this post was submitted on 20 Sep 2025
60 points (79.4% liked)

Asklemmy

50751 readers
441 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy πŸ”

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

  1. Open-ended question
  2. Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
  3. Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
  4. Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
  5. An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~

founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Meta along with Ray-Ban announced new smart glasses and the YT reviewers are praising it.

For me, I don't find them particularly good and being a Meta product, it will be horrible for privacy. Also people can record others without their knowledge with these, hell no!

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] justsquigglez@leminal.space 59 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

I'll be the outlier and say that given the perfect circumstances, I would buy Smart Glasses. BUT in no way, shape, or form would I buy META Smart Glasses.

I work a retail job where I'm staring at shelves for like 80% of my shift, it would be dope as hell to have smart glasses and have a video playing in my vision while I'm working.

But until there are more of an "open source" type Smart Glasses that aren't supported by one of the big companies like Meta or Apple, I'll join the rest of y'all on staying far away from them.

[–] EvilBit@lemmy.world 14 points 2 weeks ago (8 children)

There’s open source but not video capable. The Brilliant Labs Halo glasses coming in November are more of an informational companion with a peripheral-view display rather than a field of view overlay. So it’s not what you’re looking for now, but maybe a generation or two later it’ll meet your needs.

[–] justsquigglez@leminal.space 6 points 2 weeks ago

That's still really cool to hear though, definitely looking forward to see where that is in a few years.

load more comments (7 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] daggermoon@lemmy.world 32 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

No, and I think they oughta be illegal. I don't want to be recorded.

[–] ethaver@kbin.earth 10 points 2 weeks ago

somebody tried to bring them to our psych ward and argue that they needed them because they were prescription (in fairness they were but bruh). it was a shitshow.

[–] Blackfeathr@lemmy.world 32 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

It'll be a hard no for any smart glasses from Meta or Google.

However, in the very distant and not quite guaranteed future, I would consider smart glasses (again, NOT by Meta/Google/etc) for accessibility.

As someone with auditory processing disorder, it would be a game changer if I had the ability to read live closed captions of what someone is saying, while they are talking to me. That would be my only use case.

[–] affenlehrer@feddit.org 26 points 2 weeks ago (3 children)

I wear glasses as anyways and I'd love a heads up display. Augmented reality where I could basically spawn full sized displays anywhere for work would be nice too. I'd probably need a device to control it somehow too.

However, I wouldn't want them from Google, Apple, Meta or any of the other large corporations. Not coupled with their walled gardens, their subscriptions, their EULAs and terms and conditions and "updates" I didn't ask for.

I just want the hardware and a driver for Linux. Connect the glasses via WiFi to my own computer and run the applications on this computer. If I want to use the glasses outside of my home, I would set up a VPN and use my phone to create a WiFi hotspot.

However, I'm pretty sure nobody is going to build it like that, so I'll never have smart glasses. Which is fine.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] T00l_shed@lemmy.world 25 points 2 weeks ago
[–] Apeman42@lemmy.world 22 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

In concept, they're the kind of sci-fi shit I dreamed of as a kid. The reality is that they'll be locked-down useless trash that you pay out the ass to spy on you.

[–] t_berium@lemmy.world 9 points 2 weeks ago

And on everybody else.

[–] zecg@lemmy.world 21 points 2 weeks ago

I wouldn't use anything from Meta, no exceptions.

[–] apfelwoiSchoppen@lemmy.world 20 points 2 weeks ago

I would not wear one and would never trust anyone that would.

[–] Noite_Etion@lemmy.world 17 points 2 weeks ago

Tech isn't fun anymore. Why do I want to act as a spy camera for big corporations

[–] lunarvortex@lemmy.ml 17 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

No! Anyone who buys a phone on their head for $800 is the reason humanity is getting destroyed by corps

[–] P00ptart@lemmy.world 5 points 2 weeks ago

Just try this epidermal implant. You'll love it. But, you'll need the brain implant to activate it...

[–] BuboScandiacus@mander.xyz 16 points 2 weeks ago

When some foss alternative releases at an affordable price, yes.

See y'all in 2077

[–] ambardeshielo@lemmy.ml 15 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Just in a dream scenario where they are

  • Seamless, Not bulky
  • GrapheneOS version for it
  • Physical kill switch for mic, camera and sensors
  • Tor routed, or VPN friendly
  • Only open source software
  • Environmental and Fair wages commitment
  • 100% Repairable and pro-consumer ownership
  • Up to date law for these technologies

I feel like a phoneless future is quite interesting, even though we will face new issues like not knowing if a person is paying attention to you or not.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Banana@sh.itjust.works 14 points 2 weeks ago

Absolutely fucking not. I have literally no interest in being more online. That sounds depressing.

[–] Ledivin@lemmy.world 14 points 2 weeks ago

I'm mildly interested in the technology, but I sure as hell wouldn't go anywhere near Meta-branded anything. For starters, based on the demo, the product fucking sucks, but then there's also the privacy and fascism issues.

[–] Appoxo@lemmy.dbzer0.com 13 points 2 weeks ago

Remember Google Glass?
Same story here. Neat tech but no chance buddy

[–] nagaram@startrek.website 13 points 2 weeks ago

Is it a HUD or just a spy tool?

I gotta wear glasses anyways so it'd be cool if I can get like a pathing over lay with maps and maybe customizable notifications.

But video calling and just taking poorly framed pictures isn't interesting.

[–] grue@lemmy.world 13 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

I wanted a wearable computer with a head-mounted display real bad until the justified backlash against Google Glass ruined it for everyone.

This is a category of device that cannot be allowed to be implemented as a surveillance-capitalist product, only as Open Hardware.

[–] P00ptart@lemmy.world 12 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Even open source, it should not happen. Nobody should have a camera on them that isn't identifiable as recording them. Phones are bad enough but at least you know where the camera is pointing. It's why I keep my phone parallel with the ground in public. Cameras on glasses should not exist in any way, shape or form because you can't know if it's recording you or not. And honestly I want nothing to do with a cyberpunk future.

[–] Truscape@lemmy.blahaj.zone 6 points 2 weeks ago (3 children)

I mean, pandora's box has already been pried open with a crowbar and the lid thrown into a woodchipper. Hidden cameras have been accessible to the mass public for almost a decade at this point.

At this point having a model that could be assembled and controlled by the end user means that the recorded data is within their possession. It might be for naught tho, as passerby could have their Meta lenses recording without any knowledge of the consequences.

But hey, now you can expose your workplace abuse with video evidence in court! XD

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] billwashere@lemmy.world 11 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Not from Meta for sure.

And for all the people hating on these there are real world applications that could truly help folks. I’m very ADHD. My brain goes on tangents. I forget mid sentence what I was going to say. I have a terrible time remembering peoples names. These are all things this type of technology could help me with. But they would have to be implemented with the correct privacy guards in place. And I wouldn’t touch anything from Zuck with a 39 Β½ foot pole.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] t_berium@lemmy.world 11 points 2 weeks ago

Every idiot wearing this dystopian Stasi shit needs to be punched in the face.

[–] golden_zealot@lemmy.ml 11 points 2 weeks ago

If they weren't a dystopian, privacy invading nightmare and had more actual useful features rather than awful AI, and weren't owned and controlled by an evil corporation, then I might be inclined to try them.

[–] jeena@piefed.jeena.net 10 points 2 weeks ago

I saw how impossible it was to actually take the WhatsApp call for Zuckerberg himself.

[–] gezginorman@lemmy.ml 10 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

i'd buy glasses that would scramble the vision of smart glasses

[–] Truscape@lemmy.blahaj.zone 6 points 2 weeks ago

IR blaster glasses with a toggle switch could be pretty easy to make with today's tech.

[–] Carrot@lemmy.today 9 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

I love the idea of smart glasses, and would happily buy them. However, it'd 1. Need to have 3rd party app support and 2. Be able to work without connecting to any tech company's servers. I've gotten used to my android phone that doesn't have google play services, and I'll never go back to having a device that phones home without my permission. In a perfect world I'd like to have some FOSS firmware and OS to run on them, but I'd be willing to go without as long as I could disable traffic to all major tech company servers.

Unfortunately these requirements will likely mean I won't be getting smart glasses any time soon

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] victorz@lemmy.world 9 points 2 weeks ago

Never, and I would be offended if I noticed someone with them looking at me.

[–] minorkeys@lemmy.world 7 points 2 weeks ago

If the data it collects was only on my devices and I can customize the settings to collect what is ant when I want. But that will never happen. It can't be a tool I purchase and use solely for my benefit, the person who owns it. Fuck these tech fascistsnjunkies, I hope they all fucking die of cancer.

Unless it can connect to my own server, no.

[–] Xaphanos@lemmy.world 7 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

I have a strong use case. As a hearing aid and earpods. Regular in ear units never stay put and aren't comfortable. Once I find a set that is affordable and can take my prescription, (and meet the need) I'm in.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] etchinghillside@reddthat.com 7 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

Nope. I can wait for the chip implant to broadcast ads in my sleep.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Fyrnyx@kbin.melroy.org 6 points 2 weeks ago

Just because youtube reviewers say it is good, doesn't always mean that it is.

[–] daniskarma@lemmy.dbzer0.com 6 points 2 weeks ago

From meta? Not a chance unless there's a way to completely free them from any meta related software.

[–] StellarExtract@lemmy.zip 6 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

I'd love them, but like others have said, not if made by Meta, and not if they rely on sending all my data to cloud services to function.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] monovergent@lemmy.ml 6 points 1 week ago (4 children)

No, even if it were open source, I don't want to normalize an instrument with such potential for privacy violations.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] HurlingDurling@lemmy.world 6 points 2 weeks ago

Fuck no. I don't need to record my life to share it with the world. Even if people would be interested in it, why do I need to be sharing so much of my life.

[–] MissJinx@lemmy.world 6 points 2 weeks ago
[–] Dagamant@lemmy.world 6 points 2 weeks ago

Literally the only thing I would want β€œsmart” glasses to do is play videos or show messages from select apps. Ditch the shitty camera, don’t ever connect to an β€œAI” service, and for the love of god, don’t be made to lock into a big tech company..

[–] ganksy@lemmy.world 6 points 2 weeks ago

I don't think I want my face to be any more punchable than it already is

I would kinda like glasses that could display my heart rate and running pace, so I would not have to look at my watch.

[–] Lanske@lemmy.world 5 points 2 weeks ago

Depends which company makes them. Probably not

[–] ksh@aussie.zone 5 points 2 weeks ago

Isn’t tech already creepy enough, how’s this going to make things better, I can see limited good uses cases as opposed to how it’s being used most of the time right now

[–] Sal@mander.xyz 5 points 2 weeks ago

The use-cases that I see advertised are not things that I do in my day-to-day. I usually place my phone on a drawer or leave it in my backpack - I definitely don't want it on my face.

So, to me, smart glasses feel like an uncomfortable gimmick at this point. Maybe there is something amazing about them that has not yet clicked with me, but for the time being I don't see me buying one of these for the foreseeable future.

load more comments
view more: next β€Ί