New posters are going up in London - love them.
-
New posters are going up in London - love them.
edit - a variant shows a different image as you move
OBEY
-
@Wen I'm so torn on this. I feel like they need to be licensable for the blind and partially sighted. But your average pervert has no business walking around with them
If they are for vision get them from an ophthalomologist, not from the pervert store.
-
The perverts already are in Trump's case
-
@Wen I'm so torn on this. I feel like they need to be licensable for the blind and partially sighted. But your average pervert has no business walking around with them
The problem you are missing is that these glasses are hooked upto one of the world's most corrupt company servers.
I'd only be ok for licenses to blind people if the servers and glasses were in public ownership and the code open source.
-
The problem you are missing is that these glasses are hooked upto one of the world's most corrupt company servers.
I'd only be ok for licenses to blind people if the servers and glasses were in public ownership and the code open source.
@monkeyben @Wen I'm not missing it, I'm weighing it
-
@Wen I'm so torn on this. I feel like they need to be licensable for the blind and partially sighted. But your average pervert has no business walking around with them
On one hand, I would take a page from dog training on this one.
You do not teach a dog to jump up on people on command until you have established a foundation of not jumping up on people.
A good set of glasses for blind and partially sighted people needs to be introduced AFTER the pervert glasses problem has been resolved.
On the other, THESE glasses should not be licencable. THESE glasses are a nightmare, and we can do better, with actual respect for privacy and consent. Preferably backed by a company not known for "Move fast and break things"
-
On one hand, I would take a page from dog training on this one.
You do not teach a dog to jump up on people on command until you have established a foundation of not jumping up on people.
A good set of glasses for blind and partially sighted people needs to be introduced AFTER the pervert glasses problem has been resolved.
On the other, THESE glasses should not be licencable. THESE glasses are a nightmare, and we can do better, with actual respect for privacy and consent. Preferably backed by a company not known for "Move fast and break things"
@Epic_Null @Wen cool, we'll send you round to confiscate them from the blind users that are getting on with their lives.
-
@Epic_Null @Wen cool, we'll send you round to confiscate them from the blind users that are getting on with their lives.
@tmcfarlane @Epic_Null I don’t believe is what was that being argued at al.
-
@tmcfarlane @Epic_Null I don’t believe is what was that being argued at al.
@Wen @Epic_Null how are you interpreting the word "ban"?
-
@Wen @Epic_Null how are you interpreting the word "ban"?
@tmcfarlane @Epic_Null As the removal of devices without controlled and regulated functionality.
-
@tmcfarlane @Epic_Null As the removal of devices without controlled and regulated functionality.
@Wen @Epic_Null ...which implies the removal of devices in use as assistive technology to blind and partially sighted users (assuming there's no license/exemption, as being argued above).
It's great that there are alternatives, and if a ban helps assistive users transition to those then great (but maybe consult those users). -
@Wen @Epic_Null ...which implies the removal of devices in use as assistive technology to blind and partially sighted users (assuming there's no license/exemption, as being argued above).
It's great that there are alternatives, and if a ban helps assistive users transition to those then great (but maybe consult those users).@tmcfarlane @Epic_Null No it does not. What is does is require restrictions on their use outwith of that.
-
@tmcfarlane @Epic_Null No it does not. What is does is require restrictions on their use outwith of that.
@Wen if you "ban" with no exemptions (as suggested by the other poster above), no one can use them. That's literally what the word implies.
-
> Now, smart glasses from ethical companies may have an important role to play in increasing accessibility. But as far as I know, those don’t exist yet.
Last time when I was posting on 'pervert glasses', specifically the meta/rayban thing, I came to discuss accessiblity aspects with @elettrona who deliberately chose to avoid Meta, and found a good company in https://letsenvision.com
Their careful design makes bystanders aware what the glasses are doing. I do not know how they deal with cloud connection, but I see that they partner with Google.
@smallcircles @fgraver @Wen @tmcfarlane Look at this - it seems that Meta is pushing towards blind people. And, for my own point of view, this is a trap. This is making people dependant to a single company and push mass-surveillance to most vulnerable people.
https://mastodon.social/@ACBNational/116993566340867206 -
@smallcircles @fgraver @Wen @tmcfarlane Look at this - it seems that Meta is pushing towards blind people. And, for my own point of view, this is a trap. This is making people dependant to a single company and push mass-surveillance to most vulnerable people.
https://mastodon.social/@ACBNational/116993566340867206@elettrona @smallcircles @fgraver @tmcfarlane They do not done *anything* for the public good. Open standards that prevent a monopoly are the best way to go, buts unlikely to happen.
-
@Wen if you "ban" with no exemptions (as suggested by the other poster above), no one can use them. That's literally what the word implies.
@tmcfarlane I did not see this as a ban with no exemptions. More stopping proliferation and repurposing.
-
@tmcfarlane I did not see this as a ban with no exemptions. More stopping proliferation and repurposing.
@Wen in this thread I was specifically responding to the suggestion by another user that these specific glasses should not have any exemption/license.
-
@Wen in this thread I was specifically responding to the suggestion by another user that these specific glasses should not have any exemption/license.
@tmcfarlane That would be unreasonable but Meta can not be allowed to hide behind them
-
@smallcircles @fgraver @Wen @tmcfarlane Look at this - it seems that Meta is pushing towards blind people. And, for my own point of view, this is a trap. This is making people dependant to a single company and push mass-surveillance to most vulnerable people.
https://mastodon.social/@ACBNational/116993566340867206@elettrona @fgraver @Wen @tmcfarlane
Ai ai ai. Yes, most definitely a trap. Very sad and insidious.
-
@smallcircles @fgraver @Wen @tmcfarlane Look at this - it seems that Meta is pushing towards blind people. And, for my own point of view, this is a trap. This is making people dependant to a single company and push mass-surveillance to most vulnerable people.
https://mastodon.social/@ACBNational/116993566340867206@elettrona @smallcircles @fgraver @Wen @tmcfarlane
Smart glasses for blind people should be produced by medical companies that are subject to strict regulations, and sold with a doctor's prescription. Marketing and social media companies should not be allowed to sell health devices that collect sensitive data.
