What could be scarier than having to see Johnny Depp on the world stage again? Maybe that’s what horror director Ti West was thinking when he took on Ebenezer, a new Christmas Carol adaptation starring the man ruled a “wife beater” in the U.K.
As I’ve written and spoken about at length, Depp is the central hero in the manosphere’s backlash against the #MeToo movement. With his 2022 defamation case against Amber Heard, who a judge previously found he had abused for years, Depp established a modern playbook of algorithm-fed smear campaigns, DARVO rhetoric, and retaliatory litigation as entertainment. With the help of abuser-friendly publicists, he convinced millions of people that Heard was the real abuser — or that they had “abused each other”—a harmful myth that still would have meant Heard was telling the truth in her contested op-ed. That 2022 trial was a clear injustice that continues to this day with Depp’s new “comeback” tour.
In the trailer for Ebenezer, which premiered last week at San Diego Comic-Con, Depp references his supposed exile from Hollywood with the line “It’s good to be back.” Never mind the fact that he has never actually stopped working despite Heard’s allegations, what this trailer really does is signal to manosphere adherents that they have secured yet another victory, not unlike Donald Trump’s return to the White House.
Note that Ebenezer is a Paramount Pictures production, put into motion just two months after the studio came under the control of the Trump-allied billionaire Ellison family. I’d argue that Depp’s “comeback” is cut from the same cloth as Bari Weiss’ CBS News takeover, Oracle’s TikTok acquisition, and Paramount’s other recent hirings of so-called “cancelled” men. This is a political, media, and culture war to reassert violent patriarchy everywhere their corporate umbrella touches.
Of course, I wasn’t about to let this celebration of abuse go ahead without saying my piece. I’ve been fighting back against Depp’s propaganda since May 2022, and I’m certainly not stopping now. Knowing that a lot of people don’t like to read these days, I sat down and unleashed my feelings into a video that is currently sitting at more than a quarter of a million views across platforms.
If I had made this video during the Depp v. Heard trial itself, I probably would have had a SWAT team show up at my house. Luckily, four years later, the majority of my commenters have woken up to the reality that Heard was both victimized and smeared.
Still, it’s worth noting that most of the people defending Depp—and the manosphere by extension—in my comment sections to this day are women. I point this out because we often think of misogyny as a cultural force enacted unilaterally by men against women. The unfortunate truth is that the manosphere is so effective because it has so many female as well as male followers (and even nonbinary people, too). The rub of Depp v. Heard is that Depp’s most ardent supporters are the very women who stand to lose the most from the world Depp and Trump and the Ellisons are creating. This dynamic even appears within the Ebenezer casting. Daisy Ridley will play a Cratchit in the film, years after her career was derailed by online harassment stemming from the same anti-feminist fans and content creators who pivoted from “woke Star Wars” to “Justice for Johnny Depp.”
Why is this? I could talk about it for hours. But a common thread is that many of Depp’s defenders are women who have been previously abused. They tell me that they watched the trial and they believe that Heard “gave as good as she got” or something along those lines. I can’t speak to each individual’s circumstances, but it’s not uncommon for victims to internalize the belief that they deserved it and turn that into hostility toward other survivors (I spoke about this phenomenon with sociologist Nicole Bedera last year). I suspect there’s a lot of projection and shame at play here, and it makes me sad. But it also makes me want to keep going, to educate more people about abuse and misogyny through the lens of these celebrity cases.
Of course, I’ll be boycotting Ebenezer this fall, and I’d suggest you do the same. Is it going to make a lot of money anyways? Well, given the success of Michael ($1 billion and counting), I’m under no illusion that the general public draws the line at movies championing men accused of sexual violence. But I don’t think Ebenezer will top Michael’s box office. Unlike the source material, it’s more about promoting the message that men shouldn’t face consequences at all.
Meta Glasses, the AI-powered “smart glasses” that allow wearers to surreptitiously record their surroundings, are 2026’s new “It Girl’ summer accessory. Perhaps none are more desirable than the $399 Starfire Kylie Edition designed in collaboration with Kylie Jenner. The slim oval frame of these glasses appear far more stylish than the average tech specs. These lenses may be popular with some, but they also created quite a stir and invoked backlash from those who could see past the shiny diamond-embedded lenses to the immediate red flags. Many have pointed to what these glasses are capable of in the wrong hands, including secretly filming people in public and opening them up to hate and harassment when those clips are posted online. While I will not be buying these glasses for these reasons and more, I would be lying if I said they didn’t pique my interest.
Meta released their smart glasses in June, just in time for capturing fun summer activities that a phone might feel too intrusive for, like a concert or a hands-free moment with friends. According to social media management company Dash Social, between June 22 and 28, Meta Glasses got 275 million social media impressions. These aren’t Meta’s or the tech industry’s first attempt at smart lenses, though. Google released Google Glass all the way back in 2013, Snapchat released Snapchat Spectacles in 2016, and Meta and Ray-Ban have been collaborating on sunglasses since 2021. These Meta Glasses are the first to drop the Ray-Ban name. And interestingly enough, the first collection without the sunglasses branding is already perceived as the most fashionable.
Personally, smart glasses never appealed to me until now. My first theory as to why that changed is the most obvious: these glasses are far more aesthetically appealing than those of the past. The ones from even just a few years back looked bulky or came in outdated or masculine styles. The Starfire Kylie Edition is slim and feminine. Many criticized the diamond on the left lens, but I actually think it’s cute.
As someone who grew up watching Keeping Up With the Kardashians, followed Jenner’s social media for over a decade, and loves fashion, Jenner’s endorsement seemed perfectly targeted at me. But it didn’t really sway me either way. What it did do was get the name out more, so I thought about them more.
To even my own surprise, I think the AI branding around these specs interested me. I don’t create a lot of vlog content or even watch much of it these days, so the idea of hands-free filming with the glasses isn’t the biggest sell. As someone who is generally pretty opposed to AI, the persuasiveness of their marketing shocked me. In theory, the AI elements could help me in my everyday life, from using them to translate foreign text while traveling without having to pull out my phone, helping me on a new hobby like knitting and warning me if I dropped a stitch before it’s too late, or even just listening to a podcast on a walk without earbuds.
Even as I write down these perceived benefits, I understand all of them could be done with my phone. Ultimately I won’t purchase them, in large part because I don’t want to support the normalization of filming people in public. But this doesn’t mean that they aren’t worth it for some people. Many disabled creators have shared the accessibility benefits the glasses can offer. TikToker Lorn Nutley described the usefulness of Meta glasses as someone who is blind.
@guidedbybarbie25
@Meta If you have any further questions don’t be afraid to ask… I promise part 2 is coming next week guys !! #blindtok #visuallyimpaired #… See more
“Not only does it make me feel safer that I can get to my phone if I need to without having to faff around and try to find it out of my bag, but it also makes my family feel a lot calmer because they can get in touch with me and it will come though my glasses,” Nutley said in the video. In her comment section, I saw nothing but positive reactions to her use of the glasses.
Other creators don’t exactly have innocent intentions for this tech. Before the Starfire Kylie Edition, the general perception of smart glasses was that they’re for creeps trying to film people in public without their consent. That’s why they’ve been nicknamed “pervert glasses.” Yes, there’s a red recording light in the corner of the frame, but if you didn’t know what that means, you would have no idea you’re being filmed. This safety measure isn’t even foolproof. If the light is covered up, like with a sticker that is already available on Amazon, it’s supposed to stop recording. But people have easily found a way around this, and tips are all over the internet for how to secretly film others.
And even if the light is on and people know you are recording them, I would argue these specs are normalizing worrying behaviors. Over the past 20 years, cellphones have normalized recording people in public to the point that we don’t even give it a second thought. These glasses take it even further, as you can blend in while surreptitiously surveilling your community on a micro level. The normalization has almost created implied consent: when you’re in public, you must be okay with being filmed. It has almost become passé to ask someone to stop.
Creator Natasha Zhatko demonstrates this implied consent model in her content. Zhatko is known for taking large stacks of edibles before going into restaurants and making food reviews. As she is already recording, she will ask the employees if it is okay to be filming them. Her filming them before even asking is a perfect example of how users of this tech have implemented an “ask for forgiveness, rather than permission” model. Sadly, I have to give her props for at least informing the people she is filming, because not all smart glasses users are even that considerate. Already, social media users have discovered they were being filmed without their knowledge after the fact. Cosplay and adult content creator Dare Taylor explained an interaction she had at a convention was filmed without her knowledge by someone wearing smart glasses. Later, her friends found the post online, but when she went to look at the video herself, she was blocked by the person filming her—likely in an attempt to prevent her from finding out.
@taylorsdiary2
Thoughts on third party filming me on their Meta glasses 👓 👀
Some defenders of smart glasses say we are already surveilled by CCTV and Flock cameras everywhere, so this is nothing new. While it’s undeniable that we are being filmed at all times, that doesn’t mean we should accept it without pushback or make it even worse. Smart cameras record in far better quality and have even closer access than CCTV. They create a more intimate personal surveillance tool that billionaire tech oligarchs like Peter Thiel have likely dreamed of for years. Most alarmingly, we don’t know and can’t control who has access to this footage. An Electronic Freedom Foundation investigation found Meta using a third-party team in Nairobi, Kenya to review and categorize footage, including recordings of sex and nudity that participants didn’t always know were being filmed.
After Jenner endorsed the Meta Glasses, many fans and critics speculated whether she would venture into livestreaming. Personally, I don’t think she will, at least not in any prolonged serious manner. I do, however, see a new crop of reality stars taking up livestreaming with smart glasses. In an oversaturated reality TV market, just being on a show isn’t enough to create a fanbase; new stars have to diversify their audience on all platforms.
Certainly, people have found legitimate uses for the Meta Glasses, but I fear the further normalization of surveillance and constant livestreaming of our daily lives. While I may find the glasses aesthetically and technologically appealing on the surface, they aren’t doing anything my phone and $20 TJMaxx glasses can’t already do. I’m going to have to pass on the Starfire Kylie Edition this summer, and I hope other women my age do, too.