You say that like it's assumed that ubiquitous smart phones were obviously a good thing, when it sure seems like there's an increasing number of people questioning that assumption.

This is a specious argument because selfie cameras are not pointed at people and on at all times, recording whoever somebody is looking at.

None of the cameras you're mentioning are pointed at people all the time.

When you are wearing Meta glasses, they are.

I'm not sure I understand the point about a dedicate "selfie" camera, however I think we're conflating "percentage of users" with "varieties of use cases." I think there could be quite a cornucopia of potential use cases, but I think per capita most people will not actually be making use of these. As other commenters have pointed out, I'd be a lot more tolerant if the data were not constantly piped to Meta.

The point about a dedicated selfie camera was that in 2008, few would have considered taking selfies to be a major use case that would drive >90% of teens and adults to have a camera which has no other reasonable purpose. In the age of FaceTime calls, it would seem absurd to question why it's needed, but nothing like that was mainstream in 2008, which would lead to the same argument of "there are very few legitimate reasons to want such a camera (and it will enable creepshots)".

My wider point is that there are already many obvious use cases, and as adoption of cameras which are always on or plausibly always on rises, there will be a lot more, including augmented reality, translation, context hinting, AI agent awareness for assistants and personal security, and at least dozens of others, some of which I am sure no one has started building for, yet.

Meta is probably not the winner in this space (or, I hope not, at least, so we agree there!). However, the idea that people have a right to remember and process what they see and hear in full fidelity is pretty basic, in my opinion.

Thanks for clarifying, I appreciate it. I'm so burnt by the potential downsides (and by the last ~19 years of smartphones) that I don't think we can see eye to eye, but I really appreciate you taking the time to expand on your point so I could understand your perspective.

> However, the idea that people have a right to remember and process what they see and hear in full fidelity is pretty basic, in my opinion.

If that's what we were talking about, I'd be much less bothered. But it's not. What we're talking about is people recording others and feeding that data to a third party.

would your argument be similar if I told you that everyone in the economic first world is influenced by signals beamed down from space?

no? You think what I wrote is just a scary way to frame GPS? Maybe that's because you're part of the conspiracy!

"secretly"