this post was submitted on 13 Apr 2026
226 points (99.6% liked)

Technology

6560 readers
498 users here now

Which posts fit here?

Any news that are at least tangentially connected to the technology, social media platforms, informational technologies or tech policy.


Post guidelines

[Opinion] prefixOpinion (op-ed) articles must use [Opinion] prefix before the title.


Rules

1. English onlyTitle and associated content has to be in English.
2. Use original linkPost URL should be the original link to the article (even if paywalled) and archived copies left in the body. It allows avoiding duplicate posts when cross-posting.
3. Respectful communicationAll communication has to be respectful of differing opinions, viewpoints, and experiences.
4. InclusivityEveryone is welcome here regardless of age, body size, visible or invisible disability, ethnicity, sex characteristics, gender identity and expression, education, socio-economic status, nationality, personal appearance, race, caste, color, religion, or sexual identity and orientation.
5. Ad hominem attacksAny kind of personal attacks are expressly forbidden. If you can't argue your position without attacking a person's character, you already lost the argument.
6. Off-topic tangentsStay on topic. Keep it relevant.
7. Instance rules may applyIf something is not covered by community rules, but are against lemmy.zip instance rules, they will be enforced.


Companion communities

!globalnews@lemmy.zip
!interestingshare@lemmy.zip


Icon attribution | Banner attribution


If someone is interested in moderating this community, message @brikox@lemmy.zip.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

More than 70 organizations, including the ACLU, EPIC, and Fight for the Future, say the AI smart glasses feature would endanger abuse victims, immigrants, and LGBTQ+ people.

Archived version: https://archive.is/20260413160924/https://www.wired.com/story/meta-ray-ban-oakley-smart-glasses-no-face-recognition-civil-society/

top 41 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Tollana1234567@lemmy.today 1 points 11 hours ago

just like the og google glasses it ended used for PORN.

[–] derAbsender@piefed.social 0 points 11 hours ago

That's capitalism: they have to please their shareholders.

[–] mfed1122@discuss.tchncs.de 78 points 1 day ago
[–] underscores@lemmy.zip 41 points 1 day ago

quite literally the worst and most sociopathic invention possible

[–] Drusas@fedia.io 31 points 1 day ago (1 children)

This sort of item should be illegal.

[–] gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works 9 points 1 day ago (2 children)

I saw some fucking idiot with these on at a show a few months ago and I had to exert a lot of control not to yank them off her face and stomp on them.

Nobody wants to be recorded secretly. Especially not at a show. That’s a gross invasion of privacy - and, in fact, illegal in some jurisdictions (two-party consent laws for recordings).

[–] Drusas@fedia.io 1 points 12 hours ago

I'm already that dick who calls everyone out if they're recording or taking pictures on their phone during the show, so I am definitely comfortable calling out these jerks.

[–] moonshadow@slrpnk.net 3 points 1 day ago

Less control next time please, dunno how old you are but that's exactly the human immune response that rid us of Google Glass. Early beta testers consistently got rocked whenever they wore them outside and the project went nowhere. I'm too old now and don't get out enough but pray the kids are up to rejecting round 2

[–] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 40 points 1 day ago (3 children)

Name Tag, as revealed in February by The New York Times, would work through the artificial intelligence assistant built into Meta's smart glasses, allowing wearers to pull up information about people in their field of view. Engineers have reportedly been weighing two versions of the feature: one that would only identify people the wearer is already connected to on a Meta platform, and a broader version that could recognize anyone with a public account on a Meta service such as Instagram.

Creeps will instantly use it to go to where women are and find their accounts.

Not to mention any woman that has to work a customer facing job.

This would suck for men too tho, it would suck for everyone.

But it might be what it finally takes to get the dumb masses off Meta platforms. There's so many other reasons anyways, but idiots just can't delete their Instas

[–] Fredselfish@lemmy.world 7 points 1 day ago

Fuckers played WatchDogs and thought what a great idea.

[–] favoredponcho@lemmy.zip 5 points 1 day ago (1 children)

This is how we all start dressing like daft punk. Face masks in public.

[–] LordCrom@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago

I already do

[–] jaycifer@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago

In the first case the device would still have to identify people not connected to the wearer to determine if they are connected or not. That seems like it would make it much easier to bypass and tag strangers anyway.

[–] DFX4509B@lemmy.wtf 26 points 1 day ago (2 children)

That's Meta's whole intention with these.

Meta will arm them... but they won't have legs

[–] artyom@piefed.social 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)
[–] etherphon@piefed.world 2 points 1 day ago

I have to buy new glasses because I get a lot of looks in my black rimmed glasses even though the frames are too thin, I doubt people are paying attention. I have some new glasses on order just for peace of mind, fuck you Meta.

[–] nothingcorporate@lemmy.today 11 points 1 day ago (1 children)
[–] Vieric@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago

Hell, they probably consider that a plus.

[–] Maeve@kbin.earth 12 points 1 day ago (1 children)

More than 70 civil liberties, domestic violence, reproductive rights, LGBTQ+, labor, and immigrant advocacy organizations are demanding that Meta abandon plans to deploy face recognition on its Ray-Ban and Oakley smart glasses, warning that the feature—reportedly known inside the company as “Name Tag”—would hand stalkers, abusers, and federal agents the ability to silently identify strangers in public... In the May 2025 memo from Meta’s Reality Labs that the Times obtained, Meta reportedly wrote that it would launch “during a dynamic political environment where many civil society groups that we would expect to attack us would have their resources focused on other concerns.”

[–] fallaciousBasis@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago

Cool. Now also include when they're going to die and call me a death god.

[–] blueberry_tart@piefed.blahaj.zone 14 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Wouldn't be surprised if there are some Palantir x Meta smart glasses in the pipeline.

[–] pivot_root@lemmy.world 8 points 1 day ago

Pre-order now and get one free year of Flock Together—the only personal security service that combines cutting-edge facial recognition technology with Persona integration to provide real-time risk assessments of your fellow countrymen based on their ~~social~~ credit score, public records, and data broker profile.

[–] DarthPub@retrofed.com 14 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I assume Zuck is putting his fingers in his ears and mechanically screeching loudly to drown out such warnings

[–] Tollana1234567@lemmy.today 1 points 11 hours ago

making a mechanical scream similar to the body snatchers people in tha tmovie.

[–] Octagon9561@lemmy.ml 11 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (3 children)

The main issue isn’t even the technology itself, it’s that it’s Meta and owned by the Zuck.

I’m sure there are ways to engineer this so the data stays on device and use it for specific scientific purposes exclusively.

[–] Tollana1234567@lemmy.today 1 points 11 hours ago

zuck is meta.

[–] Dionysus@leminal.space 10 points 1 day ago

There is absolutely.

You'll never appease the shareholders or maintain your ~~quarterly~~ growth that way... ^Trump is pushing to eliminate quarterly reports for public companies, so they may not need to care and can just be evil for the sake of it.^

It's funny how they enshittify it for consumers first, but now aiming spread enshitification to wall street so they can fuck those 401ks even harder.

Capitalism baby!

[–] artyom@piefed.social 3 points 1 day ago

The main issue isn’t even the technology itself, it’s that it’s Meta and owned by the Zuck.

There are a thousand corporations tripping over themselves to out-horrify the public.

I’m sure there are ways to engineer this so the data stays on device and use it for specific scientific purposes exclusively.

I'm sure there are but if you see one in public, how would you know? Best just to ban them all.

[–] buttwater@hexbear.net 8 points 1 day ago

Love that my blob-no-thoughts co-workers wear theirs to work. Like, we're doing already barely constitutional monitoring and entrapment of the online left, why are you documenting our work to third party vendors, bro?

[–] melsaskca@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 day ago

If it makes money then nothing else counts. Go american capitalism! /s

[–] bpinyon@lemmy.zip 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

What? They didn’t learn this the first time? Yes the glasses are a cool idea but we need to be more responsible.

[–] Soapbox@lemmy.zip 1 points 1 day ago

I don't even get why anyone thinks they are cool. They don't even have displays in them. I would understand for smart glasses with no cameras, but the ability to display a HUD with navigation, music info, text messages, etc.

[–] ThePantser@sh.itjust.works 7 points 1 day ago (2 children)

If I ever see anyone with them and they look in my direction they will be turned into monicals.

[–] LifeInMultipleChoice@lemmy.dbzer0.com 9 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

Sounds like you need to talk to your local government officials about having them banned in your area, otherwise you are going to spend a lot of time in jail/prison. Glasses didn't take off when Google did them because the tech wasn't there yet 10 years ago. Meta is launching theirs now, Apple will be launching multiple next year, which means Google may be launching them again depending on the success Apple and Meta see.

As far as laws go in the U.S. It is generally accepted that if you leave your property, you can be recorded. Hence Ring doorbells, cameras in and outside every store, on the street lights, etc. I don't care for it, but privacy (in public) doesn't exist anymore.

[–] artyom@piefed.social 1 points 1 day ago

them because the tech wasn't there yet 10 years ago.

That's not true. They didn't take off because they boiled the frog too fast. They were rejected by polite society. That society is gone.

Palatable effort, fellow keyboard warrior!

[–] skhayfa@lemmy.world 4 points 1 day ago

I really wanted to read harm not arm.

Well yeah look who made them