It was an example of use cases for wearable tech and people with disabilities. Cameras aren’t ‘technically’ required for the other example I noted related to eavesdropping. There are plausible reasons why people with disabilities would need glasses with cameras, and ‘recording’ people extends beyond just camera-based recordings. The issue is more with ubiquitous, covert, wearable smart-tech.

Yeah, I’m not as fussed over having laws on books, but on whether those laws are realistically enforceable. Like I recall reading at some point that lots of jurisdictions in the states define things like Orgies as a group of three or more people in a private dwelling without shoes on, based on ancient prudish attempts to describe what goes on. That’s a law that’s “on the books”, but practically unenforceable.

Same sort of thought pattern, to me, generally applies to the recording of people in public. It’s practically implausible that govt can enforce it uniformly, and it’s on the books just so they can ‘throw another book’ at a perp who’s been arrested for far greater offenses. There are also potential issues with ‘two party consent’ type recording setups, where one party is wanting to document events for legitimate reasons (recording an interaction with police, to CYA).

Idk. People taking pictures / recording public ‘things’, doesn’t seem like a practical area for privacy legislation to come in overly heavy handed on.

One of the issues is that there are legitimate uses for the tech. Like there was a post recently of a girl with hearing disabilities, ecstatic that she’d gotten glasses that provide real-time subtitles to people she talks to. A business / space with a “No Smart Glasses” policy, could essentially be denying people with disabilities access, which could land them in hot water just the same as allowing unfettered smart glass recordings.

Having them become more ubiquitous will also likely have severe impact on regular day to day interactions, even outside of the pervo-sphere. Talking with friends, or even interactions with other parties, can become a lot more complicated when people can record every word, can take those exchanges out of context, and use them against you in things like court proceedings. Eg. friends will often embellish comments/positions a bit for dramatic effect / story-telling purposes, with an understanding that it’s not got to be perfectly accurate / you’re going to be held accountable for every phrase. So you’re right, that the more ‘obvious’ recording setup of phones limits this risk a bit… but not for long.

Yeah, I’d stopped short of noting that it’d prolly be more realistic to enforce regulations on wide-spread sharing / social media hosting of such content. Like in some ways, recording someone in public for whatever reason seems reasonable – recording interactions with police, for example, being an area that makes a good deal of sense – but posting those recordings, especially with the implied ‘hope’ that they go viral / generate notoriety and/or monetized returns, is pretty dicey.

Idk. Bans on recording someone in public without their consent, feel like a really difficult thing to properly enforce – with or without the glasses. The number of people doing it with Smartphones already, in most jurisdictions at least, would make such a law’s wide-spread enforcement seem implausible. And I mean, you’re in a public area, so you sorta need to expect less privacy… because it’s in public?

It isn’t big in North America – but yea, 16 different cities, from coast to coast, and from Canada down to central Mexico.

The total number of matches has increased – Qatar had like 64 matches, this time its around 100. Each venue seems to be hosting like 5-9 games. So it’s basically gone from 64 matches in a concentrated area, to… this clown show.

Canada too! Hotels are whining in Canada, after having jacked prices up to like $1000/night for the event.

It’s surprising, having the event done in 16 different incredibly geo-distant locations, with jacked up hotel prices, doesn’t seem to be a draw in a market where soccer is a lukewarm sport (it’s a bit bigger in Mexico, I think, but Canada and the US not so much). Shit, with the recent immigration surge from India, you’d prolly get more buzz goin by hosting cricket.

Rereading what you said, “Lemmy leans left”, yeah you just might be, that’s exactly the kind of crap that is telling.

Who cares what Lemmy “leans”. I don’t give a fuck why do you?

So, you care, considering you’d just used it in a prior response to question my stance / position. Part of that position notes that I care, because user content rules means that if a platform leans left or right, it can become an echo chamber silencing even moderate positions – which was a pretty big part of my initial comments, that you’ve cared enough about to bait me for multiple replies.

I’ve already provided you with my reasoning for not replying in detail. I’m not changing my position on that front just because you decide to pester me. I’mma just go ahead and stop replyin now too, since you either don’t seem to get the point, or you seem to just be trying to bait a reportable offense.

So I’ve gotten a handful of upvotes, and about 3x more downvotes, on my initial comment highlighting this bias / trend. So about 1/4 of the people who ‘voted’, generally seem to agree with me – that seems to re-affirm my note that lemmy leans left on this subject in general, and that I’m not alone in this viewpoint.

Lemmy’s not anonymous. Having accounts banned from communities is not no risk, especially if you lazily want to just use one account on the site.

Stating opinions that are deemed against/negative towards certain niche groups can translate into rule violations – rule 4 specifically states anything deemed transphobic is a rule violation. You quite literally cannot discuss any non-overtly positive viewpoint of any of the groups listed in that rule, without potentially pissing off at least a few people, who would report it and result in a ban. If they get you to reply a few times in a thread, mods are within their rights to ban the person holding the non-majority view based on ‘multiple’ rule violations.

Asking to have a conversation about those topics openly, is just baiting people into getting banned.

As annoying as this’ll be, I’m sure, I’m not even willing to raise them on lemmy at this point. Lemmy leans heavily left, generally speaking, and moderate right-wing comments will get you massively downvoted, and at times banned/censored, even when discussed in a largely theoretical sense.

Sorta like calling out Israel’s genocidal behaviour on Reddit – even if it’s generally ‘true’ / you’re able to support such comments factually, if you talk about it you’ll likely get banned/censored. While you can point in its general direction, actually trying to discuss it is a no-win situation.

Meh. I don’t dispute that there are issues for democracies at the moment. But one of the issues is that the “right-wing” nutjobs often have a few legitimate concerns regarding equity programs, which can function as gateways, enticing people down those paths of thinking. And if anyone raises those more moderate concerns, left-wing progressives attack en masse, practically pushing people along those extremist paths at a faster pace. That gets even more problematic given the electoral systems that’re in place, as well as the general “two sides” structure of many democratic countries.

So while I’d agree that something like an official end to all trans-related rights initiatives would be a negative sign for democracies, I definitely wouldn’t call it the ‘Start’ of the collapse.

Threat verbiage allows for non-threats to still be called threats, that’s the point of what I was highlighting. Flying pigs are not a threat, they don’t exist – dragons are not a threat, they don’t exist either. You can still throw them on a Risk Registry/Threat listing, and call them a threat, because there’s no definitive, objective, quantifiable process for determining what a threat is.

So yes, you can say Cuba is a threat. Even though for all practical purposes it isn’t a “real” threat or a credible threat, you can still put it on a list and declare it ‘technically’ a threat to US national security. Just like you could put flying pigs on that list, or dragons, even though neither of those things exist, nor would any sane person think theres a real risk of america falling due to flying pig attacks – if they’re on a threat list, they’re a threat.

I love the semantic shenanigans that “risk” and “threat” sorts use – Risk is totally just snake oil.

“They’re a threat!”, sure… a low risk, insignificant threat. But still technically a threat. You can claim anything is a threat, given that risk assessments are totally subjective silly things. “We’ve identified flying pigs as a threat in our risk registry, so we gotta invest billions into an anti-flying pig slush fund! Security!!”

The states has been openly boasting about the numerous international war crimes its been committing for the past two years. No other country has challenged them directly on it, and few have even voiced their disagreement, out of fear of economic repercussions. No one is a threat to the US, except the US and its idiotic people / administration. Its partly why their self-destruction in international politics is so tragic.

It likely doesn’t take too much for any group of coordinated individuals to significantly sway any social media. I mean, even on lemmy – if you had like 5 people who scoured ‘new’, or who had a program to scour ‘new’ posts for specific keywords, and just downvoted/upvoted specific content, it’d have an impact. Enough downvotes will hide posts from most other users, enough upvotes will amplify the message.

Similarly, if you look at who posts to lemmy, there are some folks with like 10’s of thousands of posts in a year, and those posts often follow specific ideological agendas. I once asked one of these sorts of accounts what their situation was, wondering if they were like a paid employee of a PR firm or something given that they had over 50 posts per day, and the response was “You have no proof”. I mean, a simple “Nah, I’m just passionate about certain topics” would’ve sufficed, but instead they chose to deflect the question and claim innocence via a lack of definitive proof. If I had ‘proof’ I wouldn’t have been politely asking/curious as to their response.

Social media is basically designed to be manipulated by propagandists. Doesn’t really matter what corporate structure is behind it, whether its federated or not.

I’m going to hope that the airborne trajectory note is mostly about the USA being stupid these days. And the spiking chart, is because of all the defunding of international organisations that would’ve started tracking the spread sooner – there’s likely a ton of unreported/tracked infected people in the epicenters at this point. The curves being different hopefully just reflects our poorer tracking and response to this stuff… triggered by the USA becoming a diaper dictatorship.

Ebola’s scary as hell. Ever since reading the Hot Zone I’ve been a bit paranoid about it, the book covered a bunch of ebolas history in a semi fictional way – semi-fictional in that it slaps a bit of a narrative/first person perspective around detailed journal notes, eye witness accounts, doctor reports etc. The detailed descriptions of what Ebola does to people were straight up horrifying. Like “Oh, this is what inspired zombie movies” horrifying.

The symptoms they note in the news seem downplayed, significantly. Like one of the cases described how the virus eats away at the tissue just beneath the skin, resulting in mask-like faces with little to no expressions (zombie face). How the viral load will accumulate in the stomach, leaving people short of breath/bloated, prior to essentially erupting out in bouts of projectile vomiting. Like one of the first cases of one of the strains, the guy made it to the hospital before coating the waiting room floor with bloody virus puke – they got him on a gurney, but he kept projectile vomiting, infecting the unprepared medical team.

And its persistent, laying dormant for absurd amounts of time. Like it gets on a surface, and it’ll just wait for years for a new victim to come along. Hell, even saying it’s just ‘transferred by fluids’ is a bit misleading, with Ebola being one of the reasons medical response teams developed those negative pressure puffy suits with multiple layers of protection to try and stop ANY particle of a virus from touching skin. The book even infers a nightmare scenario, where the virus could go airborne… with some likely instances of such amongst lab animals in isolated flare ups.

I mean, shit, its also in a war zone currently. Imagine how absolutely devastating a bunch of drones with Ebola-infected spray cans would be. Spray a bunch of door knobs… or enemy soldiers… with the state of international laws / norms, bio warfare is on the table for sure.

Early in 2025, Trump’s admin removed Russia from their Cyber Threats list. They’ve lifted sanctions on Russian oil, and are generally helping Russia out. Trump’s recently gone to China too, and sucked up to Xi.

Greenlanders/Europe should realise by now that the “Threat” the US talks about in regards to why the US wants Greenland, is the EU and local Greenlanders.

Something I’m really not too sure of with regards to this topic, is whether Taiwan like… pays anything to China? Like does Taiwan send some kind of tax revenue or other ongoing annual payment type thing off to China, does it use any of China’s laws/regulations locally?

Like can’t the independence of a nation / area be objectively shown?

Do you think banks and credit card companies / credit bureaus aren’t already using LLMs on their massive amounts of data?