• Wildmimic@anarchist.nexus
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    8 hours ago

    It’s solvable if you take surveillance capitalism out of the equation, just as Valve are doing. AR with Meta behind it will never be something that is socially acceptable since their whole business model is selling out the user and everyone around them. With a company like Valve which has a pretty good track record regarding privacy (a.k.a the only things transferred regarding usage are what games you play to make store recommendations fit your taste and bug reports if you approve them) i can see a wider adoption taking place.

    • Lodespawn@aussie.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      2 hours ago

      I don’t think that’s true, your personal privacy as the owner of the device is one thing, everyone else’s right to not be continuously photographed is another. Having Valve operate it over meta doesn’t solve that. Also, what happens when Gabe does and the investment bank that buys it decides they want to sell everyone data to maximise profit?

      • Wildmimic@anarchist.nexus
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 hour ago

        These things can be done in a privacy respecting way for other parties too. The computational power needed to realize a person is in the field of view and to process this person saying “i consent” is in everyones pocket nowadays.