Step one being “make the judge mad” is a bad idea.
Yea, he better watch out or he’s gonna get a $6000 fine instead of $5000.
These people are not in danger. Any harm to them is reputational. Reputation is the only thing they have in life.
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.
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.
Don’t stick up for the zuck, he’s got fucking billions to pour into other people doing it for him.
First of all you can’t use them for 10-12 hours a day because the battery only lasts like 2 hours. Which is a bit silly for glasses.
Never attribute to stupidity that which is adequately explained by a good marketing opportunity.
Scolding without jailtime = slap on wrist.
Jailtime for wearing glasses that can record videos in the courtroom?
Maybe the death penalty while you are at it?
Don’t be obtuse.
How much jail time was spent in 2025 by inmates held for contempt of court?
But don’t you see? We don’t like these particular people, so they should suffer the maximum possible penalties under every circumstance.
If we liked them then punishing them for wearing glasses would of course be a travesty.
Sure, sure, everything can be simplified down to people just not “liking” them. That’s what this is all about. That’s what all this is about. We simply don’t like people. No, it’s not the fact that these assholes are the ones behind the 21st century rise of cyber-fascism. We just don’t like 'em. Musk, Bezos, Zuckerberg, zeah they’re all really decent people inside, it’s us that’s the problem. /s
Sick and tired of useless fucking people that style themselves as “rational” and “middle of the road” in a world that is literally starting to threaten my very existence. The time for that shit is long past us, sorry.
Whereas I prefer an organized rules-based justice system over anarchy and vigilantism. Because who knows when you or I might end up being in the “disliked” category?
A judge holding a defendant in contempt of court for violating a serious order to not bring recording equipment into the courtroom, is neither “anarchy” nor “vigilantism.”
In an “organized rules-based justice system,” a defendant who violated a court order by bringing recording equipment into the courtroom would be held in contempt, and depending on the severity, may face jail time (such as perhaps if that recording equipment has facial recognition technology).
This isn’t about whether or not we “dislike” him. But just because he’s widely disliked doesn’t make him immune to prosecution.
What the fuck are you smoking?
A rules based system works when every player follows the rules. One side is actively dismantling and abandoning the rules. Do we still keep playing with our hands tied behind our backs?
No, we fight to ensure that the rules are followed. In this case they are, the judge has discretion here.
Would you rather there were “mandatory minimum” laws when it came to this as well?
No one is even making the arguments that you are arguing against other than you…
You are essentially saying the crowd has to do its own justice.
It’s a courtroom, not a voting booth.
Do…do you know how a jury works?
But we can’t tell the difference between the “far left” and far right. The one is threatening to fix elections and have a madman in absolute power to use dishonest arguments to eliminate half the population and enslave developing countries, and the other wants not pay more money for less in by private trusts overcharging us, and doesn’t think working people should get screwed without their consent, and wants equal rights for people, and believes in the tenants of the Bill of Rights. /s
Can’t tell you guys apart!
Calling them “glasses” is such a weasel word. No one cares at all that they are wearing glasses, they are wearing CAMERAS in a place where recording is strictly prohibited.
I sincerely hope that you are going out of your way to troll, and don’t actually have thoughts that are this small and poorly formed.
The judge made it clear no cameras or recording equipment were allowed in the session and they brought wearable cameras that have facial recognition capabilities. That is the definition of 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 small amount of jailtime is a slap on the wrist. A scolding is nothing.
I think 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
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.
It does matter who they are!
The judge said not to bring something in and they clearly ignored the judge’s directions and it is their job to comply with the judge’s directions. They are not some random person off the street.
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.
Fair enough. Just let me know when it’s guillotine time.
I must have forgotten that there is literally no middle ground between a verbal warning and execution.
To be clear I want to behead these assholes.
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.
It’s not even a slap on the wrist.
Yeah exactly. It’s a scolding. Something certain types have learned to ignore in their teens.
My 6-year old is way ahead of the game then.
I’ve got a tough decade ahead of me…
Now that they were scolded, much will change.
Piece of shit post.
Wait, sorry for my ignorance. But wasn’t this televised?
According to the articles I read, sure doesn’t seem like it. ironic, I know. The articles we’re getting are made by journalists who are listening and writing down what they see.
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,”
Generally, and discretion. And also… Performative… Has been the usual kid gloves these techbro douchebag have been “disciplined” by the courts. So I was wondering if this was the case. The article wasn’t clear. And using meta glasses wouldn’t stop these guys from just grabbing all the cell phone data and cross reference with the massive database they all possess.
deleted by creator
It 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 lot 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.
They said “Sorry.”
Did they, though?
The face he makes here…
Good call judge!
Gee, maybe there might be some practical, social and legal problems with always recording camera glasses…
Pretty sure they won’t care except if it ends with a multi-billions$ fine. The intent is that by the time, their “smart-glasses” are everywhere and banning them no longer seems reasonable.
So they’ll settle for “privacy settings by default”, meaning they commit to not record anything except if the user expilicitly activate it, and it should be very visible for people around.
They’ll wait a good 6 months before an update introduces back a silent auto-record of some kind, because that company never gave a flying fuck about the law, its users or basic decency.
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.
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 defendant having even one frame of video with a jurors face in it.
Instead, he got free viral marketing.
What a fucking clownshow.
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?
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.
The 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.
The 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
Not a random individual, but I would expect a court to be able to do so. Hold them, get an expert, verify.
Yep. They should have been arrested.
Holy shit.
Kudos to this judge for knowing their shit and acting on it. I love it.
I mean… That’s their job… But yes!
That’s their job
Is it though? In Donald’s America?
Oh sorry… I guess I was projecting…
Acting on it? I mean, I guess opening and closing your mouth is technically action.
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.
Scolds? That’ll teach 'em…?
Let’s just hope pissing off the judge on mïnute 1 may get them uncomfortable about the rest of the trial.
Alternative to CBS.
The return of the glassholes
