• GoofSchmoofer@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    47
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    16 hours ago

    This feels like gorilla marketing to me. They knew the judge would tell them to take them off and it would be just enough of a sensational story to make it to press. Now more people know that Meta has these glasses.

    • narinciye@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      26
      ·
      14 hours ago

      Meta’s glasses, retail for between $299 and $799, are equipped with a camera that can take photos and record video.

      CBS is definitely involved in this gorilla scheme

    • Doomsider@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      19
      ·
      15 hours ago

      Gorilla marketing, when you charge at someone and stop right before you fuck them up and then offer to sell them something.

    • 73ms@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      10
      ·
      15 hours ago

      I don’t know if it was intentional marketing but it does have that effect and was kinda pointless. I assume people have camera phones in the courtroom with them too but possessing a device that can record doesn’t mean you intend to do it and I doubt Meta has tampered with their glasses so if they were to do that it would be noticeable thanks to the recording LED…

      • Clent@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        12
        ·
        13 hours ago

        Go onto a court room and hold up your phone, pointing at the jury. Report back on how that goes for you.

        • ouRKaoS@lemmy.today
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          9 hours ago

          I know where I live you can’t even take a phone into the courthouse; they have signs on the door and will turn you around at the metal detectors for having one. The fact that they got those glasses into the courtroom at all is a security fail at best, and feels more like a contempt of court charge.

        • 73ms@sopuli.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          7
          ·
          13 hours ago

          and do the released facts say here someone was pointing a camera at the jury and the scolding happened as a result of that or are you just inventing a hypothetical with nothing to do with what is being discussed?

          • KaChilde@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            12 hours ago

            They were wearing glasses with the camera literally built into them. Anywhere they look they are pointing a camera.

            • 73ms@sopuli.xyz
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              8
              ·
              12 hours ago

              You can say that but it’s entirely different from bringing up deliberately pointing the camera of a device at the jury. And again, there was nothing about them looking at something in particular or anything suggesting the intent to film. As I said it is also very easy to know if the camera is activated.

              • KaChilde@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                5
                ·
                12 hours ago

                If I were to walk into the courtroom with a go-pro strapped to my head, would I be clear because the camera is off and probably not recording?

                These glasses are never advertised for how good the glasses aspect of the product is, but for their ability to record hands free image and video. The product is primarily for filming, and Facebook knows this.