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.
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.
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.
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.
Discussion (1407 points, 2 days ago, 824 comments) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47225130
If it has a Meta label on it, your privacy is being compromised.
Hey now that’s not fair, there are plenty of other companies in the same boat. Basically all of big tech, in fact.
No one's in the same boat as meta. They've been out front leading the fleet all by themselves since their inception.
So flock or palantir are less bad?
I believe both of them would face more public pressure if Meta hadn't normalized egregious corporate surveillance.
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.
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.
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.
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.