Acidious Raccon

Here are some basic primers. If someone is wearing what look like Meta glasses, they usually have a small circular camera in the outer corners of the lenses, like the one on your phone.

I would also regularly check their own product pages so you're on top of what the models look like. They tend to have larger frames, but come in a variety of shapes and colors.

A new hobbyist developed app warns if people nearby may be wearing smart glasses, such as Meta’s Ray-Ban glasses, which stalkers and harassers have repeatedly used to film people without their knowledge or consent. The app scans for smart glasses’ distinctive Bluetooth signatures and sends a push alert if it detects a potential pair of glasses in the local area.

The American Foundation for the Blind has said that "The Ray-Ban Meta glasses are an accessibility tool only by coincidence. That makes them more affordable and, in many ways, unaware of the needs of users with reduced vision" although they do have seemingly positive views on Meta Glasses as a whole. (source 10). It also seems like their marketing push as accessibility devices began last year (source 11).

But to add even more into the nonsense, Meta is now toying around with adding a "limit" to the functionality of their glasses unless their users pay for more access (source 12). AND, as stated above, Meta has officially added facial recognition code in their glasses and only admitted it after being called out, which is basically the death of privacy as we know it (source 13, source 14, source 15). And oh look another lawsuit because of it (source 16) THAT THEY LOST (source 17)!

Long story short: I don't begrudge someone using them as a disability aid overall, but ultimately both their privacy and other people's privacy are being disregarded by Meta and that is not and should not be acceptable by any means.

I understand there is no ethical consumption under capitalism but there is a level of personal responsibility someone has to take when using them if they truly truly need them, such as opting out of sharing information, not filming strangers without permission, not posting footage of strangers online, opting out of facial recognition if possible, etc.

trans women tend to get the inverse in the sense that you could put bottom on every piece of your profile every third word and ppl would still try to get you to top but then ofc the ones who prefer a transfemme who bottoms are the "straight men" experimenting with being gay by topping trans women and femboys and then saying theyre still straight because it was a woman (even if they dont remotely treat you like one) and like these sound like opposite experiences but theyre also remarkably the same thing no???

I think ultimately it's the same result/experience that's being reached by a different methodology.

I think we can say that the experience of being viewed by cisgender men as a flexible gender that can be used for gay sexual exploration while still permitting cis men to affirm their masculinity/heterosexuality, is shared by trans people across the gender spectrum. The methodology of that involves misgendering trans women and transfem people during sex and misgendering trans men and transmasc people after sex, with the knowledge that these cis men are only "affirming" our genders when they do for their own personal gain, which is ultimately dehumanizing us.

Similarlly, the experience of being reduced to or assumed to be top/bottom based on presumed genital configuration. The experience is the same: people use bioessentialism to dictate how trans people should have sex.

For trans women and transfem people this shows up as "we except you to top, becouse we have assumed you have a penis, and people with penis's top." and for trans men and transmasc people this shows ups as "we expect you to bottom, because we have assumed you have a vagina, and people with vagiana's bottom".