We’ve been through all of this before, of course — a decade ago, public opinion turned against Google Glass, with public business owners in particular coming out against the tech. Diners, movie theaters, casinos, bars, and other public establishments outright banned the headset — one woman was allegedly assaulted for wearing Google Glass in San Francisco, and an XR pioneer was assaulted in Paris while using a similar-looking device.

But that was a decade ago, and I argued last year that our definition of privacy, our tolerance for public photography, and our resistance to wearable technology have all changed considerably since Google first introduced Glass. Maybe it won’t be such a problem this time around? Smartphone cameras everywhere is now the norm, and small businesses often benefit from an influencer plug; Ng was fine with me naming Fiddle Fig Cafe in this story.

I do wonder if Meta was prepared for the Quest 3 to be the glasshole’s headset of choice, though. While the company has put considerable thought into making sure its glasses-like Ray-Bans don’t fall into the same trap — publishing privacy explainers and guidelines on using those glasses in public, including proactively letting people know you’re recording — the Quest 3 doesn’t seem to have similar published guidelines.

It’s also a bit harder for bystanders to tell when the Quest 3 is recording. It simply pulses a white light, slowly, and it’s a light that’s already on by default. When I asked my wife if she thought I was recording, she said she had no clue.

Then again, if I saw someone walking into a cafe with a bulbous white object atop their face with multiple camera slits, I’d just automatically assume they were recording absolutely everything.

Meta didn’t respond to a request for comment.