[arowthway]

Because person wearing glasses usually can move and video surveillance cameras usually can't? If that's not it then spell it out for me, please. Also, why would i be deceptive in this discussion? I feel like I missed some ideological conflict.

[intended]

Imagine someone pulling up a smartphone and then recording everything that happens around them. Contrast that with someone wearing smart glasses and doing that exact same thing.

On a separate note, (and this is a genuine question) are you by any chance aware the term Non-consensual intimate imagery / NCII?

I am beginning to suspect that the average HN goer isn’t aware of the scope and scale of the Trust and Safety problem.

[salawat]

They don't care. Or they refuse to realize that tech isn't the solution to it, but an amplifier of it's scale.

Can tell you that my urge to take photos/record drastically dips around other people. Particularly if it were meant for any sort of commercial exploitation. Stephenson called people wired for max indiscriminate data collection/processing "gargoyles". Personally I prefer glassholes.

https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/news/articles/the-borg-of...

[arowthway]

I admit it's hard to care for what you people can't even articulate

[intended]

Why dont you state what it is you think isn’t clear?

That way we can figure out what it is that’s confusing or unclear and then see it you find it has any moral moral significance.

[arowthway]

Someone pulling up a smartphone on me would feel hostile because it's violating a social contract. Maybe I'd feel betrayed and attacked if it turned out someone was recording me using glasses, but I don't know, I don't care about dashcams and this is not that much different. I imagine it feels bad and scary for women when someone takes creepshots of them, and this tech does open opportunities for that. Maybe that would be enough for me to hate glasshats if I had a bit of empathy. But isn't the genie already out of the bottle with 'deep nude' models available for everyone forever?

No, i don't think I've heard about NCII before, and Trust and Safety sounds like some corporate PR whitewashing term to me.

[intended]

1> Genie out of the bottle: Yes and no. Nudification is a growing problem, non consensual intimate imagery is a current problem. AI related tools for image gen still require some amount of skill, and that is reducing its blast radius.

2> NCII: Years ago, I was scoping reddit to identify content that was harmful from an Indian perspective. By far the largest category was NCII. This could range from morphed images, to intimate images reshared, to images from their socials reshared in thirst communities. This included images of underage children.

Removing NCII is rough. First the victim has to be willing to come forward and get over the shame. Then they have to deal with a near impossible system and get someone to help. The more conservative the nation, the less likely the support networks will be forgiving or helpful. Finally, once the data is out there, it’s going to be reflected across multiple sites which are in international jurisdictions.

This is one of the situations where, I fear, your life is simply hosed.

Korea is another country which has a severe problem with NCII, and I believe they even instituted laws against deepfaked porn.

>PR whitewashing: Heh. Well thats the division that deals with online safety, fraud, content moderation, policy and the rest. I believe eBay was the first firm to use that term when they were handling fraud.

[throwmeaway888]

Have you heard the term non consensual intimate fantasies? I've heard it's an even bigger problem.

[intended]

Well, you would fortunately be wrong. Fantasies are commonplace and well studied in society, psychology and even in the law.

The issue is when you go from fantasy to actually enacting it, which is usually when you earn the epithet of “Creep”.

Also, why make a throwaway for this line? I take it you haven’t heard of NCII?