Thread

1. yread · 1790244366 · focus · HN ↗

   If anyone wants to see the video: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.youtube.com&#x2F;watch?v=dHKhYL3is5o" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.youtube.com&#x2F;watch?v=dHKhYL3is5o

   He did harass them a bit. I&#x27;m looking forward to Meta taking down all videos where someone is a bit harassed. Internet will be a much nicer place!

   1. embedding-shape · 1790248932 · focus · HN ↗

      &gt; He did harass them a bit.

      Maybe I&#x27;m too European to understand, where exactly is harassment occurring? He&#x27;s asking Meta employees questions, doesn&#x27;t seem to follow them around, and when they walk away or say no, he doesn&#x27;t exactly force them to stay or anything? Doesn&#x27;t there have to be some intimidation or humiliation or similar for it to be harassment? Or asking employees what they think of the products they develop and support is the harassment part?

      1. deadbabe · 1790249273 · focus · HN ↗

         You don’t understand the difference between recording things in good faith vs recording things because you want a reaction you can exploit for personal gains.

         1. suttontom · 1790250228 · focus · HN ↗

            Hahahaha, &quot;recording things in good faith.&quot; What an insane statement to make to paint this guy in a bad light. Should people also be concerned about walking in good faith, or eating their lunch in good faith? Meta created these creep glasses so people could do exactly what this guy is doing: film people in public (without them knowing). There is no &quot;bad faith&quot; when you&#x27;re just literally doing what the product is for.

            1. bennyelv · 1790253013 · focus · HN ↗

               This is a strange take…

               1. You’ve inferred that the reason the glasses exist is to enable people to harass other people. That’s a very odd conclusion. 2. Where’s the without them knowing? Meta literally designed the hardware so that you do know that you’re being filmed, unlike almost every other camera on the market. 3. You haven’t managed to separate the decisions and accountability of an individual from the tool that they use to execute those decisions. This is a strange way to look at the world. It places inherent moral values into inanimate objects.

               1. suttontom · 1790255248 · focus · HN ↗

                  1. Whether what he did is considered &quot;harassment&quot; is debatable. 2. Because it looks like an everyday object and not a camera? If you design a necklace or hat that films people but displays a small light (which can easily be covered up), the vast majority of people will not know they are being filmed. 3. He went up to people in public and asked them questions. Filming their bodies and asking them to turn around was weird and inappropriate but demonstrates the point he is trying to make, which is that this is inherently a bad product that films people with a camera but it doesn&#x27;t look like a camera, which people naturally find deceptive and creepy, and they don&#x27;t want to be around it.

                  1. bennyelv · 1790256620 · focus · HN ↗

                     There are other plausible explanations to do with interacting with strangers generally. I don’t think he really made a point at all.

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.