this post was submitted on 22 Aug 2026
524 points (97.0% liked)
Technology
87575 readers
3593 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 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
In my eyes anyone wearing one of these is a pervert. I simply don't see who else could be the audience for a purposefully discreet camera built into a pair of glasses. Even Google's attempt at glasses were more overt that these. I'd say Meta is shameful, but that's not exactly a shocker to anyone at this point.
Edit: Seen a few suggestions, but my counterpoint to all of them is - you don't need the camera to discreet fir any of these purposes. You'd only need it to be discreet if you didn't want people to realise you were filming, which just seems aimed towards perverts in my mind.
I would have loved glasses that could detect advertising with a camera and block it out so I don't see it, but instead we got AI nudes and stalking.
And probably even more ads sent directly to your eyeballs. If they're not there yet they're already on the roadmap.
What matters is who controls the tech, not just the capabilities.
This. Adblock glasses were never going to come from a company that gets a lot of it's revenue from ads.
Guerilla warfare glasses. Highlights property owned by billionaires.