Really hate this idea of video chat software faking eye contact. Not because of presenting something that doesn't reflect reality, but because its reifying a neurotypical model of what is right and good in how humans present themselves

I actually enjoy making eye contact with people, even though it's difficult sometimes. There's all kinds of subtle feelings from the power and emotions of it. I'm not sure if it's difficult for the usual autistic reasons or not, mostly I always felt that I perceived people's emotions much too vividly with eye contact, so it sometimes felt dangerous.

But that makes choosing it, and deliberating interacting with another person even more fun

@recursive is there room for this kind of thing to be double opt-in?
E.g.
User A would usually prefer to make eye contact with others when they're speaking, so they opt to have the software perform auto-adjustments to attempt to create eye contact.
User B prefers not to receive eye contact, so elects to not have eye contact directed at them.
As user B signalled they do not wish to receive eye contact, no eye target adjustment is done for user B's view.
Basically an AND of the settings, respecting A's intention but ultimately providing the recipient the control to not accept.
If user B does not wish to create eye contact (or, more specifically, not to have software simulate eye contact on their behalf) then the focus/target of their eyes (what they present to others) will not be adjusted regardless of the preferences of the remote participant(s).

I guess this could get complicated in multi-party video chats, though possibly could still be feasible if the eye tracking adjustment is performed receiver-side rather than sender-side?

Would something like this potentially respect the intentions of all parties, but still honour if consent is not provided by either party?

@hugo @recursive
I've seen a lot of jokes recently about tech bro CEOs not grokking consent..
I think your scheme works well and respects user consent as long as it is opt-in on both ends.
@hugo @recursive
Double opt-in sounds like a nice start. I will admit that I haven't thought about this as much (I'm honestly still getting used to video calls with my video actually on). But having something like this turned on with no indication and no options to manage consent feels like so much more else about several tech industry choices - little thought given to any one but "normal" users.
@hugo @recursive I really like this, and I think this kind of two-way-consent mentality could be useful in a lot of software besides just video chat.

@recursive I often have to force myself to make eye contact and sometimes I find it really really hard... But I absolutely hate the idea of software doing it for me.

It is communication. Don't put words in my mouth, or eyes!

@recursive %100 agree with you. for me, making eye contact can feel like getting hit in the face with a firehose of emotional data, and then i can't focus on what peeps are actually trying to say which seems kinda disrespectful.

what really bothers me is when i take a step back and realize people in tech think *these* are the types of issues we should be using our technical super powers for, rather than trying to address the tidal wave of existential threats coming right at us.
@recursive I have some trouble making eye contact but this is so much worse. Seeing someone stare into a camera that way is creepy and unnatural. I don't want someone staring at me
@recursive I don’t think it’s only neurotypical. It’s cultural. Some places looking people in the eye is considered rude.

@recursive This is really well articulated, thank you.

I agree eye contact is intense and it is nice to be able to up or down the volume as needed.

I know my ability to manage eye contact is really dependent on my energy. I remember watching a video of a fella working on his bonsai (something to comfort my fried brain) and he turned to the camera and leaned in and I was AAAARGGG! TOO MUCH FACE.

But you put it all more elegantly than that.