We are having an anti-technological moment.
-
@thalassophobic @futurebird yes, but they are cumbersome and you have to keep holding them and look at them.
Which is also the point about the glasses being a surveilance tool. Yes, you could already record people without them being aware. But the glasses make it much easier.@DrorBedrack @futurebird Still, a phone would be a nicer option in the long run, especially since they are proppable, can be worn on the arm, can be used for a lot more stuff than subtitles, and they offer more privacy, which many disabled people still want.
Even eye-readers have decent tech and just need that tech to be improved and affordable instead of getting glasses. There's even necklaces you can add to your phone to make it able to be taken off and not impact anything. Glasses can get lost. I'm wearing glasses right now and I've lost many a pair.
-
@futurebird sight and/or hearing impaired people say the glasses are a life saver. They can describe what they see or add subtitles to chats.
@DrorBedrack @futurebird sounds similar to the accessibility benefits of cars or delivery services. While none are really designed for accessibility and are not really ideal even, they do offer benefits for a population who are generally treated like s$!t. I don’t think it justifies the enormous harm these “solutions” do (including to disabled groups)
-
@futurebird sight and/or hearing impaired people say the glasses are a life saver. They can describe what they see or add subtitles to chats.
Ok. Make them prescription-only.
My _contact lenses_ are, and the possible harm they might cause if misused is pretty limited.
-
We are having an anti-technological moment.
* spy camera glasses
* datacenters: the physical plant
* AI slop proliferation
* AI assisted mental health criseses
* spy cameras in public spaces (flock and others)
* social media consolidation and controlBut, of course it isn't really about the technology itself, it almost never is, it's about HOW and to/for WHO the technology is being deployed. And it's about the absence of a clear WHY.
So I have to ask "is this really new?"
@futurebird This time - yes it is
-
Who feels at risk like that? None of this stuff is broadly popular.
@futurebird I do , my neighbour do , most homes on my lock has a #security camera it used to not be like this but people have less trust in strangers then they used to
-
I do think some forms of surveillance have played a role in some crimes becoming less common. For example that fact that few people use or carry cash and the difficulty in stealing credit cards have kind of ended mugging as a NYC crime. The fact that phones can be traced made phone snatching stop. (remember when subway phone snatching was an issue for a few months?)
@futurebird @RegGuy exactly
-
We are having an anti-technological moment.
* spy camera glasses
* datacenters: the physical plant
* AI slop proliferation
* AI assisted mental health criseses
* spy cameras in public spaces (flock and others)
* social media consolidation and controlBut, of course it isn't really about the technology itself, it almost never is, it's about HOW and to/for WHO the technology is being deployed. And it's about the absence of a clear WHY.
So I have to ask "is this really new?"
@futurebird Random thought, but I suspect nothing could kill meta glasses faster than big, official looking signs around parks, playgrounds and schools saying 'No recording glasses in this area', preferably with words 'children' and 'safety' somewhere nearby.
If all those anti-flock activists want to spread some momentum to fight pervert glasses, printing signs like that and sticking them up at would make everyone wearing a pair look like a predator in no time.
-
Most of the trends are rather old. You don't need cameras, AI or wifi to make a panopticon. And at this point we all have experience with these systems. This is why no one is really even discussing "but what if FLOCK cameras can reduce crime and make us safer?" -- we already know that's not what this is about.
No one is going to track down your stolen bike with those cameras.
Abusers will use them to find their victims. Powerful people will use them to make lists of enemies of the state.
@futurebird Turns out the rich & a lot of assholes want the Stasi back, and the rest of us say "HEY, maybe that sucked!"
-
Employers will use them to decide who is really efficient, who is taking too long on their lunch break.
A man watching kids play at the park with camera glasses isn't going to send a video to Grandma of his kid doing an amazing jump. We don't even want to think about what he's up to.
It's hard to imagine or expect anything good coming from any of this technology.
@futurebird I feel like for quite a while it was "common sense" that surveillance was a bad thing, with it only occasionally being made explicit that this came out of the experience of unconstrained authoritarianism. Like, when we started getting traffic cameras on street corners, people were uneasy about them. I think that idea has been gradually chipped away.
-
We are having an anti-technological moment.
* spy camera glasses
* datacenters: the physical plant
* AI slop proliferation
* AI assisted mental health criseses
* spy cameras in public spaces (flock and others)
* social media consolidation and controlBut, of course it isn't really about the technology itself, it almost never is, it's about HOW and to/for WHO the technology is being deployed. And it's about the absence of a clear WHY.
So I have to ask "is this really new?"
@futurebird Resistance against #fascism takes many forms.
-
@futurebird Turns out the rich & a lot of assholes want the Stasi back, and the rest of us say "HEY, maybe that sucked!"
@mdhughes @futurebird …and omg, there are SO many assholes.
-
J jwcph@helvede.net shared this topic
