‘I kept catching people giving me dirty looks’: the backlash against Meta smart glasses
Meta's smartglasses, which can discreetly record video, have prompted a strong public backlash amid fears they are being used to film people, particularly women, without their consent. The devices have been dubbed "pervert glasses" online, and content creators who wear them for entirely innocuous purposes are being met with hostile accusations, reflecting broader unease about the erosion of privacy as wearable cameras become mainstream consumer products.
The backlash intensified this summer after Kylie Jenner partnered with Meta to launch a version of the glasses, prompting many influencers to promote them. Some, including creator Rida Tharana, who has 1.6 million Instagram followers, later apologised for taking part, criticising men who use the glasses to "record and harass women". Cyclist and home-design influencer Oliver Hooson, who has 224,000 followers, said he lost "a good 50 to 100" followers after posting an innocent video of himself making coffee, having been accused of using "spy glasses"; he said he supports the backlash despite his own experience being misread, describing the "pervert glasses" label as a useful deterrent against misuse.
- Meta smartglasses face backlash over covert filming and consent fears.
- Nicknamed "pervert glasses"; some influencers apologise for promoting them.
- Creator Oliver Hooson lost followers after an innocuous video sparked accusations.
New here? Start with this
Meta’s smart glasses look like ordinary eyewear but include a camera that can record video. Their small size means people nearby may not realise they are being filmed, raising questions about consent and privacy in public places.
Meta makes the glasses, which have also been promoted by celebrities and social media creators. Some people worry that wearers could use them to record or harass others without permission; others have faced suspicion or criticism even when their videos show everyday activities.
The debate matters as cameras become part of everyday devices that are easier to wear and less obvious than a phone. It touches on how people can know when they are being recorded and what safeguards or social expectations should apply.
Both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
These glasses represent a genuine privacy crisis because their discreet design makes non-consensual recording nearly impossible to detect or prevent. Women face particular vulnerability to intimate image abuse and covert filming, and a technology specifically engineered for subtle recording amplifies existing harms. Reasonable people can insist that public spaces deserve stronger protections against surreptitious surveillance before normalising devices that fundamentally shift power in favour of potential abusers.
The case against
The glasses serve legitimate purposes for communication, accessibility, and creativity, and penalising all users for potential misuse is both ineffective and unfair. Real solutions exist beyond restricting the technology: stronger legal penalties for abuse, technical safeguards like mandatory recording indicators, and public education about responsible use. Assuming bad faith of ordinary users whilst allowing smartphones with equally capable cameras persists creates an inconsistent standard that stifles beneficial innovation based on theoretical harms rather than evidence of widespread abuse.
Art Business Culture Entertainment Europe Film Technology World