905
Judge scolds Mark Zuckerberg's team for wearing Meta glasses to social media trial
(www.cbsnews.com)
this post was submitted on 20 Feb 2026
905 points (98.5% liked)
Technology
81621 readers
5212 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Scolding without jailtime = slap on wrist.
a small amount of jailtime is a slap on the wrist. A scolding is nothing.
I think even a small jailtime would be pretty serious. Provided he can't buy himself out. A fine would be a slap on the wrist*. A scolding is just that - something certain people have learned very early to ignore.
* depends on the amount of course
A demand for removal and threat of being held in contempt seems like the appropriate response to bringing a camera in, no matter who you are.
It does matter who they are!
The judge said not to bring something in and they clearly ignored the judge's directions and it is their job to comply with the judge's directions. They are not some random person off the street.
I dont disagree, and I think they should face punishment for what they've done already.. But what's supposed to happen here? Jail time specifically for bringing a camera? I dont get it.
Yes, they should get jail time for being in contempt of court because they are professionals and should be held to a higher standard than people off the street.
A person off the street should get a warning. Professionals should be expected to follow a judge's orders.
Fair enough. Just let me know when it's guillotine time, thats what I'm here for.
I must have forgotten that there is literally no middle ground between a verbal warning and execution.
To be clear I want to behead these assholes.
I think it would be unfair to just decide to behead them. We should have like a lottery, or contest, where people can submit suggesions for execution methods, I for instance think we should throw them off of high places, like the grand canyon, or a skyscraper. Maybe from Mount Rushmore from teddy roosevelt's head.
Others might prefer to bend back tree limbs and tie them to their limbs, then release the bent limbs to have the tree recoil and tear them apart, trult a classic. Or a large heavy rock being put over them that crushes them for days.
We could have a game show even to determine it, or a contest of some sort.
Now I'm just imagining a field trip to the grand canyon.
"And this, kids, is the wreckage left behind when we voted to lock Elon Musk into the back of one of his 'self driving cars' and set it loose on the top of the canyon."
Bring back MXC, but without safety measures, make it pay per view and have all the money go to something positive for everyone. Healthcare for everyone or something.
There is middle ground, we just passed it a long time ago with these chucklefucks and we're waiting for the rest of y'all to realize that.
It's not even a slap on the wrist.
Yeah exactly. It's a scolding. Something certain types have learned to ignore in their teens.
My 6-year old is way ahead of the game then.
I've got a tough decade ahead of me...
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.
I work with courts routinely. You sound very naive.
This face is doable for the elites if actual consequences occur.
Jailtime for wearing glasses that can recors videos un the courtroom?
Maybe the death penalty while you are at it?
The judge made it clear no cameras or recording equipment was allowed in the session and they brought wearable cameras that have facial recognition capabilities. That is the definition of contempt of court.
Defying a judge's order, in a way that would allow the mega corporation to identify jurors, and influence them through proxies, is quite serious. They have the motive, means, and opportunity to do so, and would get away with it if they did in all likelihood at most paying a settlement of cash.
Don't be obtuse.
How much jail time was spent in 2025 by inmates held for contempt of court?
But don't you see? We don't like these particular people, so they should suffer the maximum possible penalties under every circumstance.
If we liked them then punishing them for wearing glasses would of course be a travesty.
Why do you expect people to change their opinion based on who this is about?
Such people exist, but people who have integrity and think on principle exist too.
Calling them "glasses" is such a weasel word. No one cares at all that they are wearing glasses, they are wearing CAMERAS in a place where recording is strictly prohibited.
I sincerely hope that you are going out of your way to troll, and don't actually have thoughts that are this small and poorly formed.
Sure, sure, everything can be simplified down to people just not "liking" them. That's what this is all about. That's what all this is about. We simply don't like people. No, it's not the fact that these assholes are the ones behind the 21st century rise of cyber-fascism. We just don't like 'em. Musk, Bezos, Zuckerberg, yeah they're all really decent people inside, it's us that's the problem. /s
Sick and tired of useless fucking people that style themselves as "rational" and "middle of the road" in a world that is literally starting to threaten my very existence. The time for that shit is long past us, sorry.
But we can't tell the difference between the "far left" and far right. The one is threatening to fix elections and have a madman in absolute power to use dishonest arguments to eliminate half the population and enslave developing countries, and the other wants not pay more money for less in by private trusts overcharging us, and doesn't think working people should get screwed without their consent, and wants equal rights for people, and believes in the tenants of the Bill of Rights. /s
Can't tell you guys apart!
Whereas I prefer an organized rules-based justice system over anarchy and vigilantism. Because who knows when you or I might end up being in the "disliked" category?
A judge holding a defendant in contempt of court for violating a serious order to not bring recording equipment into the courtroom, is neither "anarchy" nor "vigilantism."
In an "organized rules-based justice system," a defendant who violated a court order by bringing recording equipment into the courtroom would be held in contempt, and depending on the severity, may face jail time (such as perhaps if that recording equipment has facial recognition technology).
This isn't about whether or not we "dislike" him. But just because he's widely disliked doesn't make him immune to prosecution.
What the fuck are you smoking?
A rules based system works when every player follows the rules. One side is actively dismantling and abandoning the rules. Do we still keep playing with our hands tied behind our backs?
You are essentially saying the crowd has to do its own justice.
It's a courtroom, not a voting booth.
Do…do you know how a jury works?
Do juries decide who is in contempt of the court?
Are you aware that there's more to the court system than juries? And that those juries, too, operate under a strict set of rules about what they can and can't rule on?
No, we fight to ensure that the rules are followed. In this case they are, the judge has discretion here.
Would you rather there were "mandatory minimum" laws when it came to this as well?
No one is even making the arguments that you are arguing against other than you...