Why?
Given Meta's history of disregarding everyone who's not Zuck (and him being a sociopath), why give them the benefit of any kind of doubt? Right now, everyone should assume malice as the first explanation, and then accept that maybe there was some ineptitude once evidence appears.
So, nothing except the main sales pitch then?
> There is no Rayban data in Facebook
There is no war in Ba Sing Se?
I’d be happy to join some kind of rage-off at metas general practices but my claim was specifically just about the glasses data
The Meta glasses, like everything Meta does, is marketed as a tool for interacting with Meta's services. Including Facebook.
This was my only claim. Which remains true. Videos off of the glasses voluntarily posted on FB is no different than iPhone videos posted on FB so it has nothing to do with the glasses themselves. If your claim is “posting videos in FB is a bad idea”, I agree, I don’t do that but again, that has nothing to do with the glasses either. It doesn’t make posting easier or force me to opt-out of automatically posting or anything silly like that
And you can’t do any “facial recognition” against Facebook either. I’m glad meta figured out that was a pointless bad idea.