monica_b1998Judge scolds Mark Zuckerberg's team for wearing Meta glasses to social media trial
Zuckerberg was in court to testify as part of a trial over whether Meta and Alphabet-owned YouTube deliberately designed their social media platforms to encourage compulsive usage by young people.
Ironically I think rather than them wearing them for nefarious reasons, they’ve just been encouraged to use them for so long, that they are actually addicted to them as well.
Like, if you were forced to use your employers product at work for 10-12 hrs a day and try to come up with way to monetize it in your off hours, you may start to rely on it eventually.
Our brains are wired to always take the easiest path, that’s actually the reason for technological advancement in the first place.
They probably just don’t even realize they’re wearing them, it’s just a (mostly useless and completely impractical) part of their bodies now.
Dr. WeskerNever attribute to stupidity that which is adequately explained by a good marketing opportunity.
pelespiritDon’t stick up for the zuck, he’s got fucking billions to pour into other people doing it for him.
They knew what they were doing, as if ignorance would be an excuse. No one wears camera glasses to court just forgetting about it.
As if they wear the things on their own time, they probably wouldn’t be caught dead wearing that garbage in their free time outside of hyping the product at work. They would have custom made something.
DevolutionScolding without jailtime = slap on wrist.
TropicalDingdonga small amount of jailtime is a slap on the wrist. A scolding is nothing.
A_norny_mousseAs much as I’d love to see it, even a small jailtime would be pretty serious. Provided he can’t buy himself out. A fine would be a slap on the wrist*. A scolding is just that - something certain people have learned very early to ignore.
* depends on the amount of course
Jailtime for wearing glasses that can recors videos un the courtroom?
Maybe the death penalty while you are at it?
😈MedicPig🐷BabySaver😈Don’t be obtuse.
The judge made it clear no cameras or recording equipment was allowed in the session and they brought wearable cameras that have facial recognition capabilities. That is the definition of contempt of court.
whotookkarlHow much jail time was spent in 2025 by inmates held for contempt of court?
Defying a judge’s order, in a way that would allow the mega corporation to identify jurors, and influence them through proxies, is quite serious. They have the motive, means, and opportunity to do so, and would get away with it if they did in all likelihood at most paying a settlement of cash.
A demand for removal and threat of being held in contempt seems like the appropriate response to bringing a camera in, no matter who you are.
I dont disagree, and I think they should face punishment for what they’ve done already.. But what’s supposed to happen here? Jail time specifically for bringing a camera? I dont get it.
Yes, they should get jail time for being in contempt of court because they are professionals and should be held to a higher standard than people off the street.
A person off the street should get a warning. Professionals should be expected to follow a judge’s orders.
I must have forgotten that there is literally no middle ground between a verbal warning and execution.
I think it would be unfair to just decide to behead them. We should have like a lottery, or contest, where people can submit suggesions for execution methods, I for instance think we should throw them off of high places, like the grand canyon, or a skyscraper. Maybe from Mount Rushmore from teddy roosevelt’s head.
Others might prefer to bend back tree limbs and tie them to their limbs, then release the bent limbs to have the tree recoil and tear them apart, trult a classic. Or a large heavy rock being put over them that crushes them for days.
We could have a game show even to determine it, or a contest of some sort.
There is middle ground, we just passed it a long time ago with these chucklefucks and we’re waiting for the rest of y’all to realize that.
You sound like someone who has never experienced court outside of tv or movies.
The courts process is entirely pragmatic. The entire point is to remove all emotions. The judge is not going to presume malice.
The person most at risk here is their council. It they were aware of this stunt they could cause themselves serious damage.
I work with courts routinely. You sound very naive.
This face is doable for the elites if actual consequences occur.
ReygleNever pass up an opportunity for getting in the news. Free advertising
grimpyNow that they were scolded, much will change.
Piece of shit post.
This is fine🔥🐶☕🔥Zucc’s ‘product’ is probably the worst imo. At least Amazon gets you stuff at your doorstep. Zucc is just slop peddler m
VogiIt always amazes me how Microsoft is though. Stuff like Threads, Instagram, Facebook is incredibly evil but they still work?! I can at least understand why the majority of people who don’t care are there. Microsofts products don’t even work to begin with though. Everything they touch be it Xbox, Teams or Windows is just so bad i wonder how we even ended up here.
A lit of these products used to be good. 25 years ago, Outlook was the only option for mail and calendar because they worked well and nothing else was as simple or integrated. Windows XP brought an enterprise-class OS with true multitasking to the consumer. MSN messenger didn’t have all the features of Teams, but it was a serious contender in the IM space. And now, I have Outlook every now and then telling me I have new mail but I cant see it until I restart the app, Windows gets shittier and more intrusive every day, and Teams on Android cant send me a notification about an upcoming meeting until the meeting actually starts, if I get a notification at all. I also wonder how they ended up this way given they were class leaders just decades ago.
Now if we can get alternatives that don’t have all the problems of Microsoft at its heyday, let alone now, that would be amazing. I already have my console alternative, just a few more pieces.
Wait, sorry for my ignorance. But wasn’t this televised?
Read the article.
Judge ordered no cameras in the court, and even if they were allowed, why would a judge allow one party to bring their own cameras that have facial recognition capabilities?
Camera in courtrooms are for transparency with the public, not for the defense to get facial scans of jurors and witnesses.
All it said was. Cameras not allowed unless the judge says so. not that this judge didn’t allow. And a judge being petty as a way of letting a billionaire get away with anything they want is pretty on point for the American justice system.
The use of recording devices and cameras is generally banned in Los Angeles County Superior Court.
Directly from the article.
“Judicial officers have the discretion to place limitations on video recording and photography in their courtroom,”
Get ‘em, Judge!
Eww. CBS is linking to Free Press articles. What next ABC News and Epoch News?!?
For those who don’t know, Bari Weiss founded Free Press and is current editor-in-chief of CBS news.
Judge Carolyn Kuhl, who is presiding over the trial, ordered anyone in the courtroom wearing AI glasses to immediately remove them, noting that any use of facial recognition technology to identify the jurors was banned.
“This is very serious,” she said.
Holy shit.
Kudos to this judge for knowing their shit and acting on it. I love it.
That’s their job
Is it though? In Donald’s America?
She didn’t do anything though. Each and every individual should have been immediately charged and arrested. It’s a felony to film in a court room without permission. Every dipshit wearing those glasses should spend a month in a cell before the trial continues.
Acting on it? I mean, I guess opening and closing your mouth is technically action.
Isn’t it usual procedure that everyone else enters the courtroom and takes their places before the judge walks in? So the team would have had ample opportunity to film, record and facially-recognize the jury before Judge Kuhl made them take off the spyglasses.
Rhonda SandtitsThe Judge also ordered them to dispose of anything they had already recorded.
No way of actually checking that they did delete anything, but the possibility of footage or photos being leaked by a disgruntled worker, etc would be a massive liability for those two idiots.
No way of actually checking that they did delete anything, but the possibility of footage or photos being leaked by a disgruntled worker, etc would be a massive liability for those two idiots.
KissakiThe judge controls when the jury is in the room. So the jury enters last, only after the judge orders them in. And the judge can order them out at any time to have discussions outside their presence, too.
Each and every individual should have been arrested then and there. Imagine walking into a major criminal trial with a film camera on your shoulder.
No charges?
noting that any use of facial recognition technology to identify the jurors was banned
For that reason alone, she should have held them in contempt and declared a mistrial before wasting anyone else’s time.
Zuck and his crew should’ve been arrested on-site for such an egregious breach of privacy and mockery of the justice system. And the next set of jurors should’ve been immediately informed of why there was a mistrial, and the very obvious danger of the plantiff having even one frame of video with a jurors face in it.
Instead, he got free viral marketing.
What a fucking clownshow.
Alternative to CBS.
So I need to preemptively wear anti facial recognition makeup if ever called for jury duty. Gotcha.
It seems somewhat realistic to expect an actual punishment for this, even if not properly scaled. It’s worth fighting for. But being prepared alongside that is important.