I cannot emphasize enough how unwilling I'd be to interact with someone that has these.
this post was submitted on 22 Sep 2025
311 points (95.3% liked)
Technology
75597 readers
2977 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 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Good thing that the kind of person who would were these in public doesn't interact with others much anyway
load more comments
(1 replies)
Cool... now everyone can be a part of their respective surveillance states. While Meta makes a buck on selling your feed to governments and law enforcement.
And serve ads directly in your eyeballs
Now we need a device that detects Meta Glasses and makes us invisible to them. I know this is a losing battle and it's just inevitable over time but I don't like having information provided to someone about me without my consent. With enough adoption, at some point we would all just need to have our own glasses to even the field.
high powered infrared leds at full blast? Just spitballing here
Pocket high power laser to burn out the camera ? Just make sure not to hit their eyes (or don't). /s
Worst part with Meta Quest is it seems you have to sign up as a dev and give them a credit card in order to sideload (a.k.a., install stuff on the device you purchased). So, you can shell out hundreds for one of their devices and the device and all your data are belong to Meta. I assume it’s the same deal with these glasses. Zuck off, Zuck.🖕
I got a voucher for a free pair of meta glasses. I don't want to order them. I'd need a meta account.
Wife is bugging me to order and resell and I want zero part of it.
load more comments
(3 replies)
For me at least, the killer feature is going to be tagging faces with names. Face blindness sucks.
Edit: For the downvoters, in case you're unaware, I'm talking about a real life disability.
Face blindness, or prosopagnosia, is a condition where individuals cannot recognize familiar faces, including their own, despite having normal vision and intellectual function. It can be congenital (present from birth), developmental, or acquired due to brain damage from injury, stroke, or disease. People with prosopagnosia rely on other cues like voice, hair, or clothing to identify people.
I have this, and I cannot stress enough how much this use case is not worth being recorded and tracked in public against my consent
load more comments
(8 replies)
And that's also the main reason I don't want these to exist. I don't want to be identified by random people, and I especially don't want police to have access to something like this. People I spend time with know who I am, and I'm fine missing out on random same place/same time coincidences with people I knew from high school or something.
I'd want them to use a local database that you've created. After you've met someone, the glasses could be like "remember this person?" and you could choose to save them or not, or something like that.
Its meta so they'll get their hands on that data the way peoples numbers end up in metas hands despite not having a Facebook account because people gave the app permission to contacts.
load more comments
(4 replies)
Yes. I'm all for an open specification, local only version of this.
But I don't think Meta releasing a set of smart glasses leaves anyone (other than possibly Zuckerberg) better off.
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(8 replies)
Yup, can't wait to be tracked without my consent everywhere I go because of other people that want to pay money to become employed for free by private and government companies.
load more comments
(2 replies)
I don't have face blindness, but I can't remember names for the fucking life of me.
load more comments
(5 replies)
I understand the gripes about Meta, but I don't understand how everyone clowns on this like the core concept is stupid or unwanted.
Easy $1000 sell: cycling / escooter accessory. People already regularly buy expensive sport glasses just for sun and wind protection. With a smart version of them like this, you add open ear headphone, and you add the potential for navigation directions, or even a Bluetooth rear view camera on the back of your helmet to get a virtual mirror.
The core technology is impressive, and has legitimate use cases.
But that doesn’t outweigh the enormous privacy concerns these devices raise. They aren’t being angled as an accessory for specific activities, but as everyday wearables. If smart glasses like these became common they would be unavoidable, creating leave of intrusion that’s concerning even without Meta being involved.
load more comments
(1 replies)
As a cyclist, this is a terrible sell. I already have tech which does all this, and probably does it better, for less.
I don't need a HUD constantly in my face obscuring the beautiful views. I have sun glasses which fit well with a helmet and wrap around my face to keep the wind out.
I have a cycling computer, which offers GPS turn by turn, and pairs to power meters, heart rate and radar light. It is mounted on the handlebars in an easy to view place.
I have bone conducting headphones for music.
All of this is significantly less than $1000, and if something breaks, I can replace it all individually. I also don't have to wear ridiculous looking sunglasses to listen to my bone conducting headphones.
I don’t necessarily disagree, but this reads a bit like some of the comments on those old Slashdot threads clowning on the first smartphones.
‘these things will fail, I already have a camera, a cellphone, and an mp3 player, why would anyone want them all in one device?’
load more comments
(4 replies)
load more comments
(4 replies)
I agree that head mounted displays can be useful, I'm contemplating getting something like it, but just no cameras, please. not in the frame, not backwards, not anywhere.
load more comments
(9 replies)
load more comments
(6 replies)
There's new glassholes?
All I need is a nu-metal revival and we're back in 2008 baby.
I wonder what the result of mass adoption of these will be on society - surely there will have to be "no smart glasses" rules set up in places where you would expect confidentiality like hospitals and classrooms. Also what the ability to instantly watch video content or listen to anything with the click of your fingers (without anyone knowing) will do to people's attention spans. Things in public will have a much higher chance of being recorded by someone, for better or for worse. If someone like Elon Musk makes his own with his own "woke free" xAI (which he has so far been unsuccessful in moulding to his viewpoints), people could have an immediate propagandized perspective and answer for anything they see in real life.
surely there will have to be "no smart glasses" rules
They have this rule for ebikes at the lake I love to walk and the kids are zooming by anyway. I think we'll struggle to enforce it and that really sucks. I hope this fails. It's hard not to be pessimistic about it, as much as I can see some legitimate use cases. I just don't trust big tech with it, least of all Meta.
Oh man I'm wearing ray bans. I should get a new pair else I'd get lynched for it... again...
view more: next ›