[yallpendantools]

That's really not a good comparison. When you screenshare, even when you forget, you are the one who initiated the action. You also have the power to stop it when you realize it. Neither is the case with these glasses.

If everyone did it, welcome to 1984 beyond Orwell's wildest imagination, where the Flock cameras have legs and look human. Who needs an elaborate entrapment operation when you can observe up close how someone twitches upon mention of Dear Leader's name?

You are thinking of a very shallow America's Funniest Home Videos scenario without considering that there is a lot of daily-life scenarios that rely on the assumption that you are not being filmed by some rando.

- In a lot of places where there is still stigma on various health issues, this kind of implicit privacy could be the difference between people seeking help or not.

- We give off a lot of small but probably "confidential" signals just because we can reasonably assume we are not being recorded. From simple allusions during casual conversation to maybe a quick still frame of someone's notes. What would've been an innocuous statement could become NDA violations when recorded at the fidelity usually reserved for deposition hearings.

- And speaking of innocuous, as anyone who's spent any length of time in the internet would know, it's so easy to take thirty seconds of a two-hour conversation out of context. Now you are giving everyone an eat-all-you-can buffet of your life to take out of context. Company valuations have been decided from less.

All in all, these perv glasses would make society more guarded and less open, and that in an age when people already have a hard time forming relationships.

[wolvoleo]

> You are thinking of a very shallow America's Funniest Home Videos scenario without considering that there is a lot of daily-life scenarios that rely on the assumption that you are not being filmed by some ran

Most of those were staged anyway. Just like all the skits on tiktok and Instagram are staged.

It's not like these are real life situations. You might as well record them with a big movie camera.

[perching_aix]

People are already always recording, just with their eyes and minds. Now, that is different of course, they can only transmit and transcribe these recordings inexactly, in a limited manner, semantically compressed. But that has its own pitfalls and it does already exist.

Doing all of those things you mention is entirely optional. And so what I'm proposing is if everyone had this leverage, culture would adjust accordingly, and not abusing this would become respectable first, then an expected common courtesy later.

It's not unlike how honor systems are abusable, and their entire point is that they aren't abused despite that.

There's also the side to this where I do believe that people would reevaluate what things are benign.

Regarding the inevitable Orwell: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sousveillance - one could reasonably argue in light of this is that being able to record what happens to oneself should be an inalienable human right rather. If someone is abused, they should not need the consent of their abuser to gain evidence of that.

This doesn't wash the Meta glasses however, exactly because of what the top parent comment explains as well, that its data sharing isn't actually user governed. This is prohibitive of people progressing through the aforementioned social adaptation to it, as people viscerally know by this point that these devices cannot be trusted that way (and they are correct). The rest follows.