Sounds plausible.

We could also toss vibe coded mess on top of this and probably get closer to the truth.

The article itself is ambiguous on this point: "At the time of the publication, Meta admitted subcontracted workers might sometimes review content filmed on its smart glasses when people shared it with Meta AI."

That could be moderation, or it could be labelling new examples for training/validation

	▲	intended an hour ago \| parent [-]
		This feels like an instance of weasel words. One can scarcely imagine any reason to do content moderation over people’s own private and personally consumed data.