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 :-)