3 ms·
> 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 distinguis
by 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 agoReminds 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 agoI don't get the analogy.
- Tadpole9181 2mo agoRay-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 agoWell, if the average consumer isn’t revolting against Ray-Ban, maybe your premise is mistaken.
- Tadpole9181 2mo agoMy 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.
- mrweasel 2mo agoBut they are revolting against those who are advertising the Meta Ray-Bans and the stores that sells them. My confusion is: Why does it stop there? Why isn't the protests aimed at Ray Ban?