Post #4154650
2026-07-27 10:25 UTC
Replies (4)
-
@Wen@mastodon.scot 2026-07-27 10:28
@tmcfarlane@toot.community I quite agree - they can have a purpose. I am not visually disabled but I can imagine the difference audio interpreted vision would be a massive advantage for some (and I am sure some people who are might be able to comment). But as you say that does not require their use as a free for all image capture system to be used covertly and linked to the undressing shite that Meta and X are playing (amongst other things) with should be lawful.
-
@cinebox@masto.hackers.town 2026-07-27 14:19
@tmcfarlane@toot.community @Wen@mastodon.scot legally mandate them to be bright orange, IMO.
-
@darwinwoodka@mastodon.social 2026-07-27 16:25
@tmcfarlane@toot.community @Wen@mastodon.scot If they are for vision get them from an ophthalomologist, not from the pervert store.
-
@Epic_Null@infosec.exchange 2026-07-27 17:17
@tmcfarlane@toot.community @Wen@mastodon.scot On one hand, I would take a page from dog training on this one. You do not teach a dog to jump up on people on command until you have established a foundation of not jumping up on people. A good set of glasses for blind and partially sighted people needs to be introduced AFTER the pervert glasses problem has been resolved. On the other, THESE glasses should not be licencable. THESE glasses are a nightmare, and we can do better, with actual respect for privacy and consent. Preferably backed by a company not known for "Move fast and break things"