DE version is available. Content is displayed in original English for accuracy.
Advertisement
Advertisement
⚡ Community Insights
Discussion Sentiment
41% Positive
Analyzed from 2922 words in the discussion.
Trending Topics
#meta#glasses#don#public#video#employees#harassment#problem#company#someone
Discussion (144 Comments)Read Original on HackerNews
He did harass them a bit. I'm looking forward to Meta taking down all videos where someone is a bit harassed. Internet will be a much nicer place!
Maybe I'm too European to understand, where exactly is harassment occurring? He's asking Meta employees questions, doesn't seem to follow them around, and when they walk away or say no, he doesn't exactly force them to stay or anything? Doesn't there have to be some intimidation or humiliation or similar for it to be harassment? Or asking employees what they think of the products they develop and support is the harassment part?
This video mainly shows a person approaching other people in public and recording them with these glasses. Which is one of the typical scenarios in which such a glasses are probably going to be used. And that video shows that even the Meta employees themselves generally do not seem to like it very much.
That is the point.
I don't think blurring faces fully addresses that (though I'm not commenting on legality in Amsterdam).
I can see the argument that this video is in the public interest (hey, I'm Americanese), but it does seem plausible some people would find it a violation of a norm.
Lots places have laws like that. Maybe Meta shouldn't sell a device that makes it easy to do it anyway.
If everyone is wearing the glasses, wherever you go, you'll be filmed all the time, with most people not bothering to ask.
Fuck meta and fuck every single of their employee, you can't keep building hell and complain when people hit back
Can't believe we have corporate bootlickers on HN of all places, I thought we still cared a tiny sliver about privacy? It all went away when we all gave away our private data to the AI companies, or what's the deal?
If anything I think the employees are all nice people. I get the message but it's cringy to watch.
I'm also against cameras everywhere, but let's not pretend this is not all also possible with other devices.
Of course, Meta taking this down but not a lot of other, completely the same, stuff is the bad thing.
Let's not pretend being able to beat someone with a rock and shoot them with a M61 Vulcan at 6k rounds per minute are the same thing just because they involve projectiles.
Facebook started explicitly (https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2003/11/19/facemash-creat...) as a way to creep on women.
It's obvious he's making a point, but there is no harassment that I see.
FFS ... it's this kind of goal-post shifting that ends with sign-holding grannies being arrested for terrorism.
It's fine if you're doing it to benefit them, then you can go much further, you can kill small children with your tractors (as is attempted in The Netherlands) or to murder coast guards or migrant (via drowning or fire) as happens in the UK.
It is hypocrisy because Meta are knowingly creating a product that is perfectly suited for filming or photographing people without their knowledge. I find that it speaks ill of someone's character to pretend otherwise. And then they react badly when the very thing that these products enable happens to them. Demonstrating how this is a problem. They try to pretend it isn't a problem and then their actions demonstrate that it IS a problem.
It isn't because we do have laws that actually cover these things already. Of course, they're not the same across the world, law enforcement are not always aware of what the laws are, and this causes confrontations and sometimes overreach. There are also different legal systems that interpret laws differently. For instance in some legal systems the letter of the law carries more weight. In other legal systems the intent of the law is what matters.
There are two great risks here:
1) we pretend we can get by with existing laws. That the existing laws had enough foresight to meaningfully fulfil what the laws were intended to accomplish.
2) we can overreact and damage legitimate freedoms in our eagerness to solve an immediate problem.
For instance, where I live there is a law on the books that prohibits photographing someone being arrested. The law was well-meaning. It was there to protect people from being plastered all over the media until guilt has been determined in a court of law. But it would also prohibit someone from documenting police brutality during an arrest. So the law was never enacted because it failed to balance interests properly.
Right now, where I live, there is a real risk that rules about photography may become overly strict because politicians feel they have to demonstrate an ability to act. So they may end up passing laws that have unforeseen consequences while probably failing to make much of a difference anyway.
We know why these cameras pose a problem. Let's not insult each other's intelligence by pretending they are exactly like poking a traditional camera in someone's face. They're not and we should be able to agree on simple facts. But we also know that we need to have a public discussion about what we're going to do about this so we don't end up introducing draconian laws that take away freedoms we should have. For instance the freedom to document abuses of power, criminal activity, artistic expression etc.
But hey it's OK because Meta only want to record everything to train their AI, who cares if some of their friends use it to create CSAM material, their third-world country workers upload it to PornHub and the NSA secretly pipe all of that through their servers (or servers managed by MI5 in the case of Americans).
You don't need someone's consent to record in public, and if any of the employees objected to the publication of the recording, they could consult with an attorney about a portrait rights claim. Such a claim should be adjudicated by a court, not Facebook.
And let's be clear about the context here: these types of glasses are used by "content creators" to do street interviews that are published online, and they're also used to record all sorts of junk/nonsense ("pranks", pickup artist BS, etc.).
Meta doesn't seem to have a problem with content recorded with these glasses being posted on its platforms, even when it's objectionable, because it's literally everywhere. The only problem here, obviously, was that he was recording Meta employees.
This to me is wild. I use the glasses to film my kids and share it on private hard-drives with grandparents, that's it. It's wild to me that I can surreptitiously film someone on the street and publish it online for views, and the only recourse the person has, is to go to court? Seems insane.
Why does Hollywood require a release but Youtube does not?
EDIT: People are getting hung-up on my use case. But that's not the question posed here.
In contrast to what people think, Facebook IS NOT public infrastructure.
If Meta removes some content from Meta website, and you don't like that, it's a you problem, right?
Note that the employees were not recognisable; their faces were blurred out.
it's perfectly legal to record but publish, especially in but not limited to a commercial context without explicit consent violates portrait rights under the GDPR in the EU. And I strongly suspect if you posted a video in which people explicitly object to being filmed and flag that on Facebook or other platforms it will get taken down.
What the law says about consent is irrelevant to the hypocrisy, and the videos are automatically uploaded to meta without anyone's consent anyway. You know this very well, there is no need to cosplay the smart devil's advocate.
The hypocrisy is probably located around here:
> "I've been making satirical videos about all kinds of things for ten years: Gaza, Ukraine, refugees. Funny videos that push boundaries and provoke discussion. But I've never experienced a video being removed before.
Meanwhile, these Meta glasses are far more ubiquitous, far more intrusive, being sold all over the world (not only the US) and their images have a lot less oversight than Flock's. And I don't need to tell anyone how irresponsible Meta is with other people's privacy.
And, yet, very few make a scandal about it.
Google glasses came and went. Mets glasses should follow a similar fate.
Instagram went from a site for photographers to Reels everywhere (and login walls on every page)
Zuckerberg is awful. Awful, awful, awful.
Other than ad revenue, the company hasn't had any big wins. VR didn't take off. Metaverse didn't take off. AI models didn't take off. All multi-billion dollar ventures. Any other board would have sacked him by now.
it's because he controls the board by being the majority voting shareholder.
This is what happens when the gov't decides that it is legal for share classes with different voting rights. It ensures that you can sell equity to obtain money, without actually giving up control of said company at all. In theory, buyers would discount the sold equity due to this, but in practice, they don't (esp. if they're retail buyers).
Of course the counter-argument is "makes money". That first of all doesn't make a good CEO (if you put no money into maintaining your site, for example), second of all it ignores all the fraud
Because of the existence of Class B shares.
dont worry i wont lmao
Now I don't depend on CIAbook, formerly known as Facebook, in any way, shape or form. And I don't use Suckerberg's Spyglasses either - hopefully others feel in a similar way, but unfortunately money convinces people, and I noticed a few "auditors" using spyglasses allegedly for "protection" (though, why they don't use normal vide cameras instead, beats me - perhaps they are not truthful). I fear that the spyglasses will be a success since Suckerberg is so sold on spying on mankind. If Google were not to exist, Facebook would be the number #1 evil company right now.
They made a product, interviewer is using it as intended. He walked up to people, asked questions while using their product.
If they don't like it, walk away. Zero harassment.