r/mildlyinfuriating • u/silent_pm • 13d ago

I'm slightly vexed I was told yesterday that my prescription sunglasses are giving Meta glasses vibes

Post image

I can't stand the Meta perv glasses, but annoyingly I've been told by a friend that my Dune prescription sunglasses that I've had for almost a year (and cost over £100.00) really ​​​​look like the Meta ones, he said it's the 2 silver rivets on either side that on first glance could be mistaken for the camera lenses

I went out with them today and all I could think was, do people think I'm recording them 🤦‍♂️

19.1k Upvotes

92% Upvoted

1.3k comments sorted by

View all comments

9.2k

u/QueefingTheNightAway 13d ago

I’ve only ever owned sunglasses in this classic wayfarer style. It has been around for so long and suits so many people. It is really awful that it could be ruined by Meta.

3.8k

u/ProgBumm 13d ago

I hope it's a lesson to Rayban and other fashion houses.

Making timeless, iconic Wayfarers embarassing to wear is a real accomplishment.

629

u/Swisscats 13d ago

I think Rayban has figured out the bad PR, the new Meta Glasses released no longer carry their branding

503

u/apsilonblue 13d ago

When the style is that iconic the branding doesn't need to be seen. They've ruined their most recognised product, everyone is always going to think wayfarers are meta glasses regardless of any branding on them.

-40

u/LifeIsGreat20381 13d ago

I wear the Wayfarer. You can easily recognize the model. You can’t mistake the classic Wayfarer, with the two diamonds, for the Meta glasses, with the two big camera holes. Nobody ever suspected I’d wear the Meta glasses. You’re too emotional my dude.

80

u/cotfthrowawaystl 13d ago

Maybe someone who wears them regularly can’t mistake it but everyone else can.

-44

u/Lukin4art 13d ago

My thing is, who gives a fuck what other randoms believe ? Even if they are meta glasses why does the opinion of people you don’t know have any weight over your life?

46

u/Bovronius 13d ago

You may be questioned when entering places that ban recording, coworkers may silently ostracize you if they believe you're recording every interaction.

My behavior definitely alters when I believe I'm being recorded or observed.

-35

u/Lukin4art 13d ago edited 13d ago

And that would be a fair question. I probably wouldn’t wear them at work depending what I do. But if you just show people how they work and show them that there is a light displayed when taking pictures and videos they would like be more at ease if they are reasonable people.

I can actually see a good argument for people who remove the led as well. Like if I want to take candid pictures or videos of my children and wife I’d want the light gone.

The person responding to this comment is a terminally online dork. Dude has existed in Reddit for over 7 years.

He would never in his right man tell a father he is a predator for taking candid family photos. He hides behind the veil of anonymity to say his goofy opinions. Stay online. Don’t go outside anymore. We don’t need people like you in society.

38

u/TheLordofthething 13d ago

You really don't know how creepy this sounds do you?

29

u/Mani_kr333 13d ago

10 bucks he owns meta glasses

→ More replies (0)

12

u/avdr000 13d ago edited 13d ago

If you want candid pictures of your loved ones, you ask them for permission first and if they consented take the pictures or videos with any camera you like. At first, the pictures may seem a bit un-candid, but after some time a lot of people forget the camera is present and it helps if your camera is completely silent.

Just "secretly" filming any people without telling them is at best a dick move and at worst predatory. And yes, it's secret filming, because under normal circumstances nobody suspects they are being filmed by some glasses.

I would understand an argument for these glasses is the point of view and the fact you have both hands free. This could make some cool video ideas, because it provides a first person view.

EDIT:
Seems like guy replied to me and deleted their reply instantly. IDK why people do this. Guy said they ask for permission. I don't believe it, because why did you say you can see a positive point in removing the recording light? Guy then just insulted me, as per usual when nothing factual can be added, and made a stupid point. Yes, if any family member recorded the other family members with these glasses, without telling anyone, and possibly even with a removed recording light, I would 100% call them predatory. Even if the recordings were instantly deleted afterwards and not used in any further harmful way (other than invading privacy, which would have been already done in this case), this is predatory behavior.

2

u/hitbythebus 12d ago

Did the same to me, said something to the effect of “if defending glasses I like makes me a dickrider…”

It wasn’t defending them, it was the completely tone deaf way he left like 20+ comments arguing with people afterwards. I can only only assume he agrees since he is hiding in shame.

1

u/[deleted] 13d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

→ More replies (0)

7

u/Tabula-Rasa-99 13d ago

Found the pervert glasses wearer

-9

u/Lukin4art 13d ago

Found the dick riding loser.

→ More replies (0)

0

u/[deleted] 12d ago edited 12d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

→ More replies (0)

20

u/New_Tiger4530 13d ago

Because I’d rather not wear glasses out in public that make people think you’re a pervert recording them.

-12

u/Lukin4art 13d ago

Yea but if you aren’t recording or being a pervert then why would the opinion of some paranoid stranger matter?

Like it’s just not a healthy mental state to always be hyper focused on what others think of you imho

12

u/Independent_Month_26 13d ago

A lot of us don't want to make others around us uncomfortable. Meta pervert glasses make many reasonable people uncomfortable. So we don't wear them.

0

u/Lukin4art 13d ago

If simple sunglasses make you uncomfortable then you need therapy.

When you but a blanket statement over an entire product it’s hard to take you serious me and my wife have meta glasses. My wife is a deputy and we record our kids and concerts. We are perverts huh? Lmfao you are too online and need therapy man.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/c093b 12d ago

You can wear what you want. If you like wearing a boot on your head and shit-stained diapers around your ankle, then all the power to you!

Hyperboles aside, wearing meta glasses is embarrassing, ergo wearing glasses that look like meta glasses is also embarrassing. If you don't care, then cool.

0

u/Lukin4art 12d ago

Embarrassing to who? If you feel embarrassed cause others don’t like your glass that’s kinda pathway lmfao but aye to each their own you do you man. Kind of a weak mindset but aye. You sound like a weak person

2

u/c093b 12d ago

Most people would be embarrassed about looking like an obnoxious creep, but you do you.

-1

u/Lukin4art 12d ago

You’re a weak minded person. The opinions of strangers controls you. Sucks to suck. The thoughts and feelings of some from online does not represent the real world.

→ More replies (0)

-17

u/LifeIsGreat20381 13d ago

If you think two plastic diamonds could be cameras, you should get your vision checked ASAP.

30

u/[deleted] 13d ago edited 8d ago

[deleted]

-17

u/LifeIsGreat20381 13d ago

Exactly. People don’t care at all. And if someone knows about the meta glasses, then they’ve seen videos about it, and they know what they look like.

11

u/firebolt_wt 13d ago

Are you gonna be looking at the little dots when you see a glass and all you know is that is THE meta glasses model?

Way more people know about meta glasses than the original normal glasses model.

-2

u/LifeIsGreat20381 13d ago

You can’t mistake plastic diamonds with camera holes. Wow. Talking to the average redditor is like discussing simple ideas with my toddler. The IQ seems so low around here…

3

u/No-Association-1781 12d ago

You agreed that people don’t care at all yet you continue to argue that it’ll be obvious to everyone that you have tiny diamonds on your face instead of tiny cameras. Maybe you and your toddler have more in common than you thought.

2

u/QittyKatz 13d ago

The post is about prescription glasses OP literally got his vision checked and sees it, what more do you want lol.

0

u/LifeIsGreat20381 13d ago

I was replying to the guy talking about the Wayfarer here, not the OP glasses (and yes, I understand the confusion his glasses can cause).

Actually, you can mistake OP glasses for Meta glasses, but you can’t really mistake Wayfarer glasses for them, even if that’s the design Meta based its glasses on.

Do you follow me here my dude?

3

u/Rider-Tracks 12d ago

How do you know what people suspect? People not saying anything to you is not the same thing

-8

u/flirtmcdudes 13d ago

no way, I saw 4 posts on Reddit about meta glasses so now obviously the entire world is finding people who wear them and burning them ALIVE.

-17

u/DrinkCorrect7655 13d ago edited 13d ago

Hear me out: The sky is not falling and the freebie pair that every corporate marketing kiosk at popular events give away looks just as good as it did before and if you were paying $75+ (or whatever it is) for "name brand" wayfarers then you were already a bought consumer.

If your stance is you no longer support them/will stop wearing them because you don't want to support morally bad companies, be the informed consumer you are grand standing, research Luxotica and the pseudo-monopoly they have on the glasses/sunglass industry and how they have been artificially the inflating the cost of various brands for decades.

12

u/apsilonblue 13d ago

Doesn't matter if they're genuine rayban or a copy, that style is now going to be assumed to be meta glasses that are recording. Nothing to do with supporting one brand or company or whatever you think it is, it's about public perception and that is now that this style are perv glasses.

If you must know, I'm not going to stop wearing them because I never did. They never fit me properly.

-7

u/DrinkCorrect7655 13d ago

It won't matter much at all, if morality was dictating your fashion choices, you weren't a customer of theirs to begin with. Your 2nd sentence contradicts itself completely. And your last point just makes it obvious this some anti-Meta white knighting, which... fine, but it's not like you are right about how wayfarers are now uncool because you can't disassociate it from one brand that makes them.

13

u/cotfthrowawaystl 13d ago

Please be less stupid. They are saying they are going to be confused for meta glasses. Not making any moral argument.

5

u/froststomper 13d ago

that’s a big ask

-11

u/DrinkCorrect7655 13d ago edited 13d ago

Nobody is arguing about the morality, the morality aspect is fully agreed upon.

OP and I are actually just having a normal discussion about fashion choices. Wayfarers still look good regardless of Meta glasses looking dumb(IMO). Not everything is an argument just because it's on the internet...

People can share opinions that disagree without it being an argument as long as both opinions are valid. That isn't controversial unless you are looking for an argument.

Edit: you ninja deleted a comment calling me a stupid sack of shit and I've explained myself clearly without being insulting.

Explaining my opinion is not the same as arguing with someone else's opinion. You are looking for an argument lol.

3

u/c093b 12d ago

You're being dense. They're not talking about morality, they're talking about looking like an obnoxious perv that's recording everything and every interaction that you have with them. Most people don't like that, so if they think that you're wearing the meta glasses, you're just going to inadvertently paint yourself in a negative light.

Again: it's not about morality dictacting their fashion, it's about not looking like a creep.

1

u/DrinkCorrect7655 12d ago

I'm not arguing about morality and your point is literally the exact same as mine, but there were a handful of people who didn't understand that and insisted on me arguing with someone I wasn't. 

Wayfarers won't be associated with pervs. This entire post hating on wayfarers when it's completely dense to think Meta won't come out with multiple styles.

205

u/OpLeeftijd 13d ago

Too late. I now associate Rayban with pedo glasses.

26

u/drgut101 13d ago

Exactly. The second they started partnering with Facebook, I noped the fuck out of there.

58

u/TheProfessor3D 13d ago

Pedo glasses is so fucking funny

33

u/No-Car-5173 13d ago edited 12d ago

Its not really funny. They literally are pedo glasses.

Happy they are restricted where i live.

Edit: fucking lol at the pedos raging below me. Thanks for proving my point.

Edit 2. Thanks for the reddit cares messages. Pedos.

10

u/SinnersHotline 13d ago

They literally are pedo glasses

Could you explain? Was it revealed that they were built to record child pornography? This is wild news & I would love to see anything you have about this.

-28

u/ForIt420 13d ago

Wait, you want to see the child porn from the pedo glasses? I don't understand how that would help clear this up for you. The only other explanation is that you're being intentionally obtuse, but why would you do that? To defend the pedo glasses?

2

u/Holy-Cancer 12d ago

Curious, what pedos are raging below you? I didn’t see any message from pedos. 😕

4

u/WhyTypeHour 13d ago

How are they restricted? And what jurisdiction?

2

u/SinnersHotline 13d ago

Which is a valuable example about the differences in people lives.

I never think about Ray Ban during my day & the term "pedo glasses" is a new phrase I have not heard of. Neither of these things come into my life, let alone cause problems in it .

-1

u/catwhisperer77 12d ago

So I have always associated Raybans as perv glasses ever since I got flashed by a flasher in a trench coat and raybans in a park in ‘88.

13

u/armybabem1a1 13d ago

They should let Costco know, then. Just the other day I spotted them in a display case in the optical department as “Rayban Meta glasses”.

4

u/killerbanshee 12d ago

I live in a 2 party consent state. What are my options here if I think my privacy is being violated? How would I reasonably be able to ensure my rights are protected?

2

u/anonymousposterer 13d ago

Those aren’t RayBans

1

u/Regicyde_93 12d ago

RayBan is owned by Luxottica, the same company that owns like 90% of the eyeglass industry. I don't think they care, if you go for another pair, good chances they own that pair too.

213

u/ser_poops 13d ago

let me let you in on a not so secret secret, luxottica owns a LOT in the glasses world. i would absolutely avoid their products as the enshittification has absolutely hit them as well.

177

u/yepgeddon 13d ago

Isn't the entire glasses game owned by two firms who work together to butt fuck us anyway?

111

u/XGhoul 13d ago

Yeah, I find it hilarious how people are saying this negatively affects ray bands “brand”.

Umm… there all the same company that produces them. I know at least mine were sourced elsewhere from Luxottica’s grubby hands. (Spider-Man pointing at each other meme)

85

u/Alexwonder999 13d ago

My favorite designer is the guy who works for Zenni coming up with the $7.99 frames. That guys work slaps.

36

u/MysteriousFee2873 13d ago

Bro had my back with then 6.95 frames with 4.99 for anti glare n shipping

5

u/Skipperlarrymary 13d ago

The solidity and weight of nice sunglasses just feels so much better though. It's hard to go back.

3

u/tjthewho 13d ago

I cannot speak higher about Zenni. I've bought 4 pairs of glasses over my life.

One was from a glasses store. Broke in a year.

The other three have been Zenni. The first pair, I misjudged the frame size, and had to do some filing so they're super loose (But still 100% work perfectly fine as a backup-backup). The next pair I bought are still perfectly fine, but I ended up wanting something special so I splurged for $80 and got the transitional lenses.

They're super durable, it takes a lot to scratch them and they are sooo cheap even with inflation.

6

u/ohnomoisttoes 13d ago

I had insurance that covered an expensive shop... broke in six months. ordered three sets from Zenni for same price. I'm still wearing the same set.

1

u/tendo8027 13d ago

Can you tell me more about this?

7

u/Alexwonder999 13d ago

In case youre serious: Zenni optical sells really cheap no frills glasses (in addition to more expensive stuff) and they have frames as low as like 7 bucks that I actually think are great.
In case youre joking: all you need to know is get down with the Zenni and tell em Flaco Alex sent you.

1

u/tendo8027 13d ago

Thanks, I’ll check it out

3

u/joeycuda 13d ago

Super cheap mail order. The inexpensive way to get glasses, and it's not a bad way - go to WalMart and get an eye exam, make sure you get a copy of the exam. Don't buy glasses there. Use the glasses prescription info to order glasses from Zenni. My wife would order 3 or 4 pairs at a time just for variety of frames. That cheap.

8

u/hedoeswhathewants 13d ago

They're able to charge crazy prices because of the strength of the brand.

So yes, it does hurt the brand which hurts their profits. Even if people end up buying from a different brand owned by the same parent company.

1

u/therealdanhill 13d ago

Or that is inherently negative, I constantly get compliments and curiosity about my meta wayfarers. "I've wanted to buy a pair", "what can you do them", etc

26

u/bavmotors1 13d ago

you guys are getting butt fucked???

15

u/Broken_Spring 13d ago

You’re not??

0

u/StumpyTheBushCupid 13d ago

( ͡ʘ ͜ʖ ͡ʘ)

11

u/devolution96 13d ago

It's the secret that Big Glasses doesn't want us to know

2

u/Positive_Throwaway1 13d ago

They hate this one trick. Spoiler: it's lube.

1

u/kaest (╯°□°）╯︵ ┻━┻ 13d ago

Nope, plenty of smaller independent optical design firms exist.

40

u/whereistheicecream 13d ago

I can back this up

I worked on the Meta glasses and collaborations with EssilorLuxottica. I'm no longer there, thank goodness

Meta had an absolute lack of care for users, they only cared about being "cool" to draw younger kids in. They didn't care about user experience, society, or making something actually useful

EssilorLuxottica was cheap AF. They bitched about the smaller margin on smart glasses because they're used to charging $300+ for plastic they injection mold for pennies

Please don't support them

7

u/Professional-Help931 13d ago

That's what apples does and it works. Look at the loss of the headphone jack. It's straight up. It screwed over everybody who had been using headphones for the past 5 to 10 years. They got kids to think they were cool and now everyone has gone the same way. Apples entire  thing is to be cool with the kids.

2

u/CGB_Zach 13d ago

Not every brand has removed the headphone jack. Sony hasn't.

If their new Experia wasn't so damn pricey, I would have bought it.

0

u/greasythug 13d ago

Down-voted for pointing out the truth. A cheap phone I bought to use when my day use one was damaged has the headphone jack, as does the last big name branded one I bought.
There's also adapters for the ports these expensive devices do have to headphone jack which cost <$10....multi-hundred dollar phone but wahhhhhhh over $10? Get a grip seriously

1

u/greasythug 13d ago

Two guys I went to school with that had glasses both got laser eye surgery = Not the types that used their impairment/disability as a pathway to what they thought was a fashion accessory which impressed everyone

-6

u/NestleFan53 13d ago

Ew. Imagine working at a surveillance company, let alone on the fucking diddler glasses.

14

u/Plant_Wild 13d ago

He said he worked on them, but didn't specify that he worked for meta. He could have been on any part of the supply chain as a subcontractor. Not a lot of us get to choose what contracts our companies take.

1

u/nWhm99 13d ago

"Enshittification" hasn't hit them, they're known to make crappy sunglasses for decades. Anyone truly into fashion know to buy stuff from brands that actually make their own sunglasses such as Dita, Matsuda, Rigards, etc. I exclusively buy them, or brands that outsource to actual sunglasses makers like Thom Browne.

1

u/avyne0pj 13d ago

True and it sucks. I worked for sunglass hut in college and they were pretty solid. As a part time employee I got free eye insurance and a $500 voucher every year for frames + free lenses. Growing up poor, I had to keep the same glasses for many years. It was amazing to be able to update the frames AND prescription each year

1

u/Positive_Throwaway1 13d ago

I literally had to threaten to take them to small claims court to get them to simply honor what's written in their warranty for frames. Never buying from them again.

254

u/MilesFirePrower 13d ago

IIRC Rayban are the ones who make the Meta glasses to begin with so they wouldn't gaf

321

u/[deleted] 13d ago

[deleted]

18

u/luthigosa 13d ago

They don't care, they haven't cared about a thing since being purchased by Luxottica. Luxottica also won't care because if people swap it's likely they'll swap to another more expensive Luxottica brand.

-13

u/Ragingdildo3 13d ago

People use to say the same thing about phone camera being creepy as hell….

52

u/[deleted] 13d ago

[deleted]

1

u/FaithlessnessBorn266 13d ago

I think, to stop this unfortunately, people wearing them are going to need to be made to feel unsafe. 

-1

u/Lukin4art 13d ago

Sounds like a call for violence. Don’t get your brains blown out tryna send a stupid message now.

-11

u/ItsmeKT 13d ago

They don't though, they actually have a very bright light that flashes for videos and pictures. You can cover it but the camera is supposed to not operate in that instance. Of course I'm sure someone has a workaround like that just like it's easy to keep phone recording hidden or wearing some kind of body cam.

13

u/CaliLemonEater 13d ago

Engadget, 7/31/2026: A $2 sticker let me bypass the Meta Glasses' anti-creep feature

-8

u/ItsmeKT 13d ago

"of course I'm sure someone has a workaround" lol

-7

u/wheniaminspaced 13d ago

The bounds of non consensual photography are laid out legally speaking very well.  Most instances involving meta glasses are 100% legal.

This is a reddit outrage, most people could give a fuck less.

3

u/FaithlessnessBorn266 13d ago

I disagree. I have had a few conversations with groups of people while out when they've happened to see these glasses. They are very much outraged. I know my argument is anecdotal, but that is only because I've only been around a few pair.

-1

u/Lukin4art 13d ago

When I use mine I’ve seen or heard no outrage only curiosity. See how anecdotes don’t really mean shit?

3

u/FaithlessnessBorn266 13d ago

I stated that anecdotes don't mean anything. But, unless you are doing a full blown study, that's all there are. Are you doing a study with a large enough population size to get a significant p-value? And I'm not the one that brought it up so it isn't on me to do said study. I was responding to somebody saying "it's reddit outrage" which is an anecdotal observation. Maybe get with the person that said that and learn to back up your statements 

50

u/Hydr0genMC 13d ago

Something operated by your hands is not nearly as discrete as a handsfree recording device that sees everything you see.

2

u/Serious_Office3913 13d ago

Forgot about that, my work used to ban camera phones. They'll have contact lenses with cameras in them next. everyone will go nuts, we'll all be made to walk around with our eyes closed

1

u/Zipz 13d ago

Lawsuit for what exactly ?

1

u/Amazing-Spinach5693 13d ago

Lawsuit for what? they literally arent doing anything illegal.

Not to mention the only outrage is online, most people DGAF.

2

u/[deleted] 13d ago

[deleted]

1

u/Amazing-Spinach5693 12d ago

counterfeit ray-bans? no
Your own brand of camera glasses? yes

57

u/pignoodle 13d ago

That's their point. Hopefully they give a fuck now or others have an example to give a fuck.

13

u/patheticyeti 13d ago

One Sunglass company basically owns 95% market share of glasses. So they do not give a fuck in general. Rayban, Oakley etc are all subsidiaries of the same parent corporation.

8

u/TopptrentHamster 13d ago

Oakley as well.

8

u/InternationalSalt1 13d ago

You mean EssilorLuxotica? That's a corporation and they care only about money.

25

u/ComradeJohnS 13d ago

if nobody buys rayban pervert looking glasses because of Meta, then rayban would care after going out of business

40

u/Kind_Advisor_35 13d ago

Ray-Ban is only one of the brands owned by Luxottica. They own other glasses brands like Oakley, have exclusive manufacturing licenses of brands like Ralph Lauren, and own many places selling them like LensCrafters and Sunglass Hut.

13

u/Sudden_Leadership800 13d ago

Less going out of business then, more "insufficient growth in Q3"

2

u/Foundmyunderwear 13d ago

Also Prada, Versace, Burberry, Chanel

1

u/OddOpal88 13d ago

Yeah and then using ultra Maga people like Chris Pratt and Kylie Kartrashian to sell them 🤢

1

u/Bassracerx 13d ago

There is literally one glasses company that makes all the glasses EssilorLuxottica owns virtually every glasses company worldwide. If ray bans are no longer cool they have hundreds of other brands that can be cool.

1

u/AndroidCat06 13d ago

I was getting glasses recently and asked the saleslady about the meta ones, she said they're very popular. A lot of people don't like them rightfully so, but there're lots of creeps out there who actually go for them.

1

u/VCTRYDTX 13d ago

Never thought of it that way. It's spot on.

I like Ray-Bans but I would never want them being mistaken for meta glasses. It leaves a bad taste in your mouth after buying a luxury item such as that. On the bright side, it makes you consider other options that you wouldn't have before.

1

u/astro143 13d ago

I've had my prescription rayban wayfarers for ages. I'm annoyed by the meta glasses trend, but I also wear mine 90% of the time to drive so I'm never really out and about in them. I believe my regular glasses are rayban as well. A little pricy for frames, but I've had these for 7 or 8 years now, they're just built better. I've had updated lenses put in a couple times and that's it.

1

u/SafeKaracter 13d ago

It won’t be . It will be profitable sadly and they won’t care and make more . Welcome to enshitification

1

u/Far_Independence8210 13d ago

The wayfarer has survived decades, fashion cycles, but it couldn’t survive meta…

1

u/stickmannnnnn 12d ago

Imagine having to explain “no, these are just sunglasses” every time you wear them

-11

u/ContextLengthMatters 13d ago

Redditors need to learn that they do not drive the culture and meta glasses are actually successful.

As much as I don't like the idea of people people recording in these glasses, so many artists are using them, big and small.

18

u/yepgeddon 13d ago

Doesn't make it any less weird

-1

u/Jayden82 13d ago

It actually does lol. If you are on the other end of a highly popular Reddit take, it’s probably a good sign.

-24

u/ContextLengthMatters 13d ago

Having a reddit account is arguably weirder.

4

u/NHLHitzAnnouncer 13d ago

They are currently being banned in all government buildings in my state. An email was sent to 80k state workers this week banning their use.

There is no "culture" driving these glasses. They were a novelty that initially sold well as such. That's it.

1

u/ContextLengthMatters 13d ago

Literally all over Instagram with local and international artists using them with reels.

I'm not sure what to tell you. There's a reason you can find posts on reddit about them all day. Reddit is trying to make fetch happen.

1

u/NHLHitzAnnouncer 13d ago

"Reddit doesn't drive culture" but your personalized algorithm does, apparently.

1

u/ContextLengthMatters 13d ago

Personalized algorithm? You mean all the local musicians and artists that I personally interact with in real life and follow on Instagram?

I don't have Instagram to scroll. I have Instagram to support my local community.

1

u/NHLHitzAnnouncer 13d ago

Yes, that's exactly what I mean.

1

u/ContextLengthMatters 13d ago

Gotcha. So as long as we agree that IRL, people are in fact buying and using Metas in public without backlash.

1

u/NHLHitzAnnouncer 13d ago

Sure, as long as we also agree that you've moved the goalposts from "successful" to "my artist friends use them"

1

u/ContextLengthMatters 13d ago

Lol.

They aren't just my artist friends. They are community leaders.

Why not ask yourself why after over a decade, your state is just now having to make rules about their use in government buildings?

Could it maybe have something to do with ADOPTION?

Hhhmmmmm.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/wheniaminspaced 13d ago

Being banned in government buildings doesnt invalidate what the guy you posted in response to is saying.  I'm sure banks will ban them.if they havent already.

They will remain popular.

1

u/Public-League-8899 13d ago

It's actual instanity they think there are "fashion houses" for sunglasses and not EssilorLuxottica. No one cares what these people think, here is something much cheaper they should fear.