This Week in Glassholes

Google Glass Explorer Becomes Last Call Punching Bag at Molotov's [UPDATED]

Google Glass is somehow still a problem. With the exception of a few people with $1,500 to burn and an insatiable desire to look like a dipshit, the San Franciscan’s have come together to say “fuck that” to Google’s latest obtrusion.

But in spite of collective opposition, and Google themselves reminding Glass users not to be “creepy or rude,” people persist in wearing them at the worst time.  And thus at last call Friday night, “I Love Social Media, Inc.” founder Sarah Slocum found herself in a fist and face kerfuffle outside of Molotov’s.  As she described the unfortunate situation on Facebook:

OMG so you’ll never believe this but… I got verbally and physically assaulted and robbed last night in the city, had things thrown at me because of some wanker Google Glass haters, then some *bleeeeeeeeeep* tore them off my face and ran out with them then and when I ran out after him his *bleeeeeeep* friends stole my purse, cellphone wallet and everything.

It all started because, of course, bar patrons objected to being recorded while drunk and committing acts of “[obviously] embarrassing behavoir”:

But then, the witnesses said some people inside the bar got upset about the possibility of being recorded by the glasses. Brian Lester said he watched as a man insulted Slocum, then a man accompanying her retaliated with his fists.

“The crowd was jeering as any last call crowd would do with a fight outside of a bar,” Lester said. “She was running around very excited … and people were telling her, ‘you’re being an *** take those glasses off.”

“I think everybody was just upset that she would be recording outside of a bar this late with obvious embarrassing behavior going on,” Lester added. “And just rather insulted that someone thinks it’s okay to record them the entire time they’re in public.”

This is becoming routine, and Slocum’s tale is reminiscent of when Matt Hunt was booted from Telegraph in Oakland for refusing to take off his Glass, only to later claim he was assaulted and called a faggot by bar staff (Hunt later allegedly hacked Telegraph’s Twitter account to disseminate anti-gay hate speech, ultimately leading to Telegraph banning Google Glass).

People act up in bars, people get punched in bars.  The same story, but with a digital twist.  So it goes.

But Google Glass privilege is quickly becoming the men’s rights movement of wearable computers, with ridiculous Explorers banding together to protest businesses who partake in ‘Glass discrimination’ and openly taunt their detractors.  It’s the new normal—people are asked to remove Glass, only to throw a tantrum (as was the case yesterday at Grand Coffee), make up wild claims, or “[run] around very excited” in the face of an angry mob.

It goes without saying that punching someone in the face is an inexcusable response to someone flexing Glass in public.  But insisting on wearing Google Glass in a private establishment like it’s some sort of civil right is only going to lead to more situations like this.

UPDATE 3:30pm: Now it seems as though her boyfriend threw the first punch, according to a witnesses who talked to Mission Mission:

That is not at all what happened. It was after last call, she was wasted and being a bitch, someone called her a glasshole and her boyfriend tried to fight the dude, and got his ass whooped. The glasses fell off her face and someone picked them up and gave them back to her. Nobody robbed her either, this [person] is making all this shit up. Go Molotovs!!!!!

And another source:

It was 2am on a friday night when i met her she was less than sober (she had had approx a small child full of vodka cran’s) secondly from what she told me it sounded like she left her bag and phone unattended in a busy bar on a friday night. Her friends were so riled up (and obnoxious) that they almost started fighting with me when i argued it maybe wasn’t the smartest idea to wear google glass and film in a punk rock bar and leaving a bag and phone unattended wasn’t the wisest of decisions.

Also not the wisest of decisions: turning your bar fight into an international media affair if your story isn’t tight.

[CBS]

Comments (38)

Seems like this has little to do with Glass specifically and more to do with drunk jerks in a bar acting like drunk jerks in a bar.

This story has so many holes in it. She said she was inside, witness said she was outside. She said she filed a police report, police say there is no report. She says she recorded the fight, but hasn’t released the video…

Wearing those fucking things to Molotov’s isn’t much different than wearing a Ted Nugent shirt on 85th and International. Is that a justification for violence? No. It’s called being aware of your surroundings, appreciating its nuances, and not going out of your way to be inflammatory. Not bothering to do those three says to me she’s lucky only a purse and a phone were lost. Wake up, Sarah Slocum. Seriously. 

two sides of the same bitcoin

This reeks of ‘LOOK AT ME’, she’s lit up her facebook page with every fucking article there is all of which call her a trouble maker. Her online presence after the fact pretty much paints a picture of her being the type to stir a bunch of shit up and then be outraged about people not being ok with it. She also fits a certain bill of “I DON’T GET WHY PEOPLE DON’T LOVE TECHNOLGY?!!!! IT’S SO WONDERFUL LOL!”

Agree completely. Blatant attention-mongering.

But J-Train, look at the name of the company she founded. She would NEVER!

Case in point:

“I was minding my own biz with a computer phone. Everyone has a computer or phone these days. And what have they [Tech Companies] done to the city? Given people cool cellphones?? And awesome technology that we all use and take for granted everyday? I realize that I represented the tech millionaires and billionaires in their eyes, but that isn’t me and I didn’t even pay for my Google Glasses, one of my developer friends gave them to me because he wasn’t using them and doesn’t currently have time to develop an app for them right now.” - Sarah Slocom

Ok, I usually don’t condone violence but someone needs to smack that lady upside her hear.

It’s all so redonkulous, but her description of where Molotov’s is, is….well….so 10,000 feet up:

” It happened at this bar called Molotov between Ashbury and Valencia”

From her FB page:

Sarah SlocumRobin and Norm the only thing that I got back that night was the glass. I filed a police report yesterday but the police have not found the people or guy that did it or my stuff. I dont plan on getting anything back. It happened at this bar called Molotov between Ashbury and Valencia and was started by these two girls who acted like they owned the place and must go there regularly because lots of their friends or the locals there started *haighting* too and backing them up.

Well Ashbury is west of the bar and Valencia is east of it, so she is kinda, sorta almost right.

Glassholes are terrible, but that’s no excuse for physically assaulting them.  Just ban then from your place of business.

That’s a rather Arizona way of approaching the issue.

You folks who willfully confuse discrimination based on immutable characteristics (bad) with discrimination based on optional personal preferences and desires (totally fine) operate in such obvious bad faith it’s hilarious. Just like someone can prohibit you from coming into their restaurant with outside food, they can prohibit you from coming in with your eyecamera.

Bingo.

Not really.  I’m not suggesting anyone who owns google glasses should be banned, I’m just saying don’t let people in while they’re wearing them.  Want to come in? Sure. Put your google glasses away, and leave them away while you’re in the establishment. 

Why not ban phones as well? There are plenty of people who take pictures/video at bars with phones. What’s the difference with Glass? I mean, other than that they make you look stupid.

You honestly can’t say that it’s a privacy concern, because no one gives two shits about smart phones.

Zeitgeist doesn’t allow pictures. Neither do most strip clubs.

Yet tons of people take pictures there and don’t get shit for it.

no these self absorbed MEMEMEMEMEME LOOK AT MEMEMEMEMEME types need to be PUNCHED!!! and hard…


Go ahead wear your glasses.  Just be prepared to ask everyone to sign a release who is in your general vacinity.  Google Glass violates my right to privacy and control information about myself.   It is a misguided ill thought out piece of technology that will not go anywhere because anyone who thinks through the ramifications of the technology will not buy it.  Not to mention it looks plain old dumb.

Law says you can take a photo of anything in public unless expressly prohibited from doing so. My lawyer hipped me to that after the cops jacked me and my gear up years ago. People in public don’t have many rights to privacy, actually. There is mad surveillance going on 24/7

Thank you. What you wrote is correct.

A bar is a right to refuse, private business, not a public place. They can have cameras for security and insurance purposes.

“Go ahead wear your glasses.  Just be prepared to ask everyone to sign a release who is in your general vacinity.  Google Glass violates my right to privacy and control information about myself. “

By your logic, so do all smart phones. In fact, smart phones can capture pictures/video/audio in much higher fidelity than google glass. So whats the difference? That you and everyone else own smart-phones?

That cover photo on her Facebook page, though. How does someone consciously design something that ugly?

that shit is heinous. 

So pretty much every eye-witness account of the situation EXCEPT hers claims her friend threw the first punch.

Let’s be honest, she needed to get punched. And she continues to.

Whose town?! Fairfield’s!!!

I just watched her interview with KRON, and during it she says that she hopes that this type of technology (Google Glass) can be used to prevent “incidents like this” (being confronted in a bar because you’re wearing Google Glass).

So Sarah, you’re saying that you can prevent being accosted over your Google Glass by wearing Google Glass?

Also pretty sure you said that “I turned the video on (……..) and people were shielding themselves because they thought I was filming them, and I wasn’t”

/mind blown

dear god she has an unfortunate looking mouth. yikessss.

Pretty sure this must be the “Kristallnacht” that Tom Perkins warned rich people about?

There must be a way to mess with them. I forget if I saw it here or somewhere else but someone had the idea to walk up behind the Glasshole and say something like, “Google Glass! Search, Images, Bestiality. Open first 100 results in individual tabs. Go!” Would that work? No idea how those things are controlled.

Sarah Slocum (sober): “This is a great technology that can be used to prevent these types of incidents.” [KRON interview]And (regarding the glasshole incident not being a hate crime, as she called it): ~”Maybe there should be a new definition of hate crimes”Just who is paying this bobo her ‘media consultant’ fees?If this is not the the best example of what these people are doing, bringing, to this city with their witless onslaught of cash, insensitivity, and entitlement, I don’t know what is. And she doesn’t even live here–yet (Thank Christ for that).and…From her Facebook page…[COMMENT] So sorry for your troubles. Don’t pay attention to victim blaming assumptions. If you were assaulted and robbed, glad you reported it. A question: you keep using the word “hate” in reference to this situation. Could you please reconsider that phrase (which has sometimes been reported as “hate crime” – not sure if you said or reporters misinterpreted “haight” for “hate” etc.) because the definition is really seriously different — not to detract from your legitimate complaints. Nobody should be unsafe because of their use of consumer tech in public within legal limits. http://www.fbi.gov/…/civilrights/hate_crimes/overview[Sarah Slocum to COMMENTER] well maybe it is time to change the definition.lastly…When offered the (sardonic? tongue-in-cheek?) opportunity to back-pedal from ‘hate crime’ into ‘Haight Crime’ by one of her Facebook commentators she was not, let’s say, a current subscriber to the Carpe Diem Club. What self-respecting media consultant would not have latched onto that life preserver in this situation (and pretend it was an intentional  [bad] pun)?Again, who’s paying this bobo her fees?ps: Just a sidenote: If this happened elsewhere (the Marina, say) there would have been a dozen bystanders whipping out their callphones, catching all the sidewalk scuffle action for Youtube.But not a single one has surfaced.This says something about the denizens of Molitovs.It also says something about where, and where not, these (schmucks?) should wear their google glass.

IF SOMEONE REFUSED TO REMOVE THEIR GOOGOOGLASS AROUND ME I WOULD REMOVE THEM BY FORCE AND STOMP IT TO PIECES


Post New Comment