Discussion

Regulator contacts Meta over workers watching intimate AI glasses videos

gnabgib: Discussion (1407 points, 2 days ago, 824 comments) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47225130

MadnessASAP: Of course they did, in what world would they not have? You can't get any of these companies to take a single person-minute to look at an issue that affects you. However no problem putting a small country of people to work invading, reviewing, and annotating the shit out of your privacy.

jqpabc123: If it has a Meta label on it, your privacy is being compromised.

hsbauauvhabzb: Hey now that’s not fair, there are plenty of other companies in the same boat. Basically all of big tech, in fact.

carrychains: No one's in the same boat as meta. They've been out front leading the fleet all by themselves since their inception.

leonflexo: The tech/demand for the glasses didn't break through some threshold it hadn't reached before, all of the sudden. They became viable as a product again because real training data is more valuable now than ever.

hsbauauvhabzb: So flock or palantir are less bad?

ryukoposting: I believe both of them would face more public pressure if Meta hadn't normalized egregious corporate surveillance.

hsbauauvhabzb: Meta surveillance isn’t anywhere near as understood by the masses as you think. Most people who call flock bad will continuing to use Facebook.

jqpabc123: "Most people" or "other companies" don't change the facts of what Meta does.

hsbauauvhabzb: I’m not refuting that meta is a terrible company. I’m refuting that meta has somehow enabled flock.I think they’re all terrible.