A lot of comments in here from privileged people complaining about some imagined oppression while ignoring the nature of actual ones.

I would love if meta glasses were freely distributed in poor, black and brown communities in the United States where police intimidation and rights violations are routine, and where there is almost no recourse because even when filmed via phone (if you manage it) enough context is missing to allow any litigation to err on the side of taking the word of the police. Not everyone is able to capture these on their phone in the moment, with enough context to make a case. In a world where police are predatory, a camera on your face becomes like a dashcam. Insurance against becoming a victim. Many police are still not required to wear body cams, courts and juries tend to take cops word as veracious evidence.

Citizens wearing glasses that record, if evenly distributed, would seem to reflect the surveillance state back at the authorities. If the problem is it's made by Meta, then fine. But it is irritating how much of this no cameras in public discourse seems authored by relatively privileged types who ignore the actual benefits of cameras in public given the power of witness testimony in the courts, and the biased nature in which such testimony is often favored.

Imo if you don't have answer for that problem, nor an ability to acknowledge more cameras in public has actually been an equalizer where oppression actually happens, then I have to doubt your sincerity.

▲

IndySun 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

You're suggesting total surveillance as an answer. That's going to happen then everyone will be oppressed in mo time at all.

Your examples and grievances are real and shared by me and many reading your comment, however, maybe let's start by making sure police are accountable? At the same time stop employing thugs and racists. Stop giving them weapons and a uniform. And make them unaccountable for (as the rest of the world see it) out and out cold bloodied murder.

	▲	godwinson__4-8 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		I'm suggesting more nuance in the debate. I already acknowledged Meta being the company behind this is not ideal. Just like being glad someone can record police brutality or ICE executions on their iPhone is not some endorsement of Apple as a corporate entity. I agree with your sentiments but we also have to be realistic about the solutions you suggest. It is frustrating to only hear pie in the sky solutions when so many people are suffering today. It often reads like the move against cameras is a move from an already privileged class to confine the surveillance state to poor communities, were it already exists in the form of hyperaggressive and predatory policing. If the state is going to do surveillance anyway, one might be tempted to suggest an equalization of this power is a good thing. I'm simply saying its not as straightforward as many people have been led to believe.

▲

dzikimarian 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Your arguments sounds just like their internet.org pitch. Also advertised as great equalizer for the poor. Facebook used it for data extraction and political plays, with no regard for actual people using it. Meta should never be involved in any matters of public interest.

▲

godwinson__4-8 2 days ago | parent [-]

Nothing about my argument suggests engaging in the delusion that Meta has any "regard for actual people using it". So you either didn't understand it, or are attacking a straw man. Using iPhones or Androids to film the police can be a useful equalizer. It does not mean one endorses Apple or Google's corporate activities, or engages in the same delusion with regard to those companies.

I've dealt with this same sort of objection three times now in other comments. Instead of repeating the same objection, why don't you attempt to pick up any of my rejoinders, all of which are lacking a thoughtful reply. I am happy to be proven wrong here. Yet all I get are essentially 4 different versions of the same cheap attempt to mangle my point into some defense of Meta or surveillance or big tech. The inability to deal with the actual substance of my point suggests a concerning lack of candor.

Can you do better?

▲

dzikimarian a day ago | parent [-]

You're dealing with the same objection, because, in the thread about Meta glasses, you're trying to argue about smart glasses in the vacuum.

Is easy access to private camera positive for people disadvantaged against the system? Likely yes.

Would the benefits be largely eclipsed by negative impact like perpetuating violence, depression and polarization if Meta is main vendor? Also yes, because they are careless enough to extract private data and offer it to people benefiting from vulnerable individuals.

Hardly surprising your comments are discussed in context of Meta if you comment in thread about Meta.

▲

godwinson__4-8 a day ago | parent [-]

How do the same arguments not apply to iPhones and Androids?

How is pointing out the utility of cameras on consumer glasses (as cameras on consumer phones) to actually make an impact where oppression actually happens arguing in a vacuum?

You didn't answer the question. It seems to me you live in a speculative world, where in the real world it is well known people use these things to level the playing field. Do you deny that the ubiquity of cameras among the populace has lessened the ability of the state to act with impunity on American streets? Or do you only speak of oppression through the prisim of speculation?

Is it a perfect solution? Does oppression end at camera point? Obviously not, no more than at gunpoint or take your pick.

Perfect options do not exist. It is easy to insist on some sort of ideological litmus test when the consequences of what actually happens in reality are remote to you. Anyone who has actually seen how the criminal justice system operates would understand the value of cameras for those the state seeks to incarcerate or worse. What could be more oppressive? Seeing an ad you don't like?

Forgive me for not filming you getting bludgeoned in the streets, I don't agree with Google's data policy? What a useful civic actor that makes you. Accompanied by the obvious fact you don't even have a remotely plausible plan to usher in your supposed alternative.

In such a situation, it is hard to distinguish you from any other adversary to righting these ills, as your utility to anyone in actual risk is doubtlessly negative.

▲

dzikimarian 9 hours ago | parent [-]

Google and Apple while far from saint weren't caught multiple times directly monetizing violence, political polarization or vulnerable minors and directly lying about what they do.

What I'm arguing is that if Meta ceased to exist some years ago, there would be less bludgeoning to film to begin with, as social media-driven hate is source for a lot of them.

▲

godwinson__4-8 2 hours ago | parent [-]

And if men were angels no government would be necessary.

Obviously, Meta appears as more of a social ill. It's a social network. What has made society necessary and yet unpleasant has always been the same - other people. Rodney King and worse preceded Facebook. I simply don't think you actually have a very robust framework of how the world works. Sorry to put it bluntly. It's just deeply unsatisfying reasoning to anyone whose knowledge of history spans past the current millennium.

Even with respect to Apple and Google, Im not sure the claim Meta is uniquely evil actually is sustained on robust examination. Nevertheless, I take your point. At the very least, I appreciate your attempt to have a discussion. Have a good day.

	▲	dzikimarian an hour ago \| parent [-]
		Obviously Meta as social network has more opportunities to show "evilness". But also it has more opportunities to show good side. And yes in the end it's always people. What makes a difference is that some of those people sit on the Meta's board and they consistently show, they aren't humanity's finest. To the point, where I don't think any technological stunt can make up for harm they're doing, therefore making their existence net negative for humans. Of course one can argue on cynical/real-politik level something like Meta was unavoidable due to "how the world works", but that doesn't mean they should be immune from criticism, as honest public discourse is one of the ways to push Overton window. Happy to see appreciation on your part :-)

▲

anon373839 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Police can and should be reined in. There are so many better levers that can be pulled to do this, if only the political will were present. A technofeudalist surveillance state is a poor solution.

	▲	godwinson__4-8 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		The political will does not exist. This is not a new problem. Americans have consistently chosen surveillance, for more than two decades now. Unless you have a plan to codify privacy as a right, repeal patriot act era powers and actually have it pass the Senate, then you are by definition advocating a poor solution as it is not viable. Meanwhile in the courts were being poor is criminalized and sends people to actual oppression in jails and prisons right now today as opposed to an imagined "technofeudalist" oppression sometime in the future having a camera recording is usually the best and only defense possible against the state. If no one recorded it's you vs the state, and you will lose.

▲

plagiarist 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

I would also love for ubiquitous surveillance to be used for good, but what would happen in your scenario is ICE using the footage to hunt and kidnap people who "look" like undocumented immigrants.

	▲	godwinson__4-8 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		Do you not see an irony in your claim? Why was ICE pulled back in Minneapolis? Because cameras caught the state in a lie. Without them those murders would have been swept under the rug, even celebrated. If you think the problem with ICE is too many cameras once again I think you make my point. More people have died in ICE custody and at the state's hand since, yet don't have such clear incriminating footage of ICE available. ICE doesn't want to wear bodycams. They don't want cameras in their prison camps. Don't you think under such circumstances, it is a little suspect that you won't acknowledge at all the way cameras are actually an equalizer? ICE is already doing the things you claim to fear. More meta glasses on the streets, especially on the heads of regular decent people, activists or vulnerable populations could only be a good thing. Phones can also be used to spy on populations. Should citizens thus refrain from filming ICE with their phones? Or is preventing people from being murdered and letting the state brand them a terrorist right in front of you more important? It's not a perfect world. You have to make a tradeoff. Imo you're making the wrong trade, and frankly one that is obviously coming from a place of speculation, and not immediate fear of actual oppression. ICE doesn't like cameras. Apparently you don't either. Yet you claim to be against ICE? Why don't you square the circle for me instead of deflection by way of slippery slope. If you have a meaningful rationale I'm eager to hear it.