[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.