well I'll take it further, I think growing up with technology, it's often hard to take a step back and to recognize like what it is. I don't think its only about corporations (yet largely). I read summa technologiae by stanislav lem a long time ago and frankly it depresses me a bit from time to time. good read though if you can stomach it.

I think many people are able to make a distinction between the technology companies and the technology. However in this particular discussion....how many companies are there actually offering smart glasses as a product to consumers? I'd argue as far as the general public is concerned the answer is only Meta right now. A company with a HORRIBLE reputation in regards to privacy. That makes it more theoretical in separating the idea of what smart glasses could be versus the reality of what they currently are. And right now, to me, smart glasses, particularly Meta's glasses feels like a product with SO many privacy issues that I would question the judgment of anyone who chooses to use that product. Maybe that won't be the case in the future, but unless things drastically change in regards to consumer data privacy standards, I'm going to stick to being very suspicious of them.

Also I'll add— I did not downvote you but to me some of your other replies in this thread come across as almost a little intentionally obtuse.

I’m heavily downvoted in this comment section because I dared ask a hypothetical philosophical question?

If you do it in a way that feels like you're "just asking questions", that's a dishonest gesture often used in alt-right pipelines to astroturf discussions. sealioning is what it's grown to be called.

If you were being genuine, I'm sorry you weren't believed. But this is sadly an increasingly common internet tactic out there.

the reason you are downvoted is simple actually. you paint it like we hate all forms of technology but that's wildly inaccurate. people take that as an accusation and they don't like it, it makes it seem like you are here to argue in bad faith, with your opinion already cemented.
we hate technology that will affect us negatively. and capitalism along with the industry of surveillance advertising has made sure that even digitalized observations will affect people negatively, even if some does not know or want to admit. it can be said generally like that, because the general consumer uses devices and services where they are not in control of the data their devices collect.
we don't want to be recorded, and that's the end of it.

besides, be sure to use your camera glasses! at home, between the 4 walls, when any other person in the room consented to being possibly recorded by it. yeah its a fun gadget, but what about not stretching further than your blanket reaches.

You can't seperate the technology from the company in this case. The complete violation of privacy is baked into the technology with no way to seperate it. The companies practices are baked into the technology with no way to seperate it. Which also applies to most technologies.

If you think we can/should seperate the technology from the company that makes it, you're incredibly naive. The privacy violations are an inherent feature of the technology itself.

The article is about Facebook glasses. The topic is Facebook. Differentiating between Facebook spy glasses and "smart glasses in general" isn't relevant here.

You sound like you're arguing in bad faith. That's a lot of the reason for why you're getting downvoted.