I agree with this. And lets not forget what happened with "Google Glass" (2012) our culture was not ready to embrace that. 26 years gives some leeway for cultural shift but not as much as we may assume. In western countries many people will still value privacy in 2045.
Google [Gl]Ass failed for more reasons than just privacy issues. 2011-2012 was absolutely too soon for it to be embraced, but culture wasn't the reason why people rejected it anywhere near as much as it was basic technological limitations, the same limitations that still prevent smartglasses from becoming a mainstream product.
I use smartwatches as an example to explain why smartglasses like Google [Gl]Ass as well as the likes of MetaPro, Atheer, and even the HoloLens had no chance. People used to claim that smartwatches were the new wave of the future and that the Apple Watch was going to eventually outsell the iPhone. One day we'd be watching movies, streaming music, and maybe even playing games on our watches. When the Apple Watch didn't outsell anything other than Microsoft's MP3 players, the media ran with the story that smartwatches were a dead fad and would fade into oblivion. Neither came true. Smartwatches are still around and are mainstream to the point you can buy one at a dollar store alongside drones and VR headsets, but they were prevented from reaching the level of smartphones because of something that's utterly fundamental to them: their design. With smartphones, you have two articulating limbs to use, typically focusing on your thumbs and index fingers— but that still gives you a load of manipulation possibilities on a screen.
Smartwatches, by their very nature, reduce that to one articulating limb unless you're trying to crab-type on one with the other (which is absurd). This doesn't reduce your freedom by half, but something more like 10x over. It's not good to use, and the screen size is too small for many other features to be useful as well. You sacrifice too much. You can stream some playlists, but besides that, smartwatches couldn't come close to the versatility of smartphones. HOWEVER, it turned out that they still had some actually very practical uses that even smartphones didn't have, most notably through health monitoring. Hence why so many smartwatches followed in the footsteps of the Fitbit. Their utility wasn't immediately known because people expected something completely different from them, but they did find a utility.
Smartglasses have another problem. You have both hands back, but there's no physical feedback and the headset has to try to compute your gestures in 3D space— and artificial intelligence still had plenty of issues figuring out 3D space in 2012. Just think of motion-control consoles of the time. The PlayStation Move was the best one and even it was buggy and missed many basic motions. Now shrink that and try to make it understand subtle finger motions. This forced your body to become a controller, and this eventually included your voice. It's simpler to just use voice control for AR headsets.
But just like how smartglasses reduce the perception of privacy for others, gesture and voice controls reduce your own privacy. So now it goes both ways with a gadget that's already unwieldy and not very useful: the [Gl]Ass had an atrocious FoV and was much too expensive for what it was.
While its privacy eviscerating nature undoubtedly didn't help it, I'd hesitate before saying that was a primary cause for its failure. If it were more useful and cheaper, more people would've bought one and we'd begrudgingly swallow our paranoia. Just wait until AR headsets become much more capable, utilize BCIs, and can go for under $500, and you'll see exactly what I mean.