• tigermountain@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    1 day ago

    “A social internet cleansed of all content that takes advantage of others would be quite empty.” I’m not seeing a problem here.

    • Echo Dot@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      5 hours ago

      Also no it wouldn’t, there’s plenty of interesting content on the internet. Almost all content on the internet has been self-published, content that has been published of someone without their consent constitutes a tiny fraction of all available content.

      Far apart from the ethical issues I would find a video of some guy hitting on a girl who wasn’t interested to just be very boring. Why is that content anyone wants to watch?

  • brucethemoose@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    34
    ·
    2 days ago

    I hope the glasses break on their face. But:

    The two customers were, in fact, recording Hinkle, and the entire exchange was turned into content for social media.

    …Can people not see this is the root problem?

    These asswipes make a living being asswipes because Google, Meta, or Tiktok pay them to. Thats the root incentive. Most wouldnt risk all that trouble unless it was their living.


    In other words, I dont want the moral of the story to be “this wouldnt happen without Meta glasses.” The platform subsidizing those glasses is the ultimate problem.

    • stickyprimer@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      15 hours ago

      I see a lot of honest YouTubers who break their backs putting together quality educational hobby content and over time I have followed some as their numbers climb and it turns into more of a full time thing for them.

      And then I see these brainrot morons pulling down 1000x the numbers and it’s just crushing. I guess people would rather eat shit than vegetables.

      • brucethemoose@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        14 hours ago

        I guess people would rather eat shit than vegetables.

        It’s not entirely their choice. The algorithm decides what’s presented.

        • Echo Dot@feddit.uk
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          5 hours ago

          I don’t understand this argument. Yes the algorithm is pretty bad and pushes a lot of random trash content but YouTube has always offered a way to get away from the algorithm, and even now today they haven’t broken it. Just subscribe to the channels you’re interested in and don’t go on the home page. End of problem

      • Echo Dot@feddit.uk
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        5 hours ago

        If it weren’t for people being creepy weirdos the form factor of a camera really wouldn’t matter.

        There are plenty of legitimate useful uses for POV video. I’m supposed this is better form factor than having a GoPro strap to the side of your head.

    • JensSpahnpasta@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      1 day ago

      There’s also the root problem of employees having no agency to kick out misbehaving people. There’s this whole “the customer is king” ethos in American commerce and this is enabling the worst people to harass people without any consequences. If you are getting kicked out and banned from most stores in your town because you are an abusive asshole, you might think again about your behavior and maybe even change. If everything that is coming from your bad behavior is that some random employee is getting fired, yes, this will enable even worse behaviour.

      • brucethemoose@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 day ago

        I mean, would a culture change even make a difference? Police were involved here, but they did not care because thats just more video views.

        Theres already the risk of getting fired from one’s job, but again; this is their living.

    • Echo Dot@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      5 hours ago

      The bar my girlfriend works out has preemptively banned them. They haven’t actually had an issue with them but management feel that banning them is good advertising. It probably is too.

  • mangobanana@discuss.online
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    2 days ago

    There is only ONE good thing the meta glasses are for and it’s blind people. They are immensely useful to help the blind and low vision users to navigate the world. Other than that, they should not able to exist.

    • chunes@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      2 days ago

      As usual the disabled are the first to get hurt by all the bullshit people do. Guarantee one of these lemmy badasses who wants to run around hitting people is going to hit a blind person for just trying to get around.

      • WhyJiffie@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        13
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 days ago

        let the downvotes rain but it does not matter who is uploading data to meta about its unconsenting environment.

  • deathbird@mander.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    28
    ·
    2 days ago

    What if we punished crimes instead of monetizing them? We’ve had a multimedia Internet for a generation now, we could do this.

    • WhyJiffie@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      2 days ago

      “but you don’t have an expectation of privacy! no!! you don’t have and you shouldn’t!!! 😡😥”

  • cmnybo@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    56
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    3 days ago

    Businesses need to start banning smart glasses with cameras or at least require the cameras to be covered with tape.

    • thejml@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      32
      ·
      3 days ago

      I remember when you couldn’t have camera phones a lot of business. Seems like these would be prohibited simply from a security standpoint. Harassment would just be another reason on top of that.

      • I was working in a telecom closet on a military base and one of my coworkers called me to ask a question. I had already been told absolutely no photos. A camera in the room picked up the lens on my phone when I answered it and two MPs were dispatched to apprehend me.

        • Blue Label@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          4 hours ago

          I was in the military XX years ago, camera phones were becoming a thing. We were allowed to bring it into camp, just not allowed to take photos. That was before Android time, I was on a dump Samsung flip phone with a 0.x MP camera. 😅

      • Jason2357@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        2 days ago

        Yeah, literal camera pointed at computer screens, with a view of fingers on the keyboard, and who knows what apps installed with access. Anyone who does that should be fired as they are a danger to the organization.

    • nobodysreadingthis@quokk.au
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      20
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      3 days ago

      People need to start being more violent to gargoyles. You wear rayban, you risk getting popped without warning.

      • Mediaburn@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 days ago

        I’m so in for this. I am so tired and disgusted about how we let these influencers and content retards allow normal people to be turned into shitposts on the internet. If we started beating the hell out of these little shits a decade ago we woudnt have this problem. Luckely Ive never had anyone ever pull a camera on me in public. But I’m pretty sure I’d go to jail for whatever happens next.

        • jdr@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          6
          ·
          2 days ago

          Maybe you should just go to jail pre-emptively, if you can’t control your violent urges.

          • nobodysreadingthis@quokk.au
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            13 hours ago

            Fuck you, this is my privacy. No law is gonna help me. No civil option has worked. Only violence remains. Beat the gargoyles, kill the sloppers.

            I spot a gargoyle in public, I’m vandalizing it.

            • jdr@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              6 hours ago

              Not fuck me, fuck surveillance tech! Break glasses, not noses.

          • Mediaburn@lemmy.zip
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            1 day ago

            How about you smack your face on the curbs per-emtively. You sound like a little cuck thats all in for “content” like that.

    • benjirenji@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      2 days ago

      Many places already do this with cellphones. It shouldn’t be different for such glasses. Using recording equipment is rarely appropriate in a workplace.

        • benjirenji@slrpnk.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 day ago

          Any place that is worried about its IP being leaked? I work in tech and almost every employer had some kind of restrictive camera and cellphone policy.

  • TIEPilot@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    28
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    2 days ago

    In my line of work you would be terminated on the spot if you wore these to work. I have sections of the facility that a fit bit would get you escorted off site and likely lose your job.

    • imadethis@fedinsfw.app
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      2 days ago

      Lucky you. I literally get a camera pointed at my face for every hour I work, and it screams if it thinks I’ve lost focus. Hopefully our bosses would tell these cameras to get bent, but based on their little rich people concerns over how to pacify the ‘lessers,’ I’m not hopeful.

  • HotsauceHurricane@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    16
    ·
    2 days ago

    My new go to is to stop the conversation, tell them to tell their glasses, out loud, to stop recording. If they dont then that conversation is over.
    Period.

  • BassTurd@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    16
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    2 days ago

    I was chatting with our CEO the other day and the topic of recording glasses came up. He said they are band in the company, and they’ve had conversations with their lawyers, that also say not to allow them. I was happy to hear that.

  • Hakuso@scribe.disroot.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    13
    ·
    2 days ago

    There are legitimate uses for head mounted cameras that track your focus.

    There are none for these devices that try to obfuscate their presence.

    • Jason2357@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 days ago

      I hate that I had to retire my Raybans to home use only. They look exactly like meta glasses.

      • Hakuso@scribe.disroot.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 day ago

        Sucks to lose the investment, but better than being punched in the face for looking like a pervert.

        Wonder if Rayban owners can sue them for their money back now that they’re unwearable by anyone with sense.

  • Zarobi@aussie.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    2 days ago

    This was a very good, detailed read, including interviews with real affected people. I recommend anyone skimming the headline to read the full article.

    • Komatoes@discuss.onlineBanned
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      2 days ago

      Thanks, it was. And sad that in instances where the wearer could have been help accountable: Sprouts manager and comedy viewer, nothing was done.