Elektrine
Log in Register
Search Chat Timeline Gallery Friends Email Files DNS Private DNS Domains VPN Notes Passwords
Back
Open post
monica_b1998 @monica_b1998@lemmy.world
· 8mo ago
Judge scolds Mark Zuckerberg's team for wearing Meta glasses to social media trial
cbsnews.com

Judge scolds Mark Zuckerberg's team for wearing Meta glasses to social media trial

A Los Angeles judge ordered Meta officials to remove their AI glasses at a trial over the impact of social media on users.

1052
188
0
0
Sign in to interact

Conversation (188)

Showing 98 of 188 cached locally.
90 comments are reported by the remote server but not cached here yet Sign in to load more
Open reply Open reply
Devolution
@devolution@lemmy.world · Feb 20
Scolding without jailtime = slap on wrist.
315
39
0
Open reply Open reply
TropicalDingdong
@TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world · Feb 20
Thread reply
a small amount of jailtime is a slap on the wrist. A scolding is nothing.
143
1
0
Open reply Open reply
A_norny_mousse
@A_norny_mousse@piefed.zip · Feb 20
Thread reply
I think even a small jailtime would be pretty serious. Provided he can't buy himself out. A fine would be a slap on the wrist*. A scolding is just that - something certain people have learned very early to ignore. \* depends on the amount of course
28
212
0
Open reply Open reply
hesh
@hesh@quokk.au · Feb 20
Thread reply
A demand for removal and threat of being held in contempt seems like the appropriate response to bringing a camera in, no matter who you are.
70
10
0
Open reply Open reply
[deleted]
@snooggums@piefed.world · Feb 20
Thread reply
It does matter who they are! The judge said not to bring something in and they clearly ignored the judge's directions and it is their job to comply with the judge's directions. They are not some random person off the street.
44
196
0
Open reply Open reply
hesh
@hesh@quokk.au · Feb 20
Thread reply
I dont disagree, and I think they should face punishment for what they've done already.. But what's supposed to happen here? Jail time specifically for bringing a camera? I dont get it.
4
8
0
Open reply Open reply
[deleted]
@snooggums@piefed.world · Feb 20
Thread reply
Yes, they should get jail time for being in contempt of court because they are professionals and should be held to a higher standard than people off the street. A person off the street should get a warning. Professionals should be expected to follow a judge's orders.
45
196
0
Open reply Open reply
hesh
@hesh@quokk.au · Feb 20
Thread reply
Fair enough. Just let me know when it's guillotine time, thats what I'm here for.
8
6
0
Open reply Open reply
[deleted]
@snooggums@piefed.world · Feb 20
Thread reply
I must have forgotten that there is literally no middle ground between a verbal warning and execution.
6
196
0
Open reply Open reply
hesh
@hesh@quokk.au · Feb 20
Thread reply
12
3
0
Open reply Open reply
hector
@hector@lemmy.today · Feb 20
Thread reply
I think it would be unfair to just decide to behead them. We should have like a lottery, or contest, where people can submit suggesions for execution methods, I for instance think we should throw them off of high places, like the grand canyon, or a skyscraper. Maybe from Mount Rushmore from teddy roosevelt's head. Others might prefer to bend back tree limbs and tie them to their limbs, then release the bent limbs to have the tree recoil and tear them apart, trult a classic. Or a large heavy rock being put over them that crushes them for days. We could have a game show even to determine it, or a contest of some sort.
4
2
0
Open reply Open reply
Nelots
@Nelots@piefed.zip · Feb 21
Thread reply
Now I'm just imagining a field trip to the grand canyon. "And this, kids, is the wreckage left behind when we voted to lock Elon Musk into the back of one of his 'self driving cars' and set it loose on the top of the canyon."
1047
212
0
Open reply Open reply
Mossheart
@Mossheart@lemmy.ca · Feb 20
Thread reply
Bring back MXC, but without safety measures, make it pay per view and have all the money go to something positive for everyone. Healthcare for everyone or something.
6
0
0
Open reply Open reply
village604
@village604@adultswim.fan · Feb 20
Thread reply
It's not even a slap on the wrist.
22
3
0
Open reply Open reply
A_norny_mousse
@A_norny_mousse@piefed.zip · Feb 20
Thread reply
Yeah exactly. It's a scolding. Something certain types have learned to ignore in their teens.
9
212
0
Open reply Open reply
JasonDJ
@JasonDJ@lemmy.zip · Feb 21
Thread reply
My 6-year old is way ahead of the game then. I've got a tough decade ahead of me...
3
1
0
Open reply Open reply
A_norny_mousse
@A_norny_mousse@piefed.zip · Feb 22
Thread reply
Sorry for unsolicited advice, but: It's usually about consequences. At that age, they react to actions much more than to words. And more generally, they need to learn that words have meaning, too. There's way too many parents who just lazily shout "KEVIIIN, STOP THAT!" without any sort of follow-up. Not saying you do that though.
1
212
0
Open reply Open reply
Clent
@Clent@lemmy.dbzer0.com · Feb 20
Thread reply
You sound like someone who has never experienced court outside of tv or movies. The courts process is entirely pragmatic. The entire point is to remove all emotions. The judge is not going to presume malice. The person most at risk here is their council. It they were aware of this stunt they could cause themselves serious damage.
4
1
0
Open reply Open reply
Devolution
@devolution@lemmy.world · Feb 20
Thread reply

I work with courts routinely. You sound very naive.

This face is doable for the elites if actual consequences occur.

https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/215cac84-0986-496e-a5f0-3aa2efbd5b69.jpeg
https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/215cac84-0986-496e-a5f0-3aa2efbd5b69.jpeg
8
0
0
Open reply Open reply
danc4498
@danc4498@lemmy.world · Feb 20
Thread reply
1
0
0
Open reply Open reply
Tetsuo
@Tetsuo@jlai.lu · Feb 20
Thread reply
Jailtime for wearing glasses that can record videos in the courtroom? Maybe the death penalty while you are at it?
-47
18
0
Open reply Open reply
RipLemmDotEE
@RipLemmDotEE@lemmy.today · Feb 20
Thread reply
The judge made it clear no cameras or recording equipment were allowed in the session and they brought wearable cameras that have facial recognition capabilities. That is the definition of contempt of court.
54
0
0
Open reply Open reply
hector
@hector@lemmy.today · Feb 20
Thread reply
Defying a judge's order, in a way that would allow the mega corporation to identify jurors, and influence them through proxies, is quite serious. They have the motive, means, and opportunity to do so, and would get away with it if they did in all likelihood at most paying a settlement of cash.
18
0
0
Open reply Open reply
😈MedicPig🐷BabySaver😈
@MedicPigBabySaver@lemmy.world · Feb 20
Thread reply
Don't be obtuse.
16
0
0
Open reply Open reply
whotookkarl
@whotookkarl@lemmy.dbzer0.com · Feb 20
Thread reply
How much jail time was spent in 2025 by inmates held for contempt of court?
8
0
0
Open reply Open reply
eleijeep
@eleijeep@piefed.social · Feb 20

Judge Carolyn Kuhl, who is presiding over the trial, ordered anyone in the courtroom wearing AI glasses to immediately remove them, noting that any use of facial recognition technology to identify the jurors was banned.

"This is very serious," she said.

275
152
0
Open reply Open reply
FlashMobOfOne
@FlashMobOfOne@lemmy.world · Feb 20
Thread reply
Holy shit. Kudos to this judge for knowing their shit and acting on it. I love it.
149
5
0
Open reply Open reply
Eximius
@Eximius@lemmy.world · Feb 20
Thread reply
I mean.... That's their job... But yes!
50
2
0
Open reply Open reply
FlashMobOfOne
@FlashMobOfOne@lemmy.world · Feb 20
Thread reply

That’s their job

Is it though? In Donald's America?

21
1
0
Open reply Open reply
Eximius
@Eximius@lemmy.world · Feb 20
Thread reply

Oh sorry... I guess I was projecting...

https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/ab756051-a50e-44c6-a24f-dc3134ff3a3c.jpeg
https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/ab756051-a50e-44c6-a24f-dc3134ff3a3c.jpeg
44
0
0
Open reply Open reply
PhoenixDog
@PhoenixDog@lemmy.world · Feb 21
Thread reply
She didn't do anything though. Each and every individual should have been immediately charged and arrested. It's a felony to film in a court room without permission. Every dipshit wearing those glasses should spend a month in a cell before the trial continues.
7
0
0
Open reply Open reply
RampantParanoia2365
@RampantParanoia2365@lemmy.world · Feb 21
Thread reply
Acting on it? I mean, I guess opening and closing your mouth is technically action.
1
0
0
Open reply Open reply
PhoenixDog
@PhoenixDog@lemmy.world · Feb 20
Thread reply
Each and every individual should have been arrested then and there. Imagine walking into a major criminal trial with a film camera on your shoulder.
71
0
0
Open reply Open reply
Mouselemming
@Mouselemming@sh.itjust.works · Feb 20
Thread reply
Isn't it usual procedure that everyone else enters the courtroom and takes their places before the judge walks in? So the team would have had ample opportunity to film, record and facially-recognize the jury before Judge Kuhl made them take off the spyglasses.
60
4
0
Open reply Open reply
kureta
@kureta@lemmy.ml · Feb 21
Thread reply
Yep. They should have been arrested.
6
0
0
Open reply Open reply
GamingChairModel
@GamingChairModel@lemmy.world · Feb 21
Thread reply
The judge controls when the jury is in the room. So the jury enters last, only after the judge orders them in. And the judge can order them out at any time to have discussions outside their presence, too.
4
0
0
Open reply Open reply
JasonDJ
@JasonDJ@lemmy.zip · Feb 21
Thread reply

noting that any use of facial recognition technology to identify the jurors was banned

For that reason alone, she should have held them in contempt and declared a mistrial before wasting anyone else's time.

Zuck and his crew should've been arrested on-site for such an egregious breach of privacy and mockery of the justice system. And the next set of jurors should've been immediately informed of why there was a mistrial, and the very obvious danger of the defendant having even one frame of video with a jurors face in it.

Instead, he got free viral marketing.

What a fucking clownshow.

33
0
0
Open reply Open reply
PokerChips
@PokerChips@programming.dev · Feb 21
Thread reply
No charges?
5
0
0
Open reply Open reply
hector
@hector@lemmy.today · Feb 20
It's illegal to take photos and video in many courts, including all federal courts? Definitely one would need permission and can't do it surrepticiously. This is a slap in the face to the judge, and the courts, to flout their rules as if they were above them. And they were above them apparently, they didn't get held in contempt.
247
13
0
Open reply Open reply
Tryenjer
@Tryenjer@lemmy.world · Feb 20
Thread reply
There's no law anymore. These people have already gotten away with things much worse.
127
6
0
Open reply Open reply
7101334
@7101334@lemmy.world · Feb 20
Thread reply
Nature's laws remain.
24
2
0
Open reply Open reply
Rooster326
@Rooster326@programming.dev · Feb 20
Thread reply
-4
1
0
Open reply Open reply
Earthman_Jim
@Earthman_Jim@lemmy.zip · Feb 20
Thread reply
No one needs this spelled out, not even you...
5
0
0
Open reply Open reply
GreenKnight23
@GreenKnight23@lemmy.world · Feb 20
Thread reply
pretty sure when held in contempt at a judicial hearing you literally cannot leave the room unless you're in custody. good luck fighting that with your billions of dollars.
18
0
0
Open reply Open reply
BarneyPiccolo
@BarneyPiccolo@lemmy.today · Feb 21
Thread reply
Speaking of that, MORE EPSTEIN FILES PLEASE!
15
1
0
Open reply Open reply
jeffep
@jeffep@lemmy.world · Feb 21
Thread reply
Curiously people seem much more privacy aware with these
4
0
0
Open reply Open reply
PerogiBoi
@PerogiBoi@lemmy.ca · Feb 20
Thread reply
It's because they know that they ARE above the law. They've gotten away with things that would spell life in prison for you or I. They have the head of the America regime cozied up to. They were all at several dinner parties on Little St. James Island.
61
2
0
Open reply Open reply
hector
@hector@lemmy.today · Feb 20
Thread reply
They know any contempt findings by the judge would be overturned by higher courts, or cancelled by the president as well, as long as they are up to date on their protection money and pay the deductible on their plan. And they think the judge wouldn't dare in the first place, and would probably retaliate against the judge in secret ways if she did do something, and get away with it.
32
0
0
Open reply Open reply
dirthawker0
@dirthawker0@lemmy.world · Feb 21
Thread reply
I spent a few sessions in court last year and they disallow all phone use except for the attorneys and other officials.
4
0
0
Open reply Open reply
Reygle
@Reygle@lemmy.world · Feb 20

https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/52544ff5-ef26-4a0e-a3c4-0c967c093010.png
https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/52544ff5-ef26-4a0e-a3c4-0c967c093010.png
129
1
0
Open reply Open reply
WhatAmLemmy
@WhatAmLemmy@lemmy.world · Feb 20
Thread reply

anybody

51
0
0
Open reply Open reply
megopie
@megopie@lemmy.blahaj.zone · Feb 21
Gee, maybe there might be some practical, social and legal problems with always recording camera glasses…
64
1
0
Open reply Open reply
ImmersiveMatthew
@ImmersiveMatthew@sh.itjust.works · Feb 21
The sales of the glasses have been better than their VR headset which has really made them double down on the glasses as they see big potential. That said, I really think that it is a false hope as I suspect the market that is ok wearing Facebook glasses are small, but loyal.
61
61
0
Open reply Open reply
GoofSchmoofer
@GoofSchmoofer@lemmy.world · Feb 20
This feels like gorilla marketing to me. They knew the judge would tell them to take them off and it would be just enough of a sensational story to make it to press. Now more people know that Meta has these glasses. Edit: I'm not changing it. The responses to my mistake are too funny
54
17
0
Open reply Open reply
magnetosphere
@magnetosphere@fedia.io · Feb 20
Choads. All of them.
47
1
0
Open reply Open reply
Clent
@Clent@lemmy.dbzer0.com · Feb 20
Thread reply
These guys went full techbro. Never go full techbro.
8
0
0
Open reply Open reply
whelk
@whelk@retrolemmy.com · Feb 21
Good grief. This is such a goofy time to be alive
45
2
0
Open reply Open reply
simulacra_procession
@simulacra_procession@lemmy.today · Feb 20
The return of the glassholes
39
0
0
Open reply Open reply
stoly
@stoly@lemmy.world · Feb 20
Step one being "make the judge mad" is a bad idea.
35
2
0
Open reply Open reply
I_Has_A_Hat
@I_Has_A_Hat@lemmy.world · Feb 20
Thread reply
Yea, he better watch out or he's gonna get a $6000 fine instead of $5000.
28
1
0
Open reply Open reply
stoly
@stoly@lemmy.world · Feb 21
Thread reply
These people are not in danger. Any harm to them is reputational. Reputation is the only thing they have in life.
4
0
0
Open reply Open reply
anon_8675309
@anon_8675309@lemmy.world · Feb 21
The fucking hubris. I’m so sick of it.
34
0
0
Open reply Open reply
BarneyPiccolo
@BarneyPiccolo@lemmy.today · Feb 21
He put them in jail, right? RIGHT?
30
0
0
Open reply Open reply
Bakkoda
@Bakkoda@sh.itjust.works · Feb 21
Social media platforms can now also offer witness intimidation/jury nullification services! It's a feature.
28
0
0
Open reply Open reply
BurgerBaron
@BurgerBaron@piefed.social · Feb 20
I always looked down on two party consent states, but now with the spyware glasses freaks? I'm less sure than ever. I mean, I think I should be legally allowed to punch people in the face breaking the glasses just for wearing them, but this isn't a just world~
28
152
0
Open reply Open reply
v_krishna
@v_krishna@lemmy.ml · Feb 20
Thread reply
When google glass came out (2012 or 13) it was absolutely hilarious living in the bay and regularly riding muni (public bus) in the mission. I saw multiple people run into the door/poles/etc and also multiple people get their glasses ripped off their face and stomped on. Bus driver just shrugged, bus patrons applauded. I'm no luddite and all for technology but even more for consent.
16
1
0
Open reply Open reply
rizzothesmall
@rizzothesmall@sh.itjust.works · Feb 21
Scolds? That'll teach 'em...?
26
1
0
Open reply Open reply
h54
@h54@programming.dev · Feb 20
That'll teach him.
25
0
0
Open reply Open reply
MediumSizedSnack
@mracton@piefed.social · Feb 20
Get ‘em, Judge! Eww. CBS is linking to Free Press articles. What next ABC News and Epoch News?!?
20
152
0
Open reply Open reply
iga_no_ika
@iga_no_ika@sh.itjust.works · Feb 20
Thread reply

For those who don’t know, Bari Weiss founded Free Press and is current editor-in-chief of CBS news.

Bari Weiss - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bari_Weiss
16
0
0
Open reply Open reply
MonkderVierte
@MonkderVierte@lemmy.zip · Feb 21
The face he makes here...
17
0
0
Open reply Open reply
Zedstrian
@Zedstrian@lemmy.dbzer0.com · Feb 20

Alternative to CBS.

Zuckerberg's courthouse entourage showed up in Meta Ray-Bans
Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg testified in Los Angeles about social media's impact on youth. The judge cracked down on smart glasses in court.
https://www.businessinsider.com/mark-zuckerberg-courthouse-entourage-meta-ray-bans-addiction-trial-2026-2
17
0
0
Open reply Open reply
new_world_odor
@new_world_odor@lemmy.world · Feb 20
So I need to preemptively wear anti facial recognition makeup if ever called for jury duty. Gotcha. It seems somewhat realistic to expect an actual punishment for this, even if not properly scaled. It's worth fighting for. But being prepared alongside that is important.
14
0
0
Open reply Open reply
baggachipz
@baggachipz@sh.itjust.works · Feb 20
Never pass up an opportunity for getting in the news. Free advertising
12
0
0
Open reply Open reply
frustrated_phagocytosis
@frustrated_phagocytosis@fedia.io · Feb 20
Wow, they are all in on this psycho bullshit aren't they
11
0
0
Open reply Open reply
givesomefucks
@givesomefucks@lemmy.world · Feb 20
>Zuckerberg was in court to testify as part of a trial over whether Meta and Alphabet-owned YouTube deliberately designed their social media platforms to encourage compulsive usage by young people. Ironically I think rather than them wearing them for nefarious reasons, they've just been encouraged to use them for so long, that they are actually addicted to them as well. Like, if you were forced to use your employers product at work for 10-12 hrs a day and try to come up with way to monetize it in your off hours, you may start to rely on it eventually. Our brains are wired to always take the easiest path, that's actually the reason for technological advancement in the first place. They probably just don't even realize they're wearing them, it's just a (mostly useless and completely impractical) part of their bodies now.
10
7
0
Open reply Open reply
pelespirit
@pelespirit@sh.itjust.works · Feb 20
Thread reply
Don't stick up for the zuck, he's got fucking billions to pour into other people doing it for him.
22
0
0
Open reply Open reply
ayyy
@ayyy@sh.itjust.works · Feb 20
Thread reply
First of all you can’t use them for 10-12 hours a day because the battery only lasts like 2 hours. Which is a bit silly for glasses.
3
0
0
Open reply Open reply
hector
@hector@lemmy.today · Feb 20
Thread reply
They knew what they were doing, as if ignorance would be an excuse. No one wears camera glasses to court just forgetting about it. As if they wear the things on their own time, they probably wouldn't be caught dead wearing that garbage in their free time outside of hyping the product at work. They would have custom made something.
2
0
0
Open reply Open reply
vogi
@vogi@piefed.social · Feb 20
It always amazes me how Microsoft is though. Stuff like Threads, Instagram, Facebook is incredibly evil but they still work?! I can at least understand why the majority of people who don't care are there. Microsofts products don't even work to begin with though. Everything they touch be it Xbox, Teams or Windows is just so bad i wonder how we even ended up here.
9
152
0
Open reply Open reply
GreyEyedGhost
@GreyEyedGhost@piefed.ca · Feb 21
Thread reply
A lot of these products used to be good. 25 years ago, Outlook was the only option for mail and calendar because they worked well and nothing else was as simple or integrated. Windows XP brought an enterprise-class OS with true multitasking to the consumer. MSN messenger didn't have all the features of Teams, but it was a serious contender in the IM space. And now, I have Outlook every now and then telling me I have new mail but I cant see it until I restart the app, Windows gets shittier and more intrusive every day, and Teams on Android cant send me a notification about an upcoming meeting until the meeting actually starts, if I get a notification at all. I also wonder how they ended up this way given they were class leaders just decades ago. Now if we can get alternatives that don't have all the problems of Microsoft at its heyday, let alone now, that would be amazing. I already have my console alternative, just a few more pieces.
2
195
0
Open reply Open reply
vogi
@vogi@piefed.social · Feb 21
Thread reply
Oh yea you are right. XP was a joy to use. They have been slacking since they got that monopoly though. I am forced to use Outlook because of the company. And am always amazed how many redirects you can do for a simple authentication. Every service looks completely different and the audio in teams is so broken it cuts off for a couple of seconds and switches from mono to stereo for no apparent reason. Everything just feels like its extra work. Switching to Linux on my private devices actually reminded me of the old windows. I just wish the UI UX of some software would be on par as well. LibreOffice and GIMP is just not fun to use.
1
152
0
Open reply Open reply
Bluefalcon
@Bluefalcon@discuss.tchncs.de · Feb 20
They said "Sorry."
6
2
0
Open reply Open reply
Tetsuo
@Tetsuo@jlai.lu · Feb 20
You are essentially saying the crowd has to do its own justice. It's a courtroom, not a voting booth.
5
3
0
Open reply Open reply
Soup
@Soup@lemmy.world · Feb 20
Thread reply
Do…do you know how a jury works?
8
2
0
Open reply Open reply
Tetsuo
@Tetsuo@jlai.lu · Feb 21
Thread reply
Do juries decide who is in contempt of the court?
2
0
0
Open reply Open reply
FaceDeer
@FaceDeer@fedia.io · Feb 20
Thread reply
Are you aware that there's more to the court system than juries? And that those juries, too, operate under a strict set of rules about what they can and can't rule on?
-2
0
0
Open reply Open reply
hector
@hector@lemmy.today · Feb 20
But we can't tell the difference between the "far left" and far right. The one is threatening to fix elections and have a madman in absolute power to use dishonest arguments to eliminate half the population and enslave developing countries, and the other wants not pay more money for less in by private trusts overcharging us, and doesn't think working people should get screwed without their consent, and wants equal rights for people, and believes in the tenants of the Bill of Rights. /s Can't tell you guys apart!
4
0
0
Open reply Open reply
Kissaki
@Kissaki@feddit.org · Feb 21

No way of actually checking that they did delete anything

Not a random individual, but I would expect a court to be able to do so. Hold them, get an expert, verify.

3
0
0
Open reply Open reply
Gammelfisch
@Gammelfisch@lemmy.world · Feb 20
Good call judge!
3
0
0
Open reply Open reply
NachBarcelona
@NachBarcelona@piefed.social · Feb 20
Now that they were scolded, much will change. Piece of shit post.
3
152
0
Open reply Open reply
grimpy
@grimpy@lemmy.myserv.one · Feb 20
Schmuckerburger
2
0
0
Open reply Open reply
totesmygoat
@totesmygoat@piefed.ca · Feb 20
Wait, sorry for my ignorance. But wasn't this televised?
-3
195
0
Open reply Open reply
RipLemmDotEE
@RipLemmDotEE@lemmy.today · Feb 20
Thread reply
Read the article. Judge ordered no cameras in the court, and even if they were allowed, why would a judge allow one party to bring their own cameras _that have facial recognition capabilities_? Camera in courtrooms are for transparency with the public, not for the defense to get facial scans of jurors and witnesses.
16
3
0
Open reply Open reply
totesmygoat
@totesmygoat@piefed.ca · Feb 20
Thread reply
All it said was. Cameras not allowed unless the judge says so. not that this judge didn't allow. And a judge being petty as a way of letting a billionaire get away with anything they want is pretty on point for the American justice system.
-2
195
0
Open reply Open reply
RipLemmDotEE
@RipLemmDotEE@lemmy.today · Feb 20
Thread reply

The use of recording devices and cameras is generally banned in Los Angeles County Superior Court.

Directly from the article.

7
1
0
Open reply Open reply
totesmygoat
@totesmygoat@piefed.ca · Feb 20
Thread reply
"Judicial officers have the discretion to place limitations on video recording and photography in their courtroom," Generally, and discretion. And also... Performative... Has been the usual kid gloves these techbro douchebag have been "disciplined" by the courts. So I was wondering if this was the case. The article wasn't clear. And using meta glasses wouldn't stop these guys from just grabbing all the cell phone data and cross reference with the massive database they all possess.
2
195
0
Open reply Open reply
XLE
@XLE@piefed.social · Feb 20
Thread reply
According to the articles I read, sure doesn't seem like it. ironic, I know. The articles we're getting are made by journalists who are listening and writing down what they see.
7
152
0
313k7r1n3 Elektrine

Tor hidden service

elekhj7afj4qnrr4yd3bkzslsyo5jgfxw3orgjkhlcxifueodybyiiad.onion

I2P eepsite

j6b6cyk6gjmepjih7jjadxgxvvf3lzzujljuu2v4biemzpg3naya.b32.i2p

Platform

  • Email
  • Chat
  • Timeline
  • VPN
  • DNS

Company

  • About
  • Pricing
  • Contact
  • FAQ
  • Lite (no JS)

Legal

  • Terms of Service
  • Privacy Policy
  • Transparency Report
  • Report Abuse
  • Warrant Canary
  • VPN Policy

Support

  • support@elektrine.com
  • Report Security Issue
Mail client setup IMAP mail.elektrine.com:993 POP3 mail.elektrine.com:995 SMTP mail.elektrine.com:465
© 2026 Elektrine. All rights reserved. sigkill.is Server: 11:27:28 UTC