New posters are going up in London - love them.
-
@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.
-
@tmcfarlane That would be unreasonable but Meta can not be allowed to hide behind them
@Wen @tmcfarlane Actually... what Tristain thinks I meant is not far from what I actually meant, and I still mean it.
First off: Give facebook a millimeter, they will take the city. I base this off of how Facebook used the "Listen on Localhost" to manage covert browser to app communication, their normalization of the pixel, and even the more recent facial recognition roll out. Give them ANY trust, and they will abuse it.
Second: Blind people in particular should not be wearing glasses that point back to Facebook. Why "In Particular"? Because they have less information about what they are sending back, and if dependent on them, it may not be an option to simply not wear them at inappropriate times. Is a blind person really gonna know when sensitive information is visible but not audible? No. Is Meta? I remind you how shady this company is.
Third: I have seen what the existance of cellphones has done. Meta will move to make their glasses the way of doing things, which will lead to a degredation of infrastructure needed to do things other ways which will lead to Meta Glasses being essentially required for blind people.
Fourth: Move fast and break things. Are we okay, at all, with trusting disability infrastructure to them? A company that hides privacy settings on purpose, does unchecked experiments on their users, shuffles peoples timelimes, hides things from followers, considers abusing people into agreeing "discovering a preference" and downloads eight gigs of who knows what onto people's phones?!
This company belongs nowhere near vulnerable members of society. Any useful features are just bait in the trap. Sure, the cheese may be real, but it still is connected to a cage.
-
@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.
@veroandi @smallcircles @fgraver @Wen @tmcfarlane No, no, and NO!!! Why sighted folks are so eager to say bullshit!
You have no idea of what it means to be blind, to have a need for an aid, and have to go EVERY TIME to a doctor, to produce papers, and then show them to the shop, before having what you need. It's my right, to go to a shop or a retail, and buy. Like any other. It's mainstream tech which should be made accessible to all. And if you do not understand this, well, it's your problem. Those sighted folks who don't really know our needs.
Then, consider that a mainstream company has more chance to have an assistance service, blind-related companies are a niche who very often take advantage of us as well. For their profit. I fight for a more affordable, ethical, accessible, mainstream industry. I don't need assholes who isolate blind folks saying "doctors should prescribe blind-specific products". I'm not medicalized, every paper I show, for me, means I must justify to the world about my existence, one more time.
I'd like people talking because they know what they say and what it means. If you talk just for vague information, please, keep your mouth firmly shut. -
P pelle@veganism.social shared this topic
