>no guarantees anywhere in plain sight on privacy

Elaborate. Do you mean this with regards to the data that users will generate when using the device? Or the privacy of the people around the wearer?

I could not care less about the the privacy of the weirdos who will try to wear these in public. I care deeply about the further normalization of surveillance capitalism.

I try hard to be kind, but I will have very little patience for any individual who wears always-on cameras that infringe on my privacy. I don't use social media for a reason. Meta just wants to sell surveillance devices so they can collect more data, and will try to convince us it is for our benefit.

>will have very little patience for any individual who wears always-on cameras that infringe on my privacy.

I'm not a violent person but wouldn't rule out using my fists if someone was filming me or my kids. That said, I live in Japan, so they'll more than likely be banned or heavily restricted like other devices used to make covert recordings.

> I don't use social media for a reason.

Do you not consider HN social media?

I don't.

Not funded by ads, not about building a network of 'friends'. I consider HN more of a link sharing site.

HN is an ad for YC. The Y logo featured on every page.

HN is as much social media as any other platforms: traffic driven by popularity, echo chamber, bias, or algorithm.

HN is not a link sharing site. The links aren’t organized by natural order such as the alphabet. You aren’t here for the links, but for the comments.

Sure, but you can't "befriend" or "follow" anyone. To me, at least, that is the first thing that makes me think of a site as SoMe.

That was the original definition of social media. Sharing media to consume.

Sites like FB were referred to as social networking. But then the terms got conflated.

Ive used Meta Ray Bans since October and talked a lot about them since on HN and other places like Reddit. Also, almost half of friends and family have mentioned privacy thing too. Though looking through these comments Im not seeing much of that worry maybe the tide is turning.

Overall i dont care to film or take pics of anyone but what im experiencing in life and those Im with. No doubt that's how what the majority of Meta Ray ban wearings are using their smart glasses too.

A year of wearing them and fairly often smart glasses are the next big thing yet they will not replace the smart phone as these tech dudes say they will. You can not take a selfies with smart glasses and we are narcissistic beings.

>the people around the wearer

Not in all countries.

The press release says "unmistakably a pair of glasses". The fact that you're complaining about the aesthetics and not wether or not they're glasses is a testament to the generational leap they've made here. Apple's VR goggles are glasses with "rendered" external pass through. These actually fit the traditional definition of glasses.

And yeah like in the future, these will shrink in size. Probably by half in five years. Remember in 2018 when we were wondering if we'd ever have the compute available to do "inside out tracking"? Now it's expected as a minimum requirement. How far we've come.

> The press release says "unmistakably a pair of glasses".

They look like what army personnel used to call “birth control glasses”. Only extra thick for added protection.

If you wear these you won't need to worry about birth control.

At the risk of being rude, how on _earth_ could get that jokes without realising that that's already the joke they were making?

*could you get that joke.

Ugh. My own petard.

That's the joke. That's why the Army calls them birth-control glasses.

I mean they are prototypes, not available for purchase. Presumably they can clean up the aesthetics and provide privacy guarantees around it when it's actually for sale.

It's just to show what's possible, and to presumably jump the gun on their competitors