Reddit subversives can go back to reddit we don’t care

You misunderstand: Lemmy and Bluesky are my only social networks, I just use them sporatically.

Holy cow, what is wrong with this place?

ok fine. you can stay then. I love you

the “problem” might be that we don’t take kindly users that visibly argue in bad faith, ignoring points given and repeating cemented views.

can I ask what makes you prefer lemmy over reddit?

You don’t know shit about me. You have no idea about what faith I was asking in, and I made it very clear that I was not advocating or defending these actions. This community in particular seems like a giant a circle jerk. I get it. Even hypothetical scenarios are bad. Shame on me.

I didn’t even defend meta glasses, I was just interested in the philosophical ramifications of the difference in trusts on display.

I left reddit for a few reasons. It being filled with a bunch of lemmings who couldn’t bear to see anyone question the circle jerk was one of them, but it was mostly because I prefer FOSS and like trying out new things. Well, and the Nazis infestation.

This place is full of vegan types. That’s what’s wrong with it.

You don’t know shit about me.

I know plenty enough. you have introduced yourself well.

I was just interested in the philosophical ramifications of the difference in trusts on display.

you were not interested in anything other than pushing your point. that is clear from your comments on other threads.

We don’t live perverts and their glasses.

I feel like thats because technology is at odds with ethics in the majority of popular fields of tech and corporations care about money, not ethics. I’m definitely not a luddite, but I understand the hate when technology is used to opress instead of bettering human lives

Do people not make a distinction between technology companies and the technology itself? I do. I have a fancy (okay, kind of pointless, but nerdy AF) folding pixel phone but I have GrapheneOS on it, because I don’t like giving Google all my data for free. I can find the technology fascinating while distrusting and calling out the technology company.

But it’s even more than just what you say. I’m heavily downvoted in this comment section because I dared ask a hypothetical philosophical question? I made it pretty clear it was just a philosophical question, so what’s the issue? I get very strong “shut up and hate it with us” vibes. Pretty sad, in my useless opinion.

I think it’s getting close to time for another break from social media.

But hey, I appreciate your thoughtful response, truly.

I think many people are able to make a distinction between the technology companies and the technology. However in this particular discussion…how many companies are there actually offering smart glasses as a product to consumers? I’d argue as far as the general public is concerned the answer is only Meta right now. A company with a HORRIBLE reputation in regards to privacy. That makes it more theoretical in separating the idea of what smart glasses could be versus the reality of what they currently are. And right now, to me, smart glasses, particularly Meta’s glasses feels like a product with SO many privacy issues that I would question the judgment of anyone who chooses to use that product. Maybe that won’t be the case in the future, but unless things drastically change in regards to consumer data privacy standards, I’m going to stick to being very suspicious of them.

Also I’ll add— I did not downvote you but to me some of your other replies in this thread come across as almost a little intentionally obtuse.

I’m heavily downvoted in this comment section because I dared ask a hypothetical philosophical question?

If you do it in a way that feels like you’re “just asking questions”, that’s a dishonest gesture often used in alt-right pipelines to astroturf discussions. sealioning is what it’s grown to be called.

If you were being genuine, I’m sorry you weren’t believed. But this is sadly an increasingly common internet tactic out there.

the reason you are downvoted is simple actually. you paint it like we hate all forms of technology but that’s wildly inaccurate. people take that as an accusation and they don’t like it, it makes it seem like you are here to argue in bad faith, with your opinion already cemented.
we hate technology that will affect us negatively. and capitalism along with the industry of surveillance advertising has made sure that even digitalized observations will affect people negatively, even if some does not know or want to admit. it can be said generally like that, because the general consumer uses devices and services where they are not in control of the data their devices collect.
we don’t want to be recorded, and that’s the end of it.

besides, be sure to use your camera glasses! at home, between the 4 walls, when any other person in the room consented to being possibly recorded by it. yeah its a fun gadget, but what about not stretching further than your blanket reaches.

well I’ll take it further, I think growing up with technology, it’s often hard to take a step back and to recognize like what it is. I don’t think its only about corporations (yet largely). I read summa technologiae by stanislav lem a long time ago and frankly it depresses me a bit from time to time. good read though if you can stomach it.

We’re not anti technology, were vocally anti destructive and anti privacy technology. AI is terrible in almost every facet. It’s a neat technology on paper, but the environmental and societal impact far outweighs any positives from it. Camera glasses that record people that don’t want to be recorded and saved to a cloud where that information is trained on and out of the control of anyone that’s been recorded is a major privacy violation. Again, the technology of having smart glasses is neat on paper, but it reality is awful and prime for abuse.

So we don’t hate all technology, just the shit technologies, like those mentioned plus flock and Microsoft products to add to the pile. Not being critical of these technologies is insane to me, because it lets these companies push the limit of what’s acceptable without reprecussions.

As I said elsewhere, I can differentiate between technology and technology companies. I didn’t realize that was so odd.

You can’t seperate the technology from the company in this case. The complete violation of privacy is baked into the technology with no way to seperate it. The companies practices are baked into the technology with no way to seperate it. Which also applies to most technologies.

If you think we can/should seperate the technology from the company that makes it, you’re incredibly naive. The privacy violations are an inherent feature of the technology itself.

Is your stance that if the glasses were made by, say, Sony, no one would care?

I find that very difficult to believe, but would gladly read how you arrived at that conclusion.

It’s not a Meta only thing, but they are certainly one of the worst companies to have that data. No company should be able to collect data without express permission from anyone in that data. I don’t want literally any 3rd party storing video of me that I didn’t give them approval. An example would be if there were a medical procedure that were recorded on a private local server for reference or archive purposes, similar to any other medical records. Those records are protected by privacy laws like HIPPA where Meta glasses don’t have that.

The recording technology isn’t the problem, it’s consent and how that data is stored and handled after taken.

So if Sony did have their own glasses like Meta, I would 100% expect the backlash to be almost just as bad as it is for Meta. Again, Meta is worse, but bad and really bad are both degrees of bad that deserve criticism and pushback.

The article is about Facebook glasses. The topic is Facebook. Differentiating between Facebook spy glasses and “smart glasses in general” isn’t relevant here.

You sound like you’re arguing in bad faith. That’s a lot of the reason for why you’re getting downvoted.

The topic of the community is “technology”. It’s not called “pro-technology”. Negative commentary on technology is included in “technology” as a topic.

I don’t hate tech. But we are definitely in time of techno robber barons who have long drained any benefit of the doubt. Meta especially deserves no grace.

There’s a clear disctinction these days bewteen “Tech” and “Big Tech™️”. This is firmly in the latter.

There’s hating technology in general and then there’s hating the US West Coast tech scene specifically in my opinion.

You’ll find that there are tech enthusiasts and tech consumers. Tech enthusiasts are usually fans of FLOSS and want technology accessible for all; basically they want tech to work for them. Tech consumers are usually fans of what’s new on the tech market and become the product.

I’m part of the former. These glasses are awful in every way possible, so much so that the alleged benefits are minuscule in comparison to privacy breaches, misuse of data by a private company, training of AI models on that stolen data, parasitic and enforces a reliance on being online.

I’d much rather trust independent research than a private profit driven tech company to develop anything to assist disabilities. There’s already tech being developed that potentially restores some sight to the blind.

These glasses have got to go.

“I made a technology that turns crushed orphans into profit”

You - oh wow any new technology is progress!!1