I didn't know about Meta's ownership. I would love to see some internal discussion if Ray-Ban pushed back and was overridden and forced to make the product.

Ray-Ban is choosing to produce these in a partnership. They don't have to participate and by doing so they're guaranteeing they exist and profiting from the bad behavior. And even making them more stylish and therefore more appealing.

A "reasonable adult" would have no trouble understanding why someone who thinks the existence of these glasses is a moral and privacy nightmare would also seek to punish Ray-Ban.

Reminds me of this: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/oct/17/billy-bush-f...

Donald Trump - becomes president, after all it was just “locker room talk”

Billy Bush - career destroyed for passively chuckling

You say suspicion is warranted, you're still not only charging forward with this but also complaining about other people's perception of you doing so. You're not being left out, you're included in the narrative. You just don't like it.

I hope, for the kids' sake, in addition to normalizing the idea that it's okay for dad to be recording them without their awareness, you teach them that most people find the idea of strangers doing this to be creepy and distasteful (for good reason), so they need to be wary around Meta glasses despite seeing them as a quotidian thing.

Because you're not _just_ recording your kids. You are a walking surveillance camera that nobody has consented to.

To say a phone is intrusive but Meta glasses are not is an interesting choice of words. As a parent, I get what you mean but as a privacy aware member of the tech community I think the word you want is "disruptive" or "distracting."

Why shouldn't I tell you not to take pictures of your kids. They're too young to opt into having their faces enrolled in Zuck's facial recognition database.

You liberty is worth nothing. You could hold a camera in your hands. Get a go-pro that records locally, or choose any other option. But nope, you're hoping you can record your child, put their faces in a recognition database associate precise location data, and then hope that Meta does not use this data in ways you don't approve of. (or merely sell it to an endless string of data brokers)

> without making the phone camera an ever present intrusion while outdoors

You don't have to be constantly filming your kids, that's optional.

This is a cute spin, but what you're saying is "I like the glasses because I can film people without them knowing" it just happens the people in this case are (mostly) your children.

So its either the "ever present intrusion" of camera or the ever present intrusion of the glasses? Cant you just live your fucking life without recording everything?

Counterpoint: Burberry.

Early 2000s, for variety of reasons, their iconic check pattern got associated with cheapness and violence.

Being expensive means your more exclusive. Being creepy, I don't see that helping.

As are most fashions; this by itself is not enough for me to think the hypothetical less likely than any alternative.

You're mistaken; in my family _everyone_ has heard of and read about the "creepo glasses" and that they're associated with Facebook, and want absolutely nothing to do with them or anybody who would voluntarily wear them. Plus, they have zero problem telling anyone wearing those glasses around them to either take them off or leave.

Yes, I would consider that "massive" since none of them are HN readers nor work in any tech or media related fields.

out of all of the semi/actually-obscure issues that people on HN talk about, meta glasses are not really all that obscure.

my local gym has posters up forbidding them. my non-tech daughter has asked me about them. the college i teach at has policies about them.

their banned in courts in various countries. they've been criticized in mainstream outlets like the guardian, BBC, CNN, business insider, national post, yahoo, and the independent. (i dont think any of those outlets are reasonably considered "tech pubs read by a statistically insignificant number of people")

useful heuristic: every comment I've seen with excessive 9s was nonsense

You really think if I asked 200,000 people in my city, only one would have heard of Meta RayBans? when there are billboards, magazine ads, and window stickers in every glasses store? Couldn't tell you the real number but it's probably closer to 1 in 5.

Not uncommon, in comments like these, for there to be so many 9s that the population of Earth is exceeded.