this post was submitted on 04 Jun 2026
347 points (98.9% liked)

World News

56391 readers
2977 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Witchfire@lemmy.world 91 points 1 day ago (25 children)

Only predators buy those glasses.

[–] VitoRobles@lemmy.today 6 points 6 hours ago (3 children)

I support smart glasses. Not from meta or Google or whatever the fuck.

The more cameras we point at cops and people in power, the better.

The moment an open-source privacy focused set of frames exist, I'm buying it.

[–] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 4 points 3 hours ago* (last edited 3 hours ago) (1 children)

It should have to light up when recording. Like, at a hardware level.

Surveillance at critical points like arrests seems important in order to have basic accountability. Surveillance all the time if you know it or not is more of a slippery slope.

[–] rumba@lemmy.zip 2 points 1 hour ago

Have a light that beams out from beside the sensor through the same lense, no way to cover it without blocking the camera

Have a visible dot shutter that closes when it's not recording,

Require you to touch the temple on the frame the whole time it's recording.

There are ways

[–] plz1@sh.itjust.works 2 points 3 hours ago

Now I envision cops just straight up jacking people's Rx glasses under suspicion of being recorded, like they do with phones already.

[–] Tollana1234567@lemmy.today 4 points 15 hours ago* (last edited 15 hours ago)

why do you know the android, zuckerborg is one of epsteins clientele.

[–] Flower@sh.itjust.works 0 points 1 day ago

Then someone links those glasses and facial recognition to the tea app, and those predators start screeching about privacy.

[–] smh@slrpnk.net -1 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (5 children)

I've heard those sorts of glasses can be handy if you're visually impaired and, say, clothes shopping. You can ask the glasses "hey, do these items match?"

Still creepy in the wild, but there are some valid use cases.

edit to add examples:

[–] harmbugler@piefed.social 5 points 9 hours ago

If they could make these glasses more privacy invading by making them useless for the visually impaired, they would.

[–] phoenixz@lemmy.ca 4 points 12 hours ago (2 children)

You don't need glasses for that, you could simply use an on-hand camera, maybe a special phone for those with vision problems

[–] rumba@lemmy.zip 1 points 1 hour ago

You could carry a laptop and use it's webcam too

It's down to convenience. I'm already looking at what i'm what i'm trying to film, instead of just recording that, i'm looking at my phone screen to try to record the thing and not even witnessing it in real life. I'm at my kids track meet, any time i'm trying to record him running i'm experiencing it through a 5" amoled screen so i my wife can have a video instead of just being there.

We can figure out how to make them impossible not to notice they're recording. we just need privacy shutters or to have to hold the temple or something.

[–] smh@slrpnk.net 3 points 11 hours ago

The glasses seem like a better form factor than a hand-held phone, for the use case where you're out and about and your hands are full, managing a service dog harness and/or cane, and trying to shop.

So, I guess you could mount your special phone for the blind on your chest or waist and have it talk to bone conductive headphones you're wearing. And pick up whatever you'd like described and hold it in front of your chest/waist.

(There's other options, the glasses just seem more convenient because they're on your face.)

[–] WhyJiffie@sh.itjust.works -2 points 8 hours ago (1 children)

you're visually impaired and, say, clothes shopping. You can ask the glasses "hey, do these items match?"

those are some fucking priorities. a little fashion over human rights

[–] smh@slrpnk.net 2 points 8 hours ago (1 children)

Yes, and anyone that buys these glasses to increase their independence is a predator, like the parent poster says. /s

[–] WhyJiffie@sh.itjust.works 0 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

to increase their independence? are you kidding me? then don't be surprised when that so very important function to give clothing advice will suddenly become a subscription service with ever increasing fee! all the while still trampling on the privacy of everyone near you

[–] smh@slrpnk.net 2 points 3 hours ago

Yes, how dare someone want to buy dog food without asking for help.

[–] lka1988@sh.itjust.works 20 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

Nah. My wife is legally blind without her prosthetics. She's rather stay blind than use these.

[–] UnrepentantAlgebra@lemmy.world 0 points 16 hours ago (2 children)

What do you mean she is blind without her prosthetics? Isn't she still blind with the prosthetics or do they help with vision somehow?

[–] athatet@lemmy.zip 5 points 9 hours ago (2 children)

Glasses to help see are prosthetics. People can be legally blind when not wearing their corrective lenses.

[–] mellibird@feddit.online 2 points 6 hours ago

I'm one of those people. Close to being legally blind if I have no glasses or contacts on. My dad is legally blind without corrective lenses.

[–] UnrepentantAlgebra@lemmy.world 1 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

Ok that's fair. I've just never heard of glasses referred to as prosthetics and assumed you meant some kind of artificial seeing device. Which is suppose is what glasses are but I was hoping for a more high tech answer.

[–] smh@slrpnk.net 1 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

(the account you just replied to isn't the account with the blind wife who uses prosthetics)

[–] athatet@lemmy.zip 1 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

While this is correct, I AM, in fact, someone who wears glasses and knows some stuff about them and their uses.

[–] smh@slrpnk.net 1 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

Yep, no shade on you, I just didn't want the other person to think they'd heard back from the other other person.

[–] athatet@lemmy.zip 1 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

Real question: do other lemmy viewers not show usernames on posts or do a lot of people just not read them? Cause I’ve deffo had other instances of people not realizing they were talking to someone else.

[–] smh@slrpnk.net 1 points 1 hour ago

I think folks just don't read them. I use Connect and it shows usernames.

[–] smh@slrpnk.net 1 points 11 hours ago* (last edited 11 hours ago)

TBH, I'm also not sure what they meant. The only visual prostheses I know of are things like glass eyes. Maybe "prosthesis" is their term for eyeglasses or contact lenses?

edit: or there are neat things that integrate into your brain to give you sight. So maybe one of those?

[–] FaceDeer@fedia.io 3 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Like an automated version of the Be My Eyes app.

[–] benjirenji@slrpnk.net 2 points 7 hours ago

My wife helps people with this app on a regular basis.

load more comments (21 replies)