A Los Angeles judge ordered Meta officials to remove their AI glasses at a trial over the impact of social media on users.
  • megopie@lemmy.blahaj.zoneEnglish
    53·
    5 days ago

    Gee, maybe there might be some practical, social and legal problems with always recording camera glasses…

    • matlag@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
      2·
      4 days ago

      Pretty sure they won’t care except if it ends with a multi-billions$ fine. The intent is that by the time, their “smart-glasses” are everywhere and banning them no longer seems reasonable.

      So they’ll settle for “privacy settings by default”, meaning they commit to not record anything except if the user expilicitly activate it, and it should be very visible for people around.

      They’ll wait a good 6 months before an update introduces back a silent auto-record of some kind, because that company never gave a flying fuck about the law, its users or basic decency.

    • Clent@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
      42·
      5 days ago

      You sound like someone who has never experienced court outside of tv or movies.

      The courts process is entirely pragmatic. The entire point is to remove all emotions. The judge is not going to presume malice.

      The person most at risk here is their council. It they were aware of this stunt they could cause themselves serious damage.

      • Devolution@lemmy.worldEnglish
        51·
        5 days ago

        I work with courts routinely. You sound very naive.

        This face is doable for the elites if actual consequences occur.

  • Bakkoda@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
    23·
    4 days ago

    Social media platforms can now also offer witness intimidation/jury nullification services!

    It’s a feature.

    • matlag@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
      2·
      4 days ago

      Let’s just hope pissing off the judge on mïnute 1 may get them uncomfortable about the rest of the trial.

  • ImmersiveMatthew@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
    47·
    5 days ago

    The sales of the glasses have been better than their VR headset which has really made them double down on the glasses as they see big potential. That said, I really think that it is a false hope as I suspect the market that is ok wearing Facebook glasses are small, but loyal.

    • Ilovethebomb@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
      61·
      5 days ago

      I’ve seen some amazing POV footage from them, because the lens is actually in line with your eye level.

      So, a lot of the market would be people who would otherwise use a GoPro.

    • Smaile@lemmy.caEnglish
      62·
      5 days ago

      yahknow, if it wern’t for the fact that i know they’re a scummy company, i’d try them.

        • Smaile@lemmy.caEnglish
          1·
          4 days ago

          What’s the different between that and everyone having their phone’s out all the time, those little guys are already able to spy on, you know they do stuff other then record stuff right, they get text readout on the lenses and stuff right? Also can you not read, I specificly wrote I wouldn’t getting because of their bad reputation.

  • GoofSchmoofer@lemmy.worldEnglish
    422·
    5 days ago

    This feels like gorilla marketing to me. They knew the judge would tell them to take them off and it would be just enough of a sensational story to make it to press. Now more people know that Meta has these glasses.

    Edit: I’m not changing it. The responses to my mistake are too funny

    • narinciye@discuss.tchncs.deEnglish
      25·
      5 days ago

      Meta’s glasses, retail for between $299 and $799, are equipped with a camera that can take photos and record video.

      CBS is definitely involved in this gorilla scheme

    • Doomsider@lemmy.worldEnglish
      201·
      5 days ago

      Gorilla marketing, when you charge at someone and stop right before you fuck them up and then offer to sell them something.

    • 73ms@sopuli.xyzEnglish
      38·
      5 days ago

      I don’t know if it was intentional marketing but it does have that effect and was kinda pointless. I assume people have camera phones in the courtroom with them too but possessing a device that can record doesn’t mean you intend to do it and I doubt Meta has tampered with their glasses so if they were to do that it would be noticeable thanks to the recording LED…

      • Clent@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
        12·
        5 days ago

        Go onto a court room and hold up your phone, pointing at the jury. Report back on how that goes for you.

        • 73ms@sopuli.xyzEnglish
          18·
          5 days ago

          and do the released facts say here someone was pointing a camera at the jury and the scolding happened as a result of that or are you just inventing a hypothetical with nothing to do with what is being discussed?

          • KaChilde@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
            7·
            5 days ago

            They were wearing glasses with the camera literally built into them. Anywhere they look they are pointing a camera.

            • 73ms@sopuli.xyzEnglish
              29·
              5 days ago

              You can say that but it’s entirely different from bringing up deliberately pointing the camera of a device at the jury. And again, there was nothing about them looking at something in particular or anything suggesting the intent to film. As I said it is also very easy to know if the camera is activated.

              • KaChilde@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
                6·
                5 days ago

                If I were to walk into the courtroom with a go-pro strapped to my head, would I be clear because the camera is off and probably not recording?

                These glasses are never advertised for how good the glasses aspect of the product is, but for their ability to record hands free image and video. The product is primarily for filming, and Facebook knows this.

      • stoly@lemmy.worldEnglish
        3·
        5 days ago

        These people are not in danger. Any harm to them is reputational. Reputation is the only thing they have in life.

  • new_world_odor@lemmy.worldEnglish
    10·
    6 days ago

    So I need to preemptively wear anti facial recognition makeup if ever called for jury duty. Gotcha.

    It seems somewhat realistic to expect an actual punishment for this, even if not properly scaled. It’s worth fighting for. But being prepared alongside that is important.

  • givesomefucks@lemmy.worldEnglish
    114·
    6 days ago

    Zuckerberg was in court to testify as part of a trial over whether Meta and Alphabet-owned YouTube deliberately designed their social media platforms to encourage compulsive usage by young people.

    Ironically I think rather than them wearing them for nefarious reasons, they’ve just been encouraged to use them for so long, that they are actually addicted to them as well.

    Like, if you were forced to use your employers product at work for 10-12 hrs a day and try to come up with way to monetize it in your off hours, you may start to rely on it eventually.

    Our brains are wired to always take the easiest path, that’s actually the reason for technological advancement in the first place.

    They probably just don’t even realize they’re wearing them, it’s just a (mostly useless and completely impractical) part of their bodies now.

    • ayyy@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
      2·
      5 days ago

      First of all you can’t use them for 10-12 hours a day because the battery only lasts like 2 hours. Which is a bit silly for glasses.