Login
You're viewing the assemblag.es public feed.
  • Michał "rysiek" Woźniak · 🇺🇦rysiek@mstdn.social
    Oct 10, 2026, 9:22 PM

    @hoco @elettrona that assumes the issue is with the person using the device (as in the case of a car) and not the company that manufactures it and retains control over it (as in the case of smart glasses).

    Which is not the core issue. The core issue is the untrustworthiness of the device vendor.

    But a car analogy does make sense here, it just needs to be modified a bit. It's not about a "license" to use them, it's about the certification they are safe to be used in public. Like cars are.

    💬 1🔄 0⭐ 0

Replies

  • Michał "rysiek" Woźniak · 🇺🇦rysiek@mstdn.social
    Oct 10, 2026, 9:25 PM

    @hoco @elettrona in other words, instead of creating hurdles for blind and visually impaired people who need these devices to improve their lives, we should focus on making devices themselves trustworthy and reliable, through an auditing and certification process.

    💬 1🔄 0⭐ 0
  • 💬 1🔄 0⭐ 0
  • Michał "rysiek" Woźniak · 🇺🇦rysiek@mstdn.social
    Oct 10, 2026, 9:29 PM

    @hoco I do wonder, though, what would @elettrona say to an idea of making these devices stand out more to anyone else in public, labeling them clearly as medical devices.

    I think there are pros and cons of this.

    Pros: easier to make people less suspicious of someone wearing them when they are clearly labeled (kind of like with guide dogs).

    Cons: that can still be stigmatizing to blind and visually impaired people wearing them.

    I don't have the lived experience to weigh these correctly.

    💬 0🔄 0⭐ 0