, in comments like these, for there to be so many 9s that the population of Earth is exceeded.

HWR_14 2mo ago

It might be destroying the brand, but does anyone care?