3/5/2026 at 3:08:06 AM
by csomar
3/5/2026 at 4:07:36 AM
Discussion (1407 points, 2 days ago, 824 comments) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47225130by gnabgib
3/5/2026 at 3:33:36 AM
If it has a Meta label on it, your privacy is being compromised.by jqpabc123
3/5/2026 at 4:10:11 AM
Hey now that’s not fair, there are plenty of other companies in the same boat. Basically all of big tech, in fact.by hsbauauvhabzb
3/5/2026 at 4:16:25 AM
No one's in the same boat as meta. They've been out front leading the fleet all by themselves since their inception.by carrychains
3/5/2026 at 4:22:12 AM
So flock or palantir are less bad?by hsbauauvhabzb
3/5/2026 at 5:06:16 AM
I believe both of them would face more public pressure if Meta hadn't normalized egregious corporate surveillance.by ryukoposting
3/5/2026 at 7:28:06 AM
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 and wouldn’t think twice about it.by hsbauauvhabzb
3/5/2026 at 11:07:19 AM
You're excusing but not refuting.The behavior of "most people" or "other companies" doesn't change the fact that Meta's business model is and has always been built around invading, compromising and monetizing user privacy.
If it has a Meta label on it, your privacy is being compromised.
by jqpabc123
3/5/2026 at 4:16:20 AM
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.by leonflexo
3/5/2026 at 4:02:34 AM
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.by MadnessASAP