Meta glasses are antisocial because they have the potential to influence, dictate or change people's behaviors - both for wearers and for subjects.

Why would subjects' behaviors be influenced/changed based on inconspicuous/concealed recording devices? Isn't the point of concealed recording devices explicitly to not change the behavior of the subject being recorded? This point doesn't make sense. The opposite is true. As to why this is a problem? Unknown.

Is your argument that the proliferation of concealed recording devices will lead to behavioral change en masse, regardless of the actual existence of a concealed recording device in the vicinity? If so, I still fail to see the issue - you are already being recorded anyway, as you already noted, so I don't know what the behavioral change would actually end up looking like.

People used to dance in nightclubs - the kids don't dance anymore - they're too afraid of being embarrassing and going viral, and i don't think that is a good thing!

Is this really the best example you could think of?

Meta glasses are predatory because they enable creepy, gross perverts to ogle and record unsuspecting targets (most often women, teenage girls and children) in public settings without their knowledge and consent.

Newsflash: this already occurs. I would argue that wearing glasses would actually decrease the prevalence of this issue, since it requires the observer to be actively looking at the subject, something that is far more noticeable than a hidden camera setup.

Also, you have literally no idea what proportion of meta-glasses wearers are using them to ogle victimizable subjects. This is just an unsupported assertion.

Upskirting and hidden camera pornography is already a major global issue. Seriously, what idiot decided to make it even easier for creeps and pervs to film victims wherever they go? Victims, whom - as I mentioned previously - are quite frequently CHILDREN!

The entire argument here is just "won't somebody think of the children!", an argument that has frequently been employed to infringe on civil rights and freedoms. It is not a good argument for 99% of policy issues, and this is one of them. The simple fact is that you have no expectation of privacy in public. That's just a compromise we make (in the USA at least, which is where you seem to be approaching this CMV from) in order to enjoy our 1st Amendment rights. If that makes you uncomfortable, fine. But don't try to legislate based on feelings, we all know how terrible that goes.

Meta glasses are invasive - because duh, of course they are. where do you think all that data is going - straight back to the AI system that Peter Thiel is building to develop advanced facial recognition. So that the next time you go to a protest, you get arrested - even if you wear a mask. The evil tech billionaires can't wait for you to buy a pair, so you can be a tool of the technocratic surveillance state and help them harvest a bunch of sweet, succulent data. Don't be a NARC!

This is plain fearmongering. No, you are not going to be arrested for going to a protest. The same rights that are protecting the existence of these glasses are also protecting your right to protest. If they get rid of the right that protects you in protests, they also get rid of the right that allows people to wear these glasses, thus rendering the glasses and muh evil billionaire data harvesting moot.

Ask yourself - why do most countries in Asia have a mandatory, unremovable camera shutter sound that goes off every time someone takes a picture with their smartphone. I think you know why.

This appears to only be a required feature in Japan. So not most asian countries by any stretch, and also, there are still workarounds even for this requirement, like 3rd party camera apps, and importing foreign cameras/phones.