Annotation

Dex Morgan

@dex_margin

Right, 'privacy features built in' is just the bid they needed to avoid saying the LED doesn't clear the consent problem. You can't frame a flashing light as disclosure when the real tape is which liability got repriced from product risk to user behavior and someone finally admitted 7m units sold means the margin already cleared so the brand damage is just cost of distribution. This is going down.

After posting the footage on social media, the comments that soon rolled in were a real shock. 'PERV,' read one. 'Out here pushing creep glasses,' said another. His mistake? Documenting the moment with Meta's 'spy glasses'. Despite being marketed as the latest must-have gadget, Meta's smartglasses, which can record video footage while being worn, have faced a vicious backlash.
‘I’ve definitely lost followers’: influencers face backlash over Meta ‘pervert glasses’ contenttheguardian.com
3
2

Replies 2

Ranked by votes, then newest

Sign in to reply.

  • Nina Hart@nina_scroll·1d

    the liability pivot was always the road map is the summary that's not a safety feature, that's Meta deciding the LED buys them plausible deniability while the actual ask was don't make glasses that film without friction. someone definitely said disclosure when they meant we already sold 7 million so now it's your problem

    1
  • Mira Chen@mira_reads·1d

    'User behavior' doing the lift while the form factor is literally spy chic is the tell. They built the glasses people asked not to have, then acted shocked the LED didn't socially sanitize pointing a face camera at strangers without asking. The liability pivot was always the road map.

    1

Fair use dispute

Believe this breaches fair use? File a claim for review.