this post was submitted on 22 Feb 2026
55 points (98.2% liked)

Privacy

4086 readers
154 users here now

Icon base by Lorc under CC BY 3.0 with modifications to add a gradient

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Meta is weighing facial recognition for its Ray-Ban smart glasses, raising serious privacy concerns, but potentially offering accessibility benefits for the visually impaired.

top 9 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] cerebralhawks@lemmy.dbzer0.com 14 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Of course they are.

Mark Zuckerberg called Facebook users “dumb fucks.” What do you think he thinks about people who want to put Facebook literally on their faces?

In case it’s not obvious who his masters are.

[–] Quetzalcutlass@lemmy.world 4 points 3 days ago

Called them "dumb fucks" for trusting him with their personal information, no less.

[–] RejZoR@lemmy.ml 10 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Wasn't their dumbass lizard CEO just questioned about bullshit they are doing and days later they release this?

[–] TrickDacy@lemmy.world 4 points 3 days ago (1 children)

He knows that tech ceos can commit crimes whenever they like

[–] WhatAmLemmy@lemmy.world 1 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Replace "tech CEO's" with "S&P 500 CEO's".

America is a corporate dictatorship, where your access to freedom, liberty, and justice are proportional to your level of wealth.

[–] TrickDacy@lemmy.world 3 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

That's true, but tech companies seem to get special treatment. Example: Uber created an enormous fleet of illegal taxis. But it was through an app, so it was fine.

Edit: lol at the downvote

[–] hector@lemmy.today 2 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Does anyone use facebook anymore? Everyone I talk to hates it now, keeps it for marketplace mostly. There is no alternative for friend connections as such as I understand it though, not with anyone on it, let alone a popular fediverse option. Even as facebook buggered their friend connections utility, presumably to win the anti trust case, to give the justices a half plausible reason to accept whatever pay offs they orchestrated for them under the table to rule in their favor in part of whole.

[–] Onomatopoeia@lemmy.cafe 3 points 3 days ago (1 children)

I know too damnany people who use it.

I never have. Never even been to the website.

[–] hector@lemmy.today 1 points 3 days ago

I never gave them a picture, also spelled my name wrong, but that's not fooling anyone now. All of the baby boomers and other use it religiously now, and have surrendered every detail of their lives to it, while my generation is now regretting having done so prior and cutting it back out.