If I understand the TikTok trend from a little while back, the solution is to pretend to be a bear.

PBS Idea Channel. Such a good channel.

Like so much technology, it’s ruined by capitalism. Content algorithms could be amazing resources if what your algorithm thought you wanted was transparently displayed and easily edited.

You said “hidden cameras aren’t common” but cameras that can be easily hidden are extremely common. If I misunderstood what you meant when you said they weren’t common, I apologize.

No, I don’t because I trust my doctor.

Which was my original point; it’s interesting that people have two seemingly different types of trust with their doctor. They, apparently, trust them not to be a secret creep, but they don’t seem to trust them not to be a blatant creep.

It reminds me of some saying I read once that goes something like “If you tell a person there are a billion stars in the night sky, they’ll take your word for it, but if you tell that person there’s wet paint on a bench, they’ll have to touch it to believe you.”

It’s just an interesting phenomenon, that the same person can be trusted and not trusted regarding essentially the same action.

What do you think of when you see the phrase “hidden camera” and why doesn’t that include a concealed phone?

These hypothetical doctors almost certainly have a smartphone with them every time they enter the room. Why doesn’t that trigger this loss of trust effect? That can certainly (and arguably more easily) secretly record audio and video.

I just thought it was interesting.

But I suppose the transition from snap shut flip phones to smart phones was kind of the slow burn that kind of made it not heavily thought up.

I recall that when smartphones were first coming into existence, there was a fair amount of pressure to legally require them to make camera noises when a picture was taken, for fear that someone might have their picture taken without their knowledge.

It’s like technically I know that anyone I talk to, could have a concealed carry permit and may have a gun hidden on their person… but I’d feel far more unsafe being around someone with an AR15 strapped on him.

This is an excellent additional example of the effect I was thinking about.

You don’t know shit about me. You have no idea about what faith I was asking in, and I made it very clear that I was not advocating or defending these actions. This community in particular seems like a giant a circle jerk. I get it. Even hypothetical scenarios are bad. Shame on me.

I didn’t even defend meta glasses, I was just interested in the philosophical ramifications of the difference in trusts on display.

I left reddit for a few reasons. It being filled with a bunch of lemmings who couldn’t bear to see anyone question the circle jerk was one of them, but it was mostly because I prefer FOSS and like trying out new things. Well, and the Nazis infestation.

The last time you were at the doctor did you ask them if they had their phone on them?

Is your stance that if the glasses were made by, say, Sony, no one would care?

I find that very difficult to believe, but would gladly read how you arrived at that conclusion.

Quote where I defended it.

I’m sorry, it wasn’t a rhetorical question; I should have made that clear. You brought up HIPAA and spoke about it with some authority so I assumed you’d know.

A phone can be recording audio in a pocket. I assume this would also be a HIPAA violation, so I’m guessing (keyword here) that just having the glasses in the room isn’t a HIPAA violation.

Still not advocating that doctors wear them, in case that needs to be restated.

Are doctors allowed to have their personal smartphone on them in the exam room?

That’s a fair point. I’m convinced the Venn diagram overlaps more than I originally assumed.

As I said elsewhere, I can differentiate between technology and technology companies. I didn’t realize that was so odd.

I consider the meta glasses new enough that it’s an early-adoption product. Early adopters are usually not tech illiterate. Does that make sense?

The chance of a hidden camera existing is near 0%.

How would you know this? The chance of them getting caught might be near 0%, but the fact that they’re hidden means that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. You’d only have data for the ones that were found.

Do people not make a distinction between technology companies and the technology itself? I do. I have a fancy (okay, kind of pointless, but nerdy AF) folding pixel phone but I have GrapheneOS on it, because I don’t like giving Google all my data for free. I can find the technology fascinating while distrusting and calling out the technology company.

But it’s even more than just what you say. I’m heavily downvoted in this comment section because I dared ask a hypothetical philosophical question? I made it pretty clear it was just a philosophical question, so what’s the issue? I get very strong “shut up and hate it with us” vibes. Pretty sad, in my useless opinion.

I think it’s getting close to time for another break from social media.

But hey, I appreciate your thoughtful response, truly.

You misunderstand: Lemmy and Bluesky are my only social networks, I just use them sporatically.

Holy cow, what is wrong with this place?

I want to believe that the Venn diagram of tech illiterate people and people wearing meta glasses has no overlap, but point taken.