> but I can't understand how it's not absolutely destroying the Ray-Ban brand?

> Ray-Ban seems to go completely free.

because reasonable adults can distinguish between Meta and Ray-Ban.

Tadpole9181 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

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.

▲

andsoitis 2 days ago | parent [-]

Well, if the average consumer isn’t revolting against Ray-Ban, maybe your premise is mistaken.

	▲	mrweasel a day ago \| parent \| next [-]
		But they are revolting against those who are advertising the Meta Ray-Bans and the stores that sells them. My confusion is: Why does it stop there? Why isn't the protests aimed at Ray Ban?
	▲	Tadpole9181 2 days ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		My idea that adults can understand other people's ideas is mistaken because the average consumer is a hedonist that doesn't care about ideals? Not exactly sure how that tracks, but okay, bud.

▲

EGreg 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

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

	▲	andsoitis 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		I don't get the analogy.