On Bluesky, posts regularly suggest that people who wear “pervert glasses” are punched in the face. Criticism of eye-worn gadgets capable of surveillance is nothing new, although the online discourse — “Meta Glasses” trended repeatedly on Meta’s Threads app last week, for the wrong reasons — appears to have intensified following the release of Meta’s latest, cheaper line, as well as reports of a facial recognition feature never before seen for the product. For some reason, this time the reaction seems to have a real effect.
Woozad spoke with five creators, photographers, and others who were once excited about Meta’s smart glasses about how public perception has changed their habits.
“A lot of men and their behaviors have ruined this product,” Danielle, a Florida-based travel designer and host who asked to be identified by her first name only, told Woozad. At first, she loved using her smart glasses to capture content on the international trips she organized. She then read an article reporting that contractors working for Meta claimed they had been tasked with reviewing intimate images and other sensitive details captured by eyeglass owners.
Further reports of men using Meta brand glasses to film videos of themselves harassing women in public sealed the deal. She says she hasn’t used them since. “I wouldn’t feel comfortable with anyone wearing them, so I wouldn’t expect anyone to be comfortable with me wearing them, no matter where I am.
“At this point, they look like a fancy paperweight,” she says.
Other designers who have already purchased the frames now say they use the product less often out of fear that people around them will think they are doing something “creepy.”
Christian Eisenbarth is a Los Angeles-based videographer who was given a pair of Ray-Ban Meta glasses by his girlfriend. He says that although he previously considered a pair for his video shoots, he has yet to use them outside of his home “mainly because he was afraid of being labeled a creep.” This fear has so far outweighed his personal enthusiasm for the product. “It’s great to have a true POV perspective, and you can record without having to worry about a camera or something strapped to your chest,” he said.
Everyone who spoke with Woozad said they felt somewhat conflicted about Meta’s smart glasses. They all believed they had used the product responsibly and that the product, which starts at $224 for the first generation model, was well designed. They also all expressed some discomfort with Meta’s privacy practices and people who have abused the technology.
Martino Wong is a self-described creator and technology enthusiast who was an early adopter of Ray-Ban Meta eyewear. Wong, who says he uses his sunglasses primarily for phone calls and recording product videos, says the privacy backlash seems to be greater in English-speaking spaces on the internet, but it has still had an effect on him.
“I’ve been a little more attentive to them, especially in busier environments,” he said. “There have been times when I fold them and hang them on my shirt, to make it more clear that I’m not actively using them.”
Will Kujawa, an independent video producer, said he considered purchasing a pair of Meta glasses with prescription lenses to film behind-the-scenes content during his shoots, but the online reaction gave him pause. He says he was “blown away by how mean some people are” in response to his social media posts about buying a pair.
“I saw all these comments that if you wear these glasses you’re basically a predator or a creep, and I was like, ‘oh, maybe it’s not a good idea to have them,'” he told Woozad. But he says he understands why people are worried. “I hadn’t really thought about it until the end… there are many times when it’s not appropriate to wear cameras on your face. And while I wouldn’t intend to do anything scary with them, it didn’t even occur to me that other people would assume that automatically.”
Kujawa said he still thought he might buy a pair to use during his video shoots, but planned to bring a spare pair of regular glasses, just in case. “It makes me more careful,” he said. “I don’t think I would wear them everywhere or all the time.”
No one who spoke with Woozad reported experiencing unwanted comments or interactions related to their smart glasses in real life, although they were all well aware of the negative discourse online. Many said they would appreciate more improved privacy features, like a more visible LED when the camera is in use.
Jeremy, a professional photographer who also owns a brand consultancy, told Woozad that his usage habits haven’t changed despite the negative associations: He mostly listens to music or records family videos with them. But Jeremy, who also asked to be referred to only by his first name, said he had turned off cloud downloads and tried to use the most restrictive privacy settings possible. “Facebook hasn’t done much for the world,” he said. “I totally understand the negative reaction.”
At the same time, he believes that discussions about privacy and surveillance go beyond a single company and product. “It’s easy to be outraged by something that you can point out very clearly, but I think it’s much harder to accept the fact that we’re all being recorded all the time.”
Meta has sold more than 7 million pairs of co-branded glasses in 2025. It just added a new line without the Ray-Ban brand and will likely introduce additional frames before the end of the year. A sustained privacy backlash could harm this momentum.
This week, Meta announced that it was releasing a mandatory software update for all of its smart glasses, which would disable the device’s camera if the LED light was physically impaired. The company also announced that it will take legal action against people who promote LED tampering services. The update follows several reports about the cottage industry that has sprung up around Meta eyewear “hacks.” Many of these services, which use simple tools like dental drills and probes to turn off the recording light, were announced on Meta’s own platforms. There are also dozens of videos on YouTube offering DIY tutorials.
The change, which was announced in a privacy-focused FAQ, is the company’s clearest acknowledgment of privacy-related backlash yet; at the same time he made few other concessions. In a privacy FAQ released this week, Meta did not commit to specific new features. In a section titled “Will more privacy features be available on glasses?” » the company only gave vague assurances:
“As our glasses become more capable and more common, our teams continue to work on ways to make them even safer and more reliable,” the statement said. “We set high standards for our AI glasses because we believe it is an essential part of all good technology.”
