LONDON — A high-profile marketing campaign featuring reality television star and beauty mogul Kylie Jenner has escalated into a public relations headache for tech giant Meta. Following the launch of Jenner’s co-branded “$399 Starfire” AI smart glasses line, a UK-based activist group named “Everyone Hates Elon” (EHE) executed a striking guerrilla advertising takeover. The group commandeered bus stop advertising spaces directly adjacent to Meta’s London headquarters, replacing standard posters with lenticular billboards. This optical printing technique causes the image to alter completely based on the onlooker’s viewing angle. From the front, passersby see Jenner looking glamorous in the official marketing material; however, as they walk to the side, the image seamlessly shifts into a black-and-white, X-ray-style skeleton with the text transforming into a chilling warning: “Meta: We’re always watching.” The creative stunt pays direct homage to John Carpenter’s 1988 cult sci-fi film They Live, which explored subliminal messaging through special sunglasses.
The protest group targeted Meta’s expanding hardware ecosystem over mounting public safety and privacy concerns regarding wearable cameras. Activists voiced heavy criticism against the capacity for undisclosed recording in public spaces without the explicit consent of bystanders. The group pointed out documented safety issues, highlighting how discreet wearable tech can be misused inside public restrooms, fitness facilities, and changing areas—categorizing the unchecked spread of unannounced recording tools as inherently abusive toward women and youth. The stunt coincided with recent media reports revealing that Meta has been testing continuous background recording features, which capture audio and periodic snapshots to compile AI-driven summaries of a user’s daily life. While Meta has previously defended its wearables by highlighting built-in safeguards—such as an LED recording indicator light and software that disables the camera if that light is covered—privacy advocates maintain that physical lights are a fundamentally insufficient protection against non-consensual surveillance.
