Thread

Meta takes down a critical video about meta AI Glasses after filming at Meta

632 points · 395 comments · pieterr

yread · 1790244366 · focus · HN ↗
If anyone wants to see the video: <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dHKhYL3is5o" rel="nofollow">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dHKhYL3is5o
He did harass them a bit. I'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 ↗
  > He did harass them a bit.
  Maybe I'm too European to understand, where exactly is harassment occurring? He's asking Meta employees questions, doesn't seem to follow them around, and when they walk away or say no, he doesn't exactly force them to stay or anything? Doesn'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. Vinnl · 1790252196 · focus · HN ↗
    I felt a bit uneasy when the employees indicate they're uncomfortable with the filming and he asks them why, while continuing to film. Given how they're blurred out and that their discomfort is kind-of the point w.r.t. the issue he's trying to raise, I don't think this meets the bar that Meta usually adheres to when it comes to taking down videos, but describing it as "a bit" of harassment doesn't sound too wrong to me.
    Hugsbox · 1790254480 · focus · HN ↗
    They feel uncomfortable with being filmed while going about their day to day life? Maybe they should stop making products that enable such a thing.
    pc86 · 1790254951 · focus · HN ↗
    How do these glasses "enable" it any more than a gopro, a security camera, or the phone that nearly every person in the developed world already has?
    markstos · 1790259943 · focus · HN ↗
    Because it's intentionally a camera that blends into normal clothing so it's less obvious you are being filmed.
    raydev · 1790289480 · focus · HN ↗
    It's intentionally a camera that doesn't need to be held and it matches the the POV of the wearer. Where has Meta said it's intentionally designed to be hidden?
    markstos · 1790296292 · focus · HN ↗
    Does Meta have a reputation about being honest about what it's doing? This is the company that just lost a $17 billion lawsuit for endangering children.
    raydev · 1790390303 · focus · HN ↗
    Asking genuinely: what are you saying? Do they intend to use the cameras for evil, and the physical form enables them beyond how they are currently enabled by iPhones and non-iPhones now?
    markstos · 1790514085 · focus · HN ↗
    Are you asking if people intend to use pervert glasses for evil?
    raydev · 1790526370 · focus · HN ↗
    I am asking if Meta intends to do so. And to the new question you've added, I guess my question back is "why not just ban cameras from smartphones if they can be equally used for evil"?
    It's already possible for people to surreptitiously record/snap on their phones in their hands today, because walking around with your phone in your hand is common. What additional evils are the glasses enabling, if your stance is that they are evil? Or why aren't phone cameras evil?
    Just looking for a consistent principle here. First it was "Meta is evil" and then you switched to "the public is evil and Meta is enabling them with clear intention". If the second is true, then you must have clear stances on the current popular technology that everyone owns already.

Open on Hacker News to reply ↗

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.