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 :-)