Yeah I understand hating the Meta glasses, but what, are we going to destroy every camera we find in the wild? This is a small piece of a larger problem and I'm just not sure assaulting a stranger on the subway is the way to go about it.
this post was submitted on 07 Dec 2025
139 points (95.4% liked)
United States | News & Politics
3524 readers
251 users here now
Welcome to !usa@midwest.social, where you can share and converse about the different things happening all over/about the United States.
If you’re interested in participating, please subscribe.
Rules
Be respectful and civil. No racism/bigotry/hateful speech.
No memes/pics of text
Post news related to the United States.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
are we going to destroy every camera we find in the wild?
Yes.
Yeah my first thought was "you know what? Now that you mention it, I'd be more than happy with that. I didn't even think of it as an option but yeah, sure, let's give it a go"
I think there's even an achievement for doing that.
That is so Project Mayhem.
I'm all for this but we should start with all of the cameras owned by businesses and the government. If anyone at all should be allowed to record in public it is we the people.
Start with your phone then.
If I could get a phone without one I would.
I don't recall ever having used the damn thing, all it does is stick out like a wart making the phone unsightly and unnecessarily thick.
And the other, even more useless one is just poking an extremely irritating hole on the screen.
They're probably scratched beyond any usability anyway, since for some reason cases and screen protectors refuse to cover them.
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(5 replies)
Skibidi are the good guys?
Humans are shittier, mobile cameras, so I agree. The planet needs a rest from humanity.
are we going to destroy every camera we find in the wild
If it is from a mega corp that is known for spying on people: absolutely
They have no right for cameras in public.
They have no right for cameras in public.
I'm pretty sure they do. That comes along with the word "public". This sounds like ICE telling observers to stop filming.
Collecting the footage from thousands of cameras and turning it into a giant surveillance system to track everyone is a different matter, and that's what needs to be made illegal.
They're the same picture
I would be perfectly fine with filming in public being illegal without concent with the expection of public officials
Even then there's some gray area. If you're in Times Square people are going to be taking pictures and videos of themselves.
When Google Glass was a thing people with assistive vision technologies were being attacked too.
Every little bit helps! If we all pitch in, many hands make light work!
Very true, this is why we need people advocating for privacy law. I think those responding don't understand I'm on their side, I'm just approaching it from a constructive point of view.
Is that an option? If so, yes
I find it interesting that we only know of this because someone recorded the guy.
He recorded himself after the incident.
How many flock cameras and ring cameras did she pass that day lol (has NYC banned them?)
Are you for real? Or just a Meta bot? Can't you see the difference between a camera in a phone, that is more or less obvious when pointed to film a person, and a camera mounted in glasses? For real?
Or are you suggesting that if we have let phones with cameras be, we should tolerate another escalation in the fight against privacy?
Please let me know which is it?! Im really curious.
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
Some cashier at McDonalds will probably rat her out Luigi-style.
Love to see it.
She is a hero
Lol.
Shut up nerd
A seeming eternity later, Meta has attempted to revive the idea with its Ray-Ban Meta glasses. While it’s arguably a significant technological leap over Google’s early forays
Duh, Google Glass was 2013. A brand new one that Meta pumped an obscene amount of money into had better be much improved to aid the government's warrantless surveillance programs on Americans
Which is what it is, just another platform for intelligence gathering that Meta sells to the government
...and not only are morons voluntarily wearing them, they're paying for the privilege to do so
Reminds me of this story. Some guy went into a Macdonalds in Paris, which for some reason had security guards, and they evidently tried to forcibly remove his G-glasses, which were surgically attached to his head. I believe there was a rumor that the place was mobbed up.
“I was making a funny noise people were honestly crying laughing at,” he claimed in the caption of a followup video. “She was the only person annoyed.
Dude tried turning a commuter train into a content factory. Fuck that. Hire participants. Pay people.
That's when I start playing Disney music.
🪬 🥇
Meta tells the people that buy these glasses that they "only record audio and video when you tell them to" but that turned out to be an absolute lie. It's always looking, always listening, and people shouldn't use these fuckin corpo people trackers and advertisement machines.
Yes, it's only acceptable for the state to monitor people in public.
like the google glass was used for porn as soon as it was released, and then shortly google stopped making them.
the entire internets life cycle has always been:
- new tech
- new porn delivery option
- widespread use of new tech
- profit
- repeat
To be fair,some of the earliest examples we have in all media is "porn".
“eth8n” - Ethaten?
He's the 9th Ethernet port
Etheightn.
how is this news?
That she did something about it, and is being hailed as a hero. Both rare.
fair enough, shame really does have it's place...US could use more of it in the right areas
Shame is never gonna stop those guys. Broken cameras will.
Oh no, god forbid someone records her in the most recorded state on earth.
I’ve always wanted a pair of glasses with a cool hud, that tells me the time and weather and shows me what song im playing or a text i got. Is that so evil?
As long as it doesn't have a camera, no. But all of them do, so yes.
view more: next ›