ZuckOff is a free app that sees Meta glasses before they see you
wired.me
wired.me
It’s their game at this point, unfortunately. We hold very little say in how things go.
I created it in two months using Claude Code. It would have taken me three years without it. I would have never done it.
What about this free service is a win for big tech?:
well, the idea of democracy was to offer a viable path for people's discontent to be heard and remediated.
Unfortunately in most Western countries, dysfunctionality and corporatism have taken it over, and that is why you're seeing authoritarians on the rise across the world. They paint democracy and "legacy" figures as the scapegoat and themselves (plus handing them allllllll the power) as the only solution - just look at Milei and the chainsaw.
-Thomas Jefferson
I personally think the tree of liberty is probably getting pretty thirsty.
I'm not advocating for those means, but I understand how people are feeling more helpless than ever to just "let the system work it out" when the system appears to be bought and paid for by a small concentration of corporations and people with an increasingly disproportionate share of wealth.
And in retrospect, the French revolution is not considered a dark episode of modern history, on the contrary.
...which refers to the song https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Making_Plans_for_Nigel; the most well-known person called Nigel in the UK currently being https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nigel_Farage .
We are going to have the organic label soon on apps with this mindset..AI assisted development is evolving by the day and at the rate most apps will be built that way..
You are equating manual coding with more thinking, which has proven to be not the case given that it is mostly automated.
But this process is new, and not every AI assisted app is thoughtless. In fact, I'd argue that if a person put more thoughts and amplify their abilities with AI assisted coding, then the total sum of mental labour exceed that of any manually coded app by huge margins.
I'm not sure about this particular app, haven't looked into it. But I was merely commenting about the mindset of the parent comment.
My point was that you can have very well designed and thoughted apps with LLMs. In fact, I'd argue you can go way further and deeper than any manual coded application paired with AI assistance.
But maybe this instance is not the case. But even if it turns out to be not the case, if the app does work and serves the utility you are after, then why not using it? People use many things in everyday life without thinking about what thought was put into it..in fact, most people don't think at all about what it took to build anything, and how it was built..
Do you really know or care if the shoes you wearing was handmade or built by a factory in china using robots? you probably don't know and don't care.
If that were the case here, then a user of the app probably would not come away with the impression that it was a "very much LLM-aided app."
You're talking about how LLMs can be used in such a way that they help production of an app but remain invisible to the end user. But the beginning of this thread was someone using the app and coming away with the impression that it was heavily LLM influenced, which suggests that it was not done thoughtfully and did not remain invisible to the user.
But the parent comment positioned itself against all "LLM-aided apps", the author didn't say a slop or poorly coded. And even if it looks like LLM coded, we still can't tell about the level of thought that went into it. Developers had many poorly coded UIs and yet the apps functioned well and served it's purpose.
So the entire chain of reasoning is a form stereotype forming. Looking at this specific app, I can see that the author thought about the marketing/business and functionality, more than other alternatives, maybe because they had more mental bandwdith to do so.
I assume you are saying that because I apologized. I apologize for sounding like AI, I assure you it was hand written and I put thoughts into those comments.
> But... I get a "buy merch" popup the moment I open the page, and there seems to be a pro option for what seems to be a very much LLM-aided app? ...IDK, rubs off a bit wrong IMO. Just my personal opinion.”
Again, if the user of the app comes away with the impression that the app “seems to be a very much LLM-aided” then the LLM usage has affected the end product.
That is not say there are really mindlessly produced apps out there. But the comment made it sound that anything LLM-aided is negative.
Take a step back and think about your question in the context of privacy and software security.
For a few example answers, look at:
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adware
In fact, given the recent reports, in terms of security, one is better off consulting LLMs on the exposure surfaces. Something a solo developer can now do cheaply but in the past required a lot of specialized knowledge.
Sorry I don't understand your argument.
What does "LLM-assisted coding" have to do with the question I answered? Here's that question again:
> if the app does work and serves the utility you are after, then why not using it?
Note that this question does not contain any reference to "LLMs". Indeed, an LLM-generated product can contain adware, spyware, or trojan horses just like a human-written one.
For additional context, this app in question seems to actually contain adware and spyware, and has a closed source codebase, so might contain a trojan horse as well.
Those seem like pretty good reasons to not run this totally-vibe-coded software, so I'm sorry, but I don't understand your argument that LLMs make this okay or not okay or whatever.
My comment was about not equating every LLM assisted app as poorly thought of. Your comment is about this specific app, and I personally would not install this app regardless of how it was coded.
But again in terms of security since you brought it, I'd argue that having LLM assisted coded app might be secure than manually coded application given the recent advancements. Again, this is a generic statement, not specific to this app.
Your later comments generalizing to "every LLM assisted app" seem like a bit of insecurity you might be feeling for using LLM assistance. No need to feel that way. LLM assistance is okay. We're discussing something different from mere LLM assistance.
The author mentioned LLM-aided app, not even AI assisted; nor vibe coded hence my reaction. I don't have insecurity from using LLM nor from coding manually. But I noticed a trend in people thinking and biases and it threw me off hence the comment.
My original comment was heavily downvoted and furthermore some of my comments were accused of being written by AI meanwhile I'm writing it by hand. Again, people are taking tribes/camps, if you speaking of insecurities, it actually the opposite clearly, many programmers are worried of being displaced and automated. And I do understand the concern, I'm just stating the fact that one can have very deeply thoughted LLM-aided app.
If you are an experienced programmer (not someone that did an online course and calls like this) with YEARS of experience in coding in multiple languages really, the only real limitation is the speed at which you can type on the keyboard, that is usually way faster than what the even good LLM is able to emit tokens.
This not considering token expense: if we see at the point of view of the company, it's way cheaper an experienced programmer, that in my country costs you 4000 a month tax included, than the tokens that an LLM would use to do the same job.
On top of that there is the environmental impact of all of this, and why they are almost making me not use my car because it's euro 5 and now there is euro 6, these AI companies are emitting tons of CO2 to do stuff that human beings can do with 1/1000 the energy that these AI companies use.
I mean, have you truly tried? do others thing this is true? I'm truly astonished if that is majority experience, I think we need to get surveys on this.
You'll find plenty of people on HN who have this experience,but they just tend to be ridiculed or told they just haven't used AI correctly or enough. Admitting you don't use LLMs for everything, or god forbid at all, is like telling Christians you don't want to be saved.
I'm not here condemning people who use or not use. We have a new tech, for anyone who have been in the field long enough, it is nothing short of magic was has been accomplished in the last few years.
I could turn around 10K lines of code per day (I know it's not the best measurement but it does capture size to some extent) when I was not able to pull more than a 100 LOC. Let us say that most of it work, and there are few rough edges, a senior programmer can follow the shape of the code, and understand where to tweak and where the LLM get stuck. So this is basically like having racing engine compared to running.
To metaquote a recent thread - where is the vibe-coded replacement for Photoshop that outcompetes it? or Word? Why aren't vibe-coded games dominating Steam?
The speed alone doesn't translate to productivity and productivity alone doesn't translate to quality.
"The speed alone doesn't translate to productivity and productivity alone doesn't translate to quality."
Damn FDA organic app users are mad about this one
HN is not that rational of a discussion form but there are some good articles/comments so worth being around.
"ZuckOff" is a better quality marketing name for an app like this, vibecoded or not.
The media and already consumers have talked more about "ZuckOff" than "Nearby Glasses" so a winner has already been chosen.
And it is not about being first here. ZuckOff is just a better packaged app, that's why it took off.
> Do you really think popular = automatically better?
If it gets the point effectively across better than the original.
Yes.
It is more supported than something that is OSS that will die in under a year.
There are features that ZuckOff has that are more useful than the suggested one IMO.
For a vibecoded app, it is well packaged with a great name.
That is how you get people to use your app.
If you see something that is popular but you think it is worse, then your better/worse axis is not aligned with the majority.
For example, X is better than Mastodon because you don't have to pick a server to use.
If I go on another subject I invested time in, RPGs, D&D is the most popular system while inferior imho to a lot of others. Even if we have to keep the very flawed d20 system, the way forgotten chronicles handles everything is superior (and if in your bad opinion it's not the case because weirdly you like the class system, you probably would prefer pathfinder instead of dnd).
Between something opensource and trusted, and a proprietary potential backdoor that can send the data back to the Zuck himself you'd probably want to choose the former (cause you never know with closed sources).
I'm glad that he has shared the link as for me it's definitely useful. It's not a competition and I don't care what media talk, that's not about money.
Outside of that, this project giving scary warnings is something I cannot recommend to others.
> Between something opensource and trusted and proprietary backdoor that can send the data back to the Zuck himself you'd probably want to choose the former.
Only HN veterans care about this, not people in the real world.
(something as simple as a product name)... is enough to make someone ignore the actual point about software trust and instead argue that good marketing is what's important :)
Of course the irony there is palpable. Worry about the glasses while disregarding everything else.
Decided by whom?
This feels like astroturfing. The amount of new users recommending and hyping this proprietary product seems odd.
____coders don't even bother to vibe-code, they don't have a clue that there might be a better solution /s
Why would I want a bluetooth scanner to phone home? Seems untrustworthy. Nearby Glasses wins from a data safety perspective.
- run foreground service with the type "connectedDevice"
- discover and pair nearby Bluetooth devices
- run foreground service
- control vibration
- Google Play billing service
- run at startup
- Google Play license check
- have full network access
- view network connections
- ask to ignore battery optimizations
- prevent phone from sleeping
- connect to paired Bluetooth devices
- show notifications
Twice.
marketing > technical ability
It's been this way ever since I've worked in the industry and will probably never change because of human behavior.
No idea's original, there's nothing new under the sun
It's never what you do, but how it's done
and so I leave this comment as off topic, but, is it pretty easy to get your new app to appear in that ad slot, above the main contender?
I think these concerns are on topic, given the larger concern is about how bad actors can wield technology for profitable surveillance.
https://www.interteammarketing.com/blog/how-to-target-compet...
It was an amazing book.
BTW, I will also recommend 'a hero of our time' by Lermontov. In it, you will get an updated view of what the meaning of 'friends' will be. :)
EDIT: since this is getting upvotes, I will also mention that Lermontov is a descendant of the Learmonts, who were British folk.
Also, the book is small but it's jampacked with a lot of wisdom--street and abstract both-- and presented using a language that shines with poetry, it shines even through translation (Penguin Classics trans. is best).
As digital dystopias go, this is one of the worst I've seen; the episode ending with this happening to the protagonist shook me to the core.
This comment box is too small to contain the story.
* The Quantum Thief
* The Fractal Prince
* The Causal Angel
Actually, most of the story is on his WikiPedia page:
The 1st 2 are independent, I recommened people stop after 2nd book
> Logs every Bluetooth device it hears, glasses or not
How much AGI is required before LLMs stop putting totally irrelevant technical details into marketing copy?
> Nothing leaves your phone and there is no account.
This is good to know, but it's the exact type of thing Claude is obsessed with putting everywhere once you tell it NOT to do something. For example, if I tell it to commit but never push changes to GitHub, it can't help but leave "Changes committed; nothing was pushed." to EVERY SINGLE MESSAGE. The model just can't help but report back about everything it's NOT doing, and it drives me crazy.
What’s annoying is the stuff it decides to put into user facing copy, details that they’d never give a shit about, calling everything real, etc
I do understand recording maybe during a sexual act or something without knowledge, but even that is probably just as easy with a phone. Feels like everyone is focusing on the wrong thing, given that level of privacy has already been eradicated and no one is going to give up their phones.
Maybe the reason you think it’s harder to spot when you’re being recorded on glasses is because… it’s never actually happened to you. The people who are creeps are in the minority, and they’re executing their creepy behaviour independently of the technology available to them.
Idk why we’re acting like people are hysterical the dangers of always on displays and cameras versus phones that go in pockets have been debated for over a decade now with Google glass. People do not like it for legitimate reasons.
I assume the most problematic scenarios are private. Private meetings. Private conversations. Private encounters of every kind in general. Environment in which ordinary people used to have good enough confidence that, unless they see a phone or a camera, they are not being recorded. It no longer is that simple.
Confirming, at least to some extent, that there is no recording going on may now require confronting the other person. And asking them to remove their glasses or hand them over for inspection might be considered rude.
As a result, I think that it might make people more suspicious and less trusting, especially when meeting new people for the first time.
Similarly, a venue could request a do-not-film-this-venue setting and make sure no photos are taken at a party.
We want a society that does not need these workarounds.
If we have to come up with a technological solution to grant anonymity when people are filming, criminals can use it.
If we as a society don't go around filming everyone all the time, we don't need that technical solution available, so we can film the criminals when they are doing something criminal.
The tricky part is that social peer pressure requires a lack of anonymity - not just in terms of detecting whether people are recording without consent at the time - but also the posting of content online.
Naming and shaming requires names.
[1] https://www.technologyreview.com/2022/12/19/1065306/roomba-i...
that requires too much goodwill and effort from the makers of such devices. They know their audience wouldn't want that. They don't give a shit about what people being filmed think.
Think about it some more. It's all fun and games, until same technology is used against you. There was literally a Black Mirror episode about this very thing.
Not sure why you think social norms are positive. Negative amoral behaviors can become norms. I'd argue the west has tons of amoral behavior that is normalized.
Explains a lot about why people vote for racist and right wing parties.
Now I get the racists, but you, quite literally, just boiled down all politics to: left wing parties = good; right wind parties = bad;
And, honestly, that’s gotta be the single most childish and naive take anyone could ever make about politics.
It’d be funny if it weren’t so sad that you think you’re “fighting big tech” when this is probably the most “I’m a social media junkie” take ever.
Haaaaaa.
Dude. Seriously. I mean this in the least snarky and rude way possible: try to get off social media.
It… really is not.
People thinking in such binary terms (good vs evil) is exactly how we get to where we are today.
Nothing is as black and white as it seems to be. Especially politics.
Likewise, it's not acceptable to shove a camera to everyone's face, and it shouldn't be on people to opt-out of it.
(Yes, example chosen for its reputation for indifferent enforcement.)
What the parent comment is suggesting is to invert the onus. "I can film you by default, unless you tell me not to".
There was an article on HN that one city's police force, when there were protests going on, took to playing Disney songs from loudspeakers; so that any recording of their interactions would be impossible to publish on any significant internet platform (or at least, the audio would be muted, by IP protection filters).
When you look at it from a legal "use it or lose it" and corporate risk perspective it's quite surprising that Disney didn't even sent cease and desists.
Edit: Of course you don't lose the copyright but your ability to litigate someone else's unfair use is a lot weaker when their lawyer can trot out a million examples that you were fine with.
Nobody who loves Disney songs would listen to them while also hearing police officers shouting, etc.
There's no human to appeal to in social media platforms. It's automated, algorithmic enforcement; and when it's wrong (or someone exploits it to be wrong, like this), you're powerless to do anything. It means nothing if you're technically in the legal right: the platforms are risk-averse and don't care about your false positive.
Ahem...
In the UK/EU Let me introduce you to article 22 of the GDPR
The data subject shall have the right not to be subject to a decision based solely on automated processing, including profiling, which produces legal effects concerning him or her or similarly significantly affects him or her.
i.e. If subjected to an algorithm making decisions, you have an automatic right of appeal to a _human_.
https://gdpr-info.eu/art-22-gdpr/
You need to adopt a sensible data protection law if you don't want to be exploited.
Though presumably you would prefer the alternative; that such companies are unrestrained in what they may do and the population at large must simply bend over and grab their ankles with both hands?
(In the excerpt you quoted: "legal effects" / or "significantly affects").
This has never once prevented a DMCA notice from being issued, and I'm sure you can guess how easy it is to get a person at YouTube to review your appeal
Sounds like a swift way to be included in "Need constant observation" list. Or we can even build a special surveillance for such folks along with plausible Parallel construction scenario constantly refreshed.
If you meant to say "to being filmed", how do you implement that? People have been filming crowds since the 1950s; "Candid Camera" famously made covert filming mainstream.
"Should be" is a dream of the Good Ship Lollipop. Here IRL, laws and regulations are the only thing that will discourage it.
Dash cams would effectively become illegal.
Someone just wanting to record themselves and some friends doing something would need to ask explicit permission from everyone in the background.
It's just not a tenable option.
Yes, let's keep coming with more of these great ideas.
To cut this short: the whole overall idea is just universal DRM writ large. A big, principled no fucking way, ever from me.
But what about the personal privacy / venue rights ...
That's a social problem, it should not be used as excuse to give unilateral control over other people's technology to groups or individuals with special interests.
Sounds a lot worse. The possible applications of this alone are infinitely more scary than perverts filming others without their consent.
This is THE nightmare scenario. Think about it for a second and you’ll see why.
It would make sure no websites track you.
The idea was for concert venues display these on-stage to block smartphones from filming (and redirect users to iTunes purchases instead IIRC)
Rendering security cameras useless for identifying any criminals?
Maybe some of these commenters aren’t old enough to remember when fighting for your right to take photographs and videos in public places was one of the frequent topics in online places like Slashdot and BoingBoing. There have been waves of attempts to restrict freedoms to take photos in many countries. When they pass there’s a significant loss of personal rights and freedoms.
> Similarly, a venue could request a do-not-film-this-venue setting and make sure no photos are taken at a party.
Do you really want this? An off-button for all cameras nearby? Please purchase your official photographs from the gift shop or from the $5 Photo Booth.
This would be a dream for bad people who don’t want to be recorded or photographed doing something, like a bad police officer. Just keep a device around that broadcasts the “do not record at this venue” signal and you can shut down recordings all around.
Oh, the hypocrisy
I never knew why the paparazzi could harass celebrities and a few decades later we are all being secretly filmed for a Meta perv database.
> Five years ago, Facebook shut down the facial recognition system for tagging people in photos on its social network, saying it wanted to find “the right balance” for a technology that raises privacy and legal concerns. Now it wants to bring facial recognition back.
> (…) The Silicon Valley company has been conferring since early last year about how to release a feature that carries “safety and privacy risks,” according to an internal document viewed by The New York Times. (…) Meta’s internal memo said the political tumult in the United States was good timing for the feature’s release.
> “We will launch during a dynamic political environment where many civil society groups that we would expect to attack us would have their resources focused on other concerns,” according to the document from Meta’s Reality Labs, which works on hardware including smart glasses.
[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2026/02/13/technology/meta-facial-re... or https://archive.is/65Fze
And if there's no dynamic political environment or fitting concerns to steal focus at hand, we'll sure as hell fund their creation.
Incrementally, apathetically and often to gleeful offerings of tinfoil hats to those who pointed out previous steps and extrapolated them forth.
Despite the pearl-clutching in this thread, filming rando strangers without consent has always been legal and socially accepted.
It's the prospect of being filmed frequently, and especially in more intimate situations than walking down the street, that is making people uneasy. Flock cameras agitate us because of the frequency of their use. Recording glasses enable the off-the-street problem.
Instead of Copilot for Counter Spying, or Anti-Creeper.NET.
it's even on the site
> Most pairs keep advertising while worn, so you can usually hear them, but a few standalone models stay silent.
Standing too long in one aisle lets them know where you like to browse in the grocery store.
When they first rolled these out in the US at least a decade ago I used to get notifications all the time.
Stuff like “Near Well’s Fargo? Balance your checkbook.” As notifications.
BLE is actually pretty secure, but it does advertise, and some folks take advantage of that.
> Can’t people just cover up or disable the LED?
> The camera is disabled when people try to do this. Beginning with our second generation of glasses, the camera is automatically disabled if we detect that the capture LED has been blocked. No photos or videos can be taken until we detect that the light is unblocked.
> Since the introduction of this safeguard, we’ve seen some people go beyond using tape to sophisticated efforts to modify or destroy the capture LED. We are continuously improving our ability to detect tampering, and now we’re updating the glasses to disable the camera if they detect the LED was physically tampered with or destroyed. No other kind of camera has done this and we’re proud to lead the industry forward.
> Does everyone know when you're live streaming? Yes. A white LED on the front of the glasses lights up while you're streaming to let people around you know the camera is active.
https://actionstreamer.com/blog/how-to-live-stream-on-meta-r...
Think through how realistic an attack this really is…
Yes it's true people have figured out how to disable the safeguard, but we all agree the important thing as we try to sell millions more of these is that we tried, right?
Was my comment incorrect? You admit it's both possible to work around it, people are actually doing that, and the comment does indeed give themselves a little pat on the back for working hard to unsuccessfully solve a problem with the product they themselves choose to make and market? So what's the reactionary part?
What exactly is your threat model? "It is possible to work around" every single security control that has ever existed. Saying it "is possible" to work around a control is an utterly meaningless statement. At what budget? With what skill level? With what frequency and likelihood?
If the intent is to deter the typical weirdos that would try to disable the blinking light, then yes, their mitigations have been extraordinarily effective and most of these weirdos now just buy other cheaper and more discreet camera glasses.
No it doesn't sound like that!
How many people are working around the safeguards? How prevalent is harm caused by creeps secretly filming on these glasses vs doing other creepy things? Have these glasses tangibly changed the creeps doing creeping landscape?
If you can’t answer those questions, it’s reactionary. That’s that it means.
Their job is to scan the app store for any app that is anti-tech and has at least 1k downloads and write an article about how there's huge backlash.
Last time I went to a club and the place just stank of piss, poo and sweat. This was at so called world class clubbing venue in London.
Then the prices. Nobody can afford that.
Then people don't fancy drinking anymore and if you prefer weed, then likely it will get confiscated and you get kicked out.
ZuckOff!
I wish they'd just make them illegal, it would be easier.
Like, if people want to use it on their private property, alright, legal.
But in public? I never accepted any terms and conditions for it...
I would bet my money that there's a dozen lawyers at work, right now, in Meta's HQ, to get a sense of what options they have to harass, shut down, or do something else to the creator of this app. And I would also bet that Zuck is furious about it.
Zuckerberg takes things personally. It's his entire history
... if you can find him, you can hire him, and restore privacy and sanity to your apps. he is ... the ZuckOff dev.-
Eta: and in their demo video there's a person walking by who's face doesn't get blurred lmao. Bang up job, Claude
the demo video really looks ai generated — several weird artifacts, but what bugs me the most is that at the end the alleged glasses-wearer goes through two men between whom clearly there is no space for a third person.
So, you might sometimes know that someone might be recording?
I don't want to dismiss that as useless, but that is a difficult signal to incorporate into behavior.
I don’t post them anywhere (except occasionally to friends or family in direct messages).
I fly club gliders and can’t really attach a camera easily. And in any case the PoV is a useful learning tool. I can check I was doing lookout properly, I can see the instruments clearly and so forth.
I have a second pair of normal glasses that I always swap to when I’m back on the ground.
The shouting match is being loudly won by people decrying the technology however, people can receive physical and verbal abuse on the streets for wearing them which is pretty scary.
I scrolled down. Only the newsletter and contact info at the bottom. Do I have to email them? I scrolled up. Just a list of features and description of what it does, but not how do I use it. What's the first step? Please for the love of God.
I see a big blue button that links to "the shop". Oh, maybe that's where I buy it? No it's just "merch". I'm not sure why some random piece of tech would be offering tote bags for $28 (!) but okay.
I go back to the website and keep hunting. Then I see a row of buttons squeezed in a random location, seemingly out of place, like the designer had a stroke at this point in the process. They don't match the visual style of the rest of the site, so they are easy to just ignore as clutter. One says (in very tiny letters) "download on the app store".
What's with HN becoming so saturated with snarky cynical one line quips? I don't think I've ever seen a worse comment section.
When phones first had cameras, and people were not aware, it would have been easier to secretly film. But news flash, where I’m sitting right now in a cafe full of tech workers, nobody would notice if I started secretly filming on my phone.
If I wanted to secretly film, I’d be more confident of getting away with it using my phone than with a set of glasses which have a flashing light on them.
> Flags camera glasses by their manufacturer signature <
How is this guaranteed to be not spoofed?
The other direction is trickier. You'd have to modify the firmware of the smart glasses to set a different mac, or at least gain arbitrary code execution with hardware access on the glasses. That's well beyond what the average smart glass user will do
And at that point, it'd be mostly about the heads-up display anyways. Somebody who is determined to record you without your knowledge has far easier paths available to them. Just get one of those lighters or ear-rings or car key fobs with built-in camera
I was, however had, quite surprised when I saw them used by "auditors" (here, I refer to e. g. "auditors" on youtube specifically). Now this brought a problem for me, because auditors on the one hand, bring interesting encounters, even if they (or some of them) meta-jabait and provoke (again, only some of them at best, in many cases they don't really). But when they use spy glasses to serve greedy mega-corporations, this totally shifts the whole "audit" instantly, because then they also support evil Facebook, Google or what not. And that kind of runs counter to the whole audit-idea. So far I only saw one use the facebook spy glasses, but I wonder whether he even gave any thought to this. I understand why he uses spy glasses, but I don't understand why he does it to benefit Facebook. That IMO puts the whole idea behind audits instantly in a wrong angle. I haven't seen others use it, so perhaps it just was one or few, but they don't seem to really think anymore. Some audit channels were also censored by Google in the last weeks, others were not, but this just amplifies the whole problem here. Imagine if the spy glasses were made by Google. And the auditors depend on Google money. It's really strange. The whole setup does not work well. I understand that they want to make money, but why would I want to support facebook-agents using spy glasses at all? That makes no sense, so I decided when an audit-channel uses facebook spy glasses or anyone else's corporations spy-glasses, I won't watch anything from there. Same with AI content - anyone using AI content I instantly add to a perma-ban list. I recently saw more and more people use AI slop images and AI filters. This is soooooo horrible. These people don't seem to understand that AI slop kills interest. Yet some swear by it - it is fascinating. Those who use AI slop, can not be convinced that using AI slop is detrimental. They have been converted into AI skynet servants.
I have "Hey Siri!" enthousiasts visiting soon. They can leave their iPhones in a nice Faraday cage at the entrance.
He says, deeply immersed in big tech without even realising it.
I don’t have high hopes though, listening doesn’t seem to be their strong point. If they have a strong point.
>Quiet is not proof that nobody is recording, and a detection is not proof that anyone is
Is such claudespeak it’s not even annoying it’s just funny at this point