Omegle Was Forced to Shut Down by a Lawsuit from a Sexual Abuse Survivor(wired.com)
wired.com
Omegle Was Forced to Shut Down by a Lawsuit from a Sexual Abuse Survivor
https://www.wired.com/story/omegle-shutdown-lawsuit-child-sexual-abuse/
123 comments
If you used Omegle for more than 30 seconds, you'd know it was filled with sexual predators exposing themselves to children. I'm surprised it lasted this long. I'm sympathetic to the creator, I don't think tools should be banned because there are bad users, but Omegle's user base has its reputation for a reason.
yeah, I see a lot of people crying out here about the diminished freedom of speech, but did any of ya'll actually use this? It lasted for maybe a month after its launch as the way it was intended. After that - it was used 90% by perverts
Dating myself here, but my friends and I would go on Omegle together in middle/high school (usually at sleepovers after the host's parents had gone to bed) and I was always the one responsible for making sure whoever we connected to wasn't some guy jerking off into his webcam.
I think I'd usually have to connect and disconnect two or three times before I found another human face and not a, uh, head. Although sometimes we'd have a seemingly normal conversation for a bit and then whoever we were talking to would pan the camera down and reveal that he was cranking it.
Fun stuff!
I think I'd usually have to connect and disconnect two or three times before I found another human face and not a, uh, head. Although sometimes we'd have a seemingly normal conversation for a bit and then whoever we were talking to would pan the camera down and reveal that he was cranking it.
Fun stuff!
Spaces like this deserve to exist too, and removing them from the world makes the world worse.
Omegle has been a great place for content creators [1], people learning languages [2], LGBT youth escaping their religious/rural upbringings, etc.
I hope you don't take this fight to VRChat [3, 4, etc]. That might just be too much freedom for people.
Shame on people trying to kill these platforms.
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KbjpkSkJvw8 (CodeMiko regularly trolls Omegle)
[2] https://www.youtube.com/shorts/D4bbyY_0Wng (this is great)
[3] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_T1T6X_B9CI (just skimming these, but it's innocent fun)
[4] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PS9IdrREB6I
Omegle has been a great place for content creators [1], people learning languages [2], LGBT youth escaping their religious/rural upbringings, etc.
I hope you don't take this fight to VRChat [3, 4, etc]. That might just be too much freedom for people.
Shame on people trying to kill these platforms.
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KbjpkSkJvw8 (CodeMiko regularly trolls Omegle)
[2] https://www.youtube.com/shorts/D4bbyY_0Wng (this is great)
[3] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_T1T6X_B9CI (just skimming these, but it's innocent fun)
[4] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PS9IdrREB6I
That's not consistent with my experience at all, at least 90% of my conversations were with bots, only some of whom were programmed by perverts
Children actually were not allowed to use the site.
By that logic you could say the same thing about every single porn site.
By that logic you could say the same thing about every single porn site.
I’m sorry, but as far as I know, for the longest time there wasn’t even a blatant warning about being under 18.
According to the BBC, it was only after “Alice” filed the lawsuit that they added a checkbox saying you had to be 18+.
S: https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-64618791
According to the BBC, it was only after “Alice” filed the lawsuit that they added a checkbox saying you had to be 18+.
S: https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-64618791
For a very long time it was 13+ with parental permission, otherwise 18+
> Children actually were not allowed to use the site.
Children 13+ were formally allowed to use the site with parental permission until after the lawsuit at issue was filed, but even that restriction was just, I think, a pro-forma fine print footer notice to provide CYA against COPPA requirements on sites that were directed at kids under 13.
Children 13+ were formally allowed to use the site with parental permission until after the lawsuit at issue was filed, but even that restriction was just, I think, a pro-forma fine print footer notice to provide CYA against COPPA requirements on sites that were directed at kids under 13.
No, you cant, because porn sites don't let you see the webcam of the person watching your video.
If it were that easy, why weren't law enforcement having a field day arresting them?
HN treats it like the last bastion of intellectual free speech.
And where exactly is free speech left? Every public platform I’ve used over the last 20 years that had freedom of speech was shut down. Currently if you want to discuss ideas or issues that are outside of the publicly approved consensus, the only choice left is private chats. Even there the options are continually shrinking.
Just yesterday I was thinking of publishing a heavy moderated sit or subreddit named "nuance" . A platform for healthy dialogue of subjects that normally cannot be discussed . With a minimum of say 100 words per reply, and a weekly vote of the subject of discussion for next week.
I dream of being able to healthy discuss stuff like "illegal crossing/immigration of mexicans" or "US gun control/freedom" , or even more touchy subjects like "pedophilia, as a mental sickness".
But in a place that is heavily moderated, free if bigots, knee jerk reactions and all those behaviours that online discussions are plagued with.
I am a Mexican myself, and I love being subscribed to the r/ccw subreddit (concealed carry). I've learned a lot and although I dont agree with a lot of the culture there, i am happy to try understand where pro-gun people are coming from.
There is nuance to every issue, and the only real way to make progress is to be able to establish a dialogue bringing forward and listening to all sides of the conversation.
I dream of being able to healthy discuss stuff like "illegal crossing/immigration of mexicans" or "US gun control/freedom" , or even more touchy subjects like "pedophilia, as a mental sickness".
But in a place that is heavily moderated, free if bigots, knee jerk reactions and all those behaviours that online discussions are plagued with.
I am a Mexican myself, and I love being subscribed to the r/ccw subreddit (concealed carry). I've learned a lot and although I dont agree with a lot of the culture there, i am happy to try understand where pro-gun people are coming from.
There is nuance to every issue, and the only real way to make progress is to be able to establish a dialogue bringing forward and listening to all sides of the conversation.
> I dream of being able to healthy discuss stuff like "illegal crossing/immigration of mexicans" or "US gun control/freedom", or even more touchy subjects like "pedophilia, as a mental sickness".
You call those "touchy subjects"? Do "Jewish history" and watch it get shut down in a week.
You call those "touchy subjects"? Do "Jewish history" and watch it get shut down in a week.
actually, 'Touchy Subjects' would be a decent name for a site like this.
This is a noble and challenging goal, and I’d encourage you to pursue it
Again I have to roll out the "what topics are you being denied discussion of" question. That usually clears up quite a bit.
There are a lot of true things (especially government programs in the wake of Snowden and ubiquitous smartphones/encryption) that the discussion of which is shut down due to being literally conspiracy theories (ie proposals about the true functioning of the state to enable surveillance and deny people their rights). People don’t like addressing the fact that there are parts of the state that are actively malicious and hostile to the population they are ostensibly designed to serve.
You also can’t generally criticize the police or military or social order beyond the standard “everybody knows” talking points.
Honest discussions of how society should deal with and treat people who are afflicted with pedophilia is another. There are entire swaths of viewpoints which are basically not allowed to be expressed, including most/all of the compassionate ones.
Criminal justice reform and the prison-industrial complex.
Atheism.
Suicide, and people’s rights thereto.
Drug usage, and people’s rights thereto.
The occasional need and right of a populace to employ violent revolution to secure human rights.
The illegitimacy of state violence.
Artistic nudity (I’m a portrait photographer).
Non-artistic nudity (porn is great).
Artistic non-mainstream porn (weird BDSM stuff is great).
Individual responsibility of people doing immoral jobs. People get absolutely outraged at true reporting of facts (“John Doe, whilst at $EMPLOYER, implemented unethical feature $X”).
Criticism of group identity, or discussion of the legitimacy of identity politics in general.
Jokes or memes about any of the previous, or sexual violence, or tragic deaths.
Increasingly, anti-war viewpoints. The global west is heavily invested in any enemies of Russia or China being unswervingly supported. Being anti-war is more and more a fringe position that is subject to censorship.
Criticizing the major publishing platforms, on those platforms themselves. You won’t be able to run an Amazon workers union site on AWS, for example. Nor can you discuss CCP censorship on TikTok.
Lots of things are off limits in most parts of the internet. People who think the only people complaining about the restrictions on speech online are nazis or pedos are... fairly unimaginative.
You also can’t generally criticize the police or military or social order beyond the standard “everybody knows” talking points.
Honest discussions of how society should deal with and treat people who are afflicted with pedophilia is another. There are entire swaths of viewpoints which are basically not allowed to be expressed, including most/all of the compassionate ones.
Criminal justice reform and the prison-industrial complex.
Atheism.
Suicide, and people’s rights thereto.
Drug usage, and people’s rights thereto.
The occasional need and right of a populace to employ violent revolution to secure human rights.
The illegitimacy of state violence.
Artistic nudity (I’m a portrait photographer).
Non-artistic nudity (porn is great).
Artistic non-mainstream porn (weird BDSM stuff is great).
Individual responsibility of people doing immoral jobs. People get absolutely outraged at true reporting of facts (“John Doe, whilst at $EMPLOYER, implemented unethical feature $X”).
Criticism of group identity, or discussion of the legitimacy of identity politics in general.
Jokes or memes about any of the previous, or sexual violence, or tragic deaths.
Increasingly, anti-war viewpoints. The global west is heavily invested in any enemies of Russia or China being unswervingly supported. Being anti-war is more and more a fringe position that is subject to censorship.
Criticizing the major publishing platforms, on those platforms themselves. You won’t be able to run an Amazon workers union site on AWS, for example. Nor can you discuss CCP censorship on TikTok.
Lots of things are off limits in most parts of the internet. People who think the only people complaining about the restrictions on speech online are nazis or pedos are... fairly unimaginative.
Many different areas and topics. The most concerning to me is bans and shutdowns of public forums where there is discussion of how authorities are disregarding human rights as defined by the UN in the UDHR.
I’m not sure how you expect to answer that without access to the inner workings of content moderation decisions on the major social media platforms. Sunshine laws would be a good starting point for productive discussions.
In an absolute sense, I can talk about anything as long as I am willing to muck through the mud of low quality noise.
In terms of having actual discussion, sneak laid out a good range of topics that quickly get derailed in flame wars (IME). I'll personally add homelessness and mental health as a few more very touchy topics.
I know high quality, nuanced discussion isn't a 1st amendment right, but that's what the other half of the conversation wants while most argue with the strawman half that wants to be racist/sexist online.
In terms of having actual discussion, sneak laid out a good range of topics that quickly get derailed in flame wars (IME). I'll personally add homelessness and mental health as a few more very touchy topics.
I know high quality, nuanced discussion isn't a 1st amendment right, but that's what the other half of the conversation wants while most argue with the strawman half that wants to be racist/sexist online.
Freedom of speech implies the freedom to choose what speech one associates with and allows. It doesn't mean a platform is forced to allow all possible speech without moderation - that isn't freedom, it's coercion. And it wouldn't even be legal on whatever "public platforms" you're talking about.
If you're looking for absolute, unfettered fuck-the-law freedom you're not going to find it on the open web. No administrator is going to be willing to take the bullet for you.
If you're looking for absolute, unfettered fuck-the-law freedom you're not going to find it on the open web. No administrator is going to be willing to take the bullet for you.
If that’s the case, then why did these platforms exist in the past and don’t exist now? I’m not just talking about virtual platforms, but also physical public forums and meetups. I agree with what you’re saying about admins, but the “who” that is shooting the bullet seems to be a growing bipartisan antiliberal movement. It’s not just my personal experience; globally there’s been a decrease in freedom of speech metrics with the US experiencing less of a decline than the average but still a significant one.
You can literally develop and stand up Omegle tomorrow if you want to, dude. Nobody's going to stop you until you start enabling child sexual abuse, so go ahead.
Stop trolling.
Every web site I ever built with ANY political content was vandalized by my hosting providers then disabled.
Every web site I ever built with ANY political content was vandalized by my hosting providers then disabled.
That's odd. I see political content all over the web, all the time. And there are hosting providers whose entire business model is hosting "controversial" content.
Also, Omegle didn't host political content. Also, no one vandalized it or took it down until someone sued the site owners over a crime being committed, not for any political expression.
Also, Omegle didn't host political content. Also, no one vandalized it or took it down until someone sued the site owners over a crime being committed, not for any political expression.
Pretty sure the person filing lawsuits would try and stop you
You're going to have to get into specifics, I doubt "a growing bipartisan antiliberal movement" is responsible for the categorical removal of free platforms from the internet. This seems like a framing designed to avoid necessary context or mischaracterize motives.
If you mean, for instance, Kiwifarms - their ISP and Cloudflare refused to do business with them for reasons other than being "antiliberal." You can't blame opposition to heinous behavior, or not wanting to do business with or be associated with KF, on simply being opposed to free speech. But they still exist, AFAIK. Gab was similarly "cancelled" by their host and service providers, because the platform itself and its behavior had become too toxic to be associated with, and violated terms of service for those partners.
Again, free speech doesn't guarantee a platform - it's a marketplace of ideas and you have to convince people your ideas are worth their time, doubly so where business associations are involved. Gab was fine until they started planning an insurrection and cheering on mass shooters. Trump was fine until he lost his mind and threatened the peaceful transfer of power. Omegele was fine until someone sued over the one thing Omegele is known for. There are always limits, everywhere. There are plenty of reasons to not want to be associated with such platforms and their content besides opposition to freedom of speech, but conflating everything into the actions of an "antiliberal movement" seems like bad faith.
So I don't know. You see attacks on free speech, I see the inevitable consequences of bad actors pushing things too far.
If you mean, for instance, Kiwifarms - their ISP and Cloudflare refused to do business with them for reasons other than being "antiliberal." You can't blame opposition to heinous behavior, or not wanting to do business with or be associated with KF, on simply being opposed to free speech. But they still exist, AFAIK. Gab was similarly "cancelled" by their host and service providers, because the platform itself and its behavior had become too toxic to be associated with, and violated terms of service for those partners.
Again, free speech doesn't guarantee a platform - it's a marketplace of ideas and you have to convince people your ideas are worth their time, doubly so where business associations are involved. Gab was fine until they started planning an insurrection and cheering on mass shooters. Trump was fine until he lost his mind and threatened the peaceful transfer of power. Omegele was fine until someone sued over the one thing Omegele is known for. There are always limits, everywhere. There are plenty of reasons to not want to be associated with such platforms and their content besides opposition to freedom of speech, but conflating everything into the actions of an "antiliberal movement" seems like bad faith.
So I don't know. You see attacks on free speech, I see the inevitable consequences of bad actors pushing things too far.
I cannot get into specifics because I don’t want to get banned on hacker news. I will generally wave in the direction of authorities that are violating human rights.
If you're gesturing in the general direction of the Israel/Palestine discourse, I would agree with you that the eagerness with which a lot of that has been stifled in the public sphere is disturbing. But it's also still going on regardless, even on HN.
And I still wouldn't hold up Omegle as an example of the same class of problem. Freedom of speech should cover political disagreement and debate, but it shouldn't cover sexual abuse.
And I still wouldn't hold up Omegle as an example of the same class of problem. Freedom of speech should cover political disagreement and debate, but it shouldn't cover sexual abuse.
All sorts of online spaces deserve to exist. Pruning the internet to just Facebook is unhealthy.
Parents should be responsible for their own children. They shouldn't keep trying to remove things from the world they deem as unfriendly to their children. If they dislike the Wild West of the Internet, they can create their own digital curfew and rules.
Parents should be responsible for their own children. They shouldn't keep trying to remove things from the world they deem as unfriendly to their children. If they dislike the Wild West of the Internet, they can create their own digital curfew and rules.
I have mixed feelings about this. It's just one article. I don't have a lot of context.
I can see how their model -- letting people scroll through images until they saw one they liked -- contributed to the issue. I also feel like there are larger societal issues that foster such problems and going after the tech is probably a relatively weak solution that tends to make people comfortable with leaving other issues unresolved.
I think it's like a scapegoat. It's easier to go after and it makes people feel like they did something when they did little, if anything, most likely.
I can see how their model -- letting people scroll through images until they saw one they liked -- contributed to the issue. I also feel like there are larger societal issues that foster such problems and going after the tech is probably a relatively weak solution that tends to make people comfortable with leaving other issues unresolved.
I think it's like a scapegoat. It's easier to go after and it makes people feel like they did something when they did little, if anything, most likely.
> I also feel like there are larger societal issues that foster such problems and going after the tech is probably a relatively weak solution that tends to make people comfortable with leaving other issues unresolved.
that's my feelings and unfortunately going after the middleman is an increasingly popular strategy. It's more a matter of how many lawyers the website can throw at the issue because every single site that allows user hosted content will run into this issue. Sweeping the problem further under the rug instead of funding actual solutions.
that's my feelings and unfortunately going after the middleman is an increasingly popular strategy. It's more a matter of how many lawyers the website can throw at the issue because every single site that allows user hosted content will run into this issue. Sweeping the problem further under the rug instead of funding actual solutions.
I think parents should take some responsibility here.
The park analogy that the creator of omegle made is interesting, we don't shutdown parks because a crime may take place there.
And why not just remove video chat completely and keep the text chat and with higher moderation and tools, it should have been possible to keep the problems at bay.
We might try to out reason the following argument but I do believe it demands reflection. Omegle was about the only popular mass media which was fully distributed, allowed for random encounters with people.
I am reminded of Aaron Swartz. And, I have a deep suspicion that Omegle's shutdown being part of the lawsuit settlement has a lot more to the story. And probably the creator also had to sign NDA or something.
The park analogy that the creator of omegle made is interesting, we don't shutdown parks because a crime may take place there.
And why not just remove video chat completely and keep the text chat and with higher moderation and tools, it should have been possible to keep the problems at bay.
We might try to out reason the following argument but I do believe it demands reflection. Omegle was about the only popular mass media which was fully distributed, allowed for random encounters with people.
I am reminded of Aaron Swartz. And, I have a deep suspicion that Omegle's shutdown being part of the lawsuit settlement has a lot more to the story. And probably the creator also had to sign NDA or something.
>And why not just remove video chat completely and keep the text chat and with higher moderation and tools, it should have been possible to keep the problems at bay.
I am sure that was very possible. But from the tone of the creator's last post, it sounds like this was the camel that broke the camel's back, after years of straw that was already on the way to breaking it. He just sounded like it was becoming harder to manage and affecting his mental health. A single lawsuit will certainly do damage, but it didn't sound like the only factor in closing it down.
I am sure that was very possible. But from the tone of the creator's last post, it sounds like this was the camel that broke the camel's back, after years of straw that was already on the way to breaking it. He just sounded like it was becoming harder to manage and affecting his mental health. A single lawsuit will certainly do damage, but it didn't sound like the only factor in closing it down.
Pretty sure Facebook, Twitter and TikTok have all already been involved in more than one first meeting between rape and homicide victims and the wrongdoers, why haven't they been closed? The lighthearted guess is that is because they fight against such evils taking a lot of preventive measures, the cynic in me and what I believe more likely is that they are seen as "too big too fail", like some bizarre form of small governments.
Legal fees? It's probably not a crime if something illegal happens over your platform, but resolving it in court is extremely costly.
> why haven't they been closed
Because they try to mitigate CSAM with moderation.
Moderation is not censorship despite what some HN big brains might think
Because they try to mitigate CSAM with moderation.
Moderation is not censorship despite what some HN big brains might think
This comment seems to imply Omegle had no moderation, and that is false.
https://www.omegle.com/
> I believe in a responsibility to be a “good Samaritan”, and to implement reasonable measures to fight crime and other misuse. That is exactly what Omegle did. In addition to the basic safety feature of anonymity, there was a great deal of moderation behind the scenes, including state-of-the-art AI operating in concert with a wonderful team of human moderators. Omegle punched above its weight in content moderation, and I’m proud of what we accomplished.
> Omegle’s moderation even had a positive impact beyond the site. Omegle worked with law enforcement agencies, and the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, to help put evildoers in prison where they belong. There are “people” rotting behind bars right now thanks in part to evidence that Omegle proactively collected against them, and tipped the authorities off to.
--
The real reason, of course, is that Facebook can afford an army of lawyers, but Omegle can't.
https://www.omegle.com/
> I believe in a responsibility to be a “good Samaritan”, and to implement reasonable measures to fight crime and other misuse. That is exactly what Omegle did. In addition to the basic safety feature of anonymity, there was a great deal of moderation behind the scenes, including state-of-the-art AI operating in concert with a wonderful team of human moderators. Omegle punched above its weight in content moderation, and I’m proud of what we accomplished.
> Omegle’s moderation even had a positive impact beyond the site. Omegle worked with law enforcement agencies, and the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, to help put evildoers in prison where they belong. There are “people” rotting behind bars right now thanks in part to evidence that Omegle proactively collected against them, and tipped the authorities off to.
--
The real reason, of course, is that Facebook can afford an army of lawyers, but Omegle can't.
Not at the bare minimum needed as a number of Omegle users have mentioned on HN.
But at least you agree that is because big companies have enough money to buy enough moderation correct? So in the best case scenario is jut another part of society that small companies are not allowed to participate if they are not rich enough.
If I post CSAM on HN I am 100% going to be reported and sent to jail. HN has only 2-3 mods, yet I don't see a plethora of old men's schlongs on here.
Yet Omegle made more money and had more users than HN ever would, but consistently failed at moderation.
> small companies are not allowed to participate if they are not rich enough
It's been open knowledge to anyone who's been in middle and high school since 2010 (like yours truly) that Omegle is filled with creepy old guys.
There are plenty of small social media startups from that era that never had as much of a pedo presence as Omegle.
Yet Omegle made more money and had more users than HN ever would, but consistently failed at moderation.
> small companies are not allowed to participate if they are not rich enough
It's been open knowledge to anyone who's been in middle and high school since 2010 (like yours truly) that Omegle is filled with creepy old guys.
There are plenty of small social media startups from that era that never had as much of a pedo presence as Omegle.
> HN has only 2-3 mods, yet I don't see a plethora of old men's schlongs on here.
HN doesn't even allow text formatting changes beyond monospace and italics, much less posting pictures or video.
Even without moderation, you'd only be at risk of ASCII art schlongs.
HN doesn't even allow text formatting changes beyond monospace and italics, much less posting pictures or video.
Even without moderation, you'd only be at risk of ASCII art schlongs.
HN allows links, yet I haven't seen any X-rated or X-rating adjacent links on here. It's a nontrivial moderation problem.
Do you browse "new," do you have showdead on?
Hah, rewind. There's literally a porn site on the front page right now. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38213707
Hah, rewind. There's literally a porn site on the front page right now. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38213707
Like the Omegle one, its a post-shutdown explanation, not porn media, at the link.
Aleph said "or adjacent," and if one follows the link at the end of the article, they get... porn.
A few quick searches suggests to me that Omegle had more users -- 73 million monthly versus maybe 5 million or so on HN -- but they were only worth $5 million dollars.
Hacker News is not and never has been a "business" in its own right. It's part of the business model of a VC fund -- Y Combinator -- and Forbes indicates they were worth $5 billion as of 2021.
Also, I don't think we know how many people moderate HN and never have.
I don't work here. I just hang here sometimes and have for years. I don't have reliable info.
But I am pretty sure you have no idea what you are talking about.
Hacker News is not and never has been a "business" in its own right. It's part of the business model of a VC fund -- Y Combinator -- and Forbes indicates they were worth $5 billion as of 2021.
Also, I don't think we know how many people moderate HN and never have.
I don't work here. I just hang here sometimes and have for years. I don't have reliable info.
But I am pretty sure you have no idea what you are talking about.
> It's part of the business model of a VC fund -- Y Combinator
It's part of YC but I can confidently say only around 4-5 people are working on it including moderation. I can also say confidently that more resources are spent by YC on Bookface and their own internal BI tools than HN.
It's part of YC but I can confidently say only around 4-5 people are working on it including moderation. I can also say confidently that more resources are spent by YC on Bookface and their own internal BI tools than HN.
According to this comment, it had 30 moderators in 2010 when it was a lot smaller:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1837288
It's source page gives a 404 "not found" error.
The current official mod in charge pretty consistently says "no moderators did x."
This handle of mine only dates to 2017, but I originally joined in 2009, so I have no idea how long you have been hanging here, but I would be really shocked if they needed 30 moderators in 2010 and now have literally one guy doing all the moderation work by himself entirely.
I also doubt that people really in the know are posting here with "insider" info that wasn't cleared by staff.
It's not my business. I don't feel they need to tell me such info. But I have no reason to believe your uncited assertion that you can say X "with confidence" is reliable info of any sort.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1837288
It's source page gives a 404 "not found" error.
The current official mod in charge pretty consistently says "no moderators did x."
This handle of mine only dates to 2017, but I originally joined in 2009, so I have no idea how long you have been hanging here, but I would be really shocked if they needed 30 moderators in 2010 and now have literally one guy doing all the moderation work by himself entirely.
I also doubt that people really in the know are posting here with "insider" info that wasn't cleared by staff.
It's not my business. I don't feel they need to tell me such info. But I have no reason to believe your uncited assertion that you can say X "with confidence" is reliable info of any sort.
Back in 2009 many of those mods were posting stories / pinning stories. The flagging software wasn't as advanced. There are people with mod power not getting paid because of trust/history.. if they count in your 30 number perhaps. I'm on my 'X' number account as well
Omegle's video chat had an overzealous AI that would ban you if you showed too many skin coloured pixels for years, and actively cooperated with global law enforcement and the Centre for Missing/Exploited Children. The idea that they just allowed their site to be flooded with predators and went "Eh, we're making money" is wrong and borderline slanderous.
>yet I don't see a plethora of old men's schlongs on here.
if you remember from some months ago, the HN filter has like 66 thousand sites that get auto-filtered. I wouldn't even be surprised if your comment is delayed if you have a link and it isn't from a whitelisted site, or a greylisted site (an imgur image can have a variety of things that you want to check first). When something amiss does get through, enough commenters can flag the content and have it temporarily unviewable until a mod can get to it.
That's hard to do with Omeagle's more intimate setting, and of course live streaming yourself.
>It's been open knowledge to anyone who's been in middle and high school since 2010 (like yours truly) that Omegle is filled with creepy old guys.
may as well expand that to the rest of the internet. Most social media don't work off of live chats, so that's a huge pain point in Omeagle's favor.
And to be frank, they do. They just have more moderation to control that. Wasn't uncommon to have ANY link comment delayed for such reason, if it wasn't outright banned. Words can only do so much damage.
if you remember from some months ago, the HN filter has like 66 thousand sites that get auto-filtered. I wouldn't even be surprised if your comment is delayed if you have a link and it isn't from a whitelisted site, or a greylisted site (an imgur image can have a variety of things that you want to check first). When something amiss does get through, enough commenters can flag the content and have it temporarily unviewable until a mod can get to it.
That's hard to do with Omeagle's more intimate setting, and of course live streaming yourself.
>It's been open knowledge to anyone who's been in middle and high school since 2010 (like yours truly) that Omegle is filled with creepy old guys.
may as well expand that to the rest of the internet. Most social media don't work off of live chats, so that's a huge pain point in Omeagle's favor.
And to be frank, they do. They just have more moderation to control that. Wasn't uncommon to have ANY link comment delayed for such reason, if it wasn't outright banned. Words can only do so much damage.
Those are two different things. Men's schlongs are not csam and you can run into enough of those things on other sites like reddit or a dating site. The reason why you don't see it here is no one posts images because they are not shown. Links are checked. Plenty try to spam and are caught by mods or the automated system.
The communities are very different and attract different crowds. The most dangerous sites are sites that connect groups who wouldn't connect in real life.
The communities are very different and attract different crowds. The most dangerous sites are sites that connect groups who wouldn't connect in real life.
> So in the best case scenario is jut another part of society that small companies are not allowed to participate if they are not rich enough.
Small companies can participate, as long as their moderation resources are proportionate to their scale.
Yes, if they aren't, you are going to have more liability problems, just like if you operate a theme park with inadequate maintenance staff to prevent the rides from flying apart and killing guests.
Small companies can participate, as long as their moderation resources are proportionate to their scale.
Yes, if they aren't, you are going to have more liability problems, just like if you operate a theme park with inadequate maintenance staff to prevent the rides from flying apart and killing guests.
That feels like a good analogy -- we do have different standards for small carnivals than we do for large amusement parks, and accidents do happen at both, but you'd never be allowed to operate a small carnival with dangerous rides and absolutely no maintenance by claiming it was too expensive.
It's a terrible analogy, as carnivals put themselves out there as places that parents can bring kids to enjoy themselves. In general websites are not representing themselves as places to drop off your kids.
A better analogy involves things that are generally intended for adult purposes, as the Internet is. You certainly can operate a business selling construction tools, and generally not be sued when someone lets their kid use one and the kid gets injured. Even if you have knowledge that some customers will buy tools for use by their under age kids, or that they will leave tools accessible to kids, while you're merely assuming that they're supplying appropriate supervision and control.
The fundamental problem with this liability argument that has been put forth is it's based on responsibility laundering. Kids can't judge or consent, yet the argument quietly asserts it's reasonable for their caretakers to be absent in supplying appropriate judgement and supervision as they're interacting with the larger world. The resulting conclusion is that it is everyone else's responsibility to only ever act in ways that will protect those unrestrained kids. The direct implication is that everything accessible on the Internet must be made safe for kids, which is directly opposed to having free and open communications for adults.
A better analogy involves things that are generally intended for adult purposes, as the Internet is. You certainly can operate a business selling construction tools, and generally not be sued when someone lets their kid use one and the kid gets injured. Even if you have knowledge that some customers will buy tools for use by their under age kids, or that they will leave tools accessible to kids, while you're merely assuming that they're supplying appropriate supervision and control.
The fundamental problem with this liability argument that has been put forth is it's based on responsibility laundering. Kids can't judge or consent, yet the argument quietly asserts it's reasonable for their caretakers to be absent in supplying appropriate judgement and supervision as they're interacting with the larger world. The resulting conclusion is that it is everyone else's responsibility to only ever act in ways that will protect those unrestrained kids. The direct implication is that everything accessible on the Internet must be made safe for kids, which is directly opposed to having free and open communications for adults.
Why use the word survivor for someone who was coerced into taking pics of the self naked and was never physically abused
It's more PR talk and "victim" seems to be becoming more taboo as a descriptive term. I suppose "survivor" has a braver connotation in that they can overcome the trauma, while a "victim" cannot.
Language is certainly interesting.
Language is certainly interesting.
Not all abuse is physical, and not being physical doesn't necessarily diminish the trauma the survivor has experienced. Why is 'survivor' not apt here?
I'm not from the USA but it seems like "survivor" traditionally implies having survived a situation where the normal expectation is poor odds of survivability. Nobody's a stubbed toe survivor or an upset about the bus survivor.
Sexual abuse has very poor odds of emotional recovery. Surviving an emotional ordeal is a valid use and recognized meaning: "to continue to live after being in a ... difficult situation" (Cambridge dictionary). Example: "she survived two divorces." In this case, psychological abuse can, and often does, lead to "destruction or death," which could be a crushed self-esteem, a crippling depression or even suicide.
I am a stubbed toe survivor! I almost died (from laughter!) the last time I stubbed my toe (fell down the stairs)
I guess they would use the word survivor to say that the person did not end up ending their stay on this earth.
Please punch a hole on your “once again, a lack of parenting being solved by something other than better parenting” card.
Parents could generally do a better job helping their children learn about consent and having their boundaries respected from birth as a means to help protect them. This is something most people seem to think is not important and many people simply don't do.
It's common for adults to simply make a lot of decisions for kids in a way that is "convenient" for the adult and they seem to not notice this has significant psychological consequences which impact sexual situations and cause other issues.
But I wouldn't pin this strictly on parenting. I think society has broader issues than just parenting which foster issues of this sort.
It's common for adults to simply make a lot of decisions for kids in a way that is "convenient" for the adult and they seem to not notice this has significant psychological consequences which impact sexual situations and cause other issues.
But I wouldn't pin this strictly on parenting. I think society has broader issues than just parenting which foster issues of this sort.
I don't know how you understand "parenting" but it's not supposed to involve 24/7 second by second monitoring of a teenager's life.
It's complicated. I don't blame Omegle, but sometimes there's no one to blame, except the perpetrators.
Now, thanks to AI, we could recreate Omegle and make it safer, like detect children using it, and detect abusers. Of course this may trigger an arm's race of filters. But I think we have avenues to try.
It's complicated. I don't blame Omegle, but sometimes there's no one to blame, except the perpetrators.
Now, thanks to AI, we could recreate Omegle and make it safer, like detect children using it, and detect abusers. Of course this may trigger an arm's race of filters. But I think we have avenues to try.
Parenting a teen is re-forcing values taught earlier in life. Expecting society to share parenting responsibilities doesn't work.
It could be safer but it's up to you to decide your family's risk/reward ratio. Safer getting a dick video online then in person and a teachable moment. These dicks are out there in the world. This could belong to your teacher, friend's dad, brother.. if you ever see this again call 911 and rin.
It could be safer but it's up to you to decide your family's risk/reward ratio. Safer getting a dick video online then in person and a teachable moment. These dicks are out there in the world. This could belong to your teacher, friend's dad, brother.. if you ever see this again call 911 and rin.
A child spends more hours of day in school, and under the influence of media (legacy, social and all kinds) and society in general, than with their parents. Unless probably those parents are unemployed and homeschooling the child. Which is its own type of trauma.
Any reductionist stance that "only" parents matter and society doesn't, or "only" this or "only" that betrays a lack of basic common sense. A child is a product of its environment, and the child and its parents exist in a society (so says Jared Leto). A child is like a radio antenna, it picks up information and influences from everywhere and reproduces them. A child that hits puberty also wants to do exactly the opposite of what you teach them, and be rebellious with the worst specimens in their class. Opening a chat site is probably the most innocent thing they can do, and if that innocent act can trivially lead to dire consequences, yes, society has a problem to solve.
The problem isn't Omegle in particular, but rather how unstructured the Internet is. Anything goes, you can therefore not shape and mold a child's environment to be nurturing and educational. If they have Internet you basically drop the entire world on their shoulders at once. Any filters and controls are at best leaky.
Any reductionist stance that "only" parents matter and society doesn't, or "only" this or "only" that betrays a lack of basic common sense. A child is a product of its environment, and the child and its parents exist in a society (so says Jared Leto). A child is like a radio antenna, it picks up information and influences from everywhere and reproduces them. A child that hits puberty also wants to do exactly the opposite of what you teach them, and be rebellious with the worst specimens in their class. Opening a chat site is probably the most innocent thing they can do, and if that innocent act can trivially lead to dire consequences, yes, society has a problem to solve.
The problem isn't Omegle in particular, but rather how unstructured the Internet is. Anything goes, you can therefore not shape and mold a child's environment to be nurturing and educational. If they have Internet you basically drop the entire world on their shoulders at once. Any filters and controls are at best leaky.
> A child spends more hours of day in school, and under the influence of media (legacy, social and all kinds) and society in general, than with their parents. Unless probably those parents are unemployed and homeschooling the child. Which is its own type of trauma.
Okay, but I'd still call the parent the most important pillar in a child's life. Not the only one, but they have the most influence on a child. Every child is different, but most children will take a parents' action and words to heart and use those to form a world view. which can end with an accaptance or rejection of the parents'.
>The problem isn't Omegle in particular, but rather how unstructured the Internet is. Anything goes, you can therefore not shape and mold a child's environment to be nurturing and educational
sure you can. plenty of filters and blocks.
The key to elevate this from controlling your kid to parenting is to then explain why those blocks exist. We shouldn't be coy to tell kids that there is danger, that they should know how their body and feelings work, and that there is content they are not ready to view. They may still find workarounds anyway, but hard locks under "because I said so" or "I'll tell you when you're older" caused me to rebel way more than "because there are bad people out there" (as an oversimplified explanation).
And that's the crux that no one seems interested in solving. Why are we so afraid to educate our kids on this stuff?
Okay, but I'd still call the parent the most important pillar in a child's life. Not the only one, but they have the most influence on a child. Every child is different, but most children will take a parents' action and words to heart and use those to form a world view. which can end with an accaptance or rejection of the parents'.
>The problem isn't Omegle in particular, but rather how unstructured the Internet is. Anything goes, you can therefore not shape and mold a child's environment to be nurturing and educational
sure you can. plenty of filters and blocks.
The key to elevate this from controlling your kid to parenting is to then explain why those blocks exist. We shouldn't be coy to tell kids that there is danger, that they should know how their body and feelings work, and that there is content they are not ready to view. They may still find workarounds anyway, but hard locks under "because I said so" or "I'll tell you when you're older" caused me to rebel way more than "because there are bad people out there" (as an oversimplified explanation).
And that's the crux that no one seems interested in solving. Why are we so afraid to educate our kids on this stuff?
Who is "we" who are afraid to educate our kids on this stuff? Adults are former children, raised by parents who are also former children. Basically there's no reason for you to focus your sight like a laser pointer on the parents, because it's all a big system in a closed loop, and picking out superficial criteria like age and parenthood as sole indicators about who the blame should go to is primitive. Sex is easy, and therefore making children is easy. And thank God because if it was hard we wouldn't exist in the first place.
Piling on responsibility on parents for the world they grew up in and are raising their children is one step away from saying "if you can't be a good parent, don't have children" which is one step away from "just don't have children" and that's why "developed" societies are in a deepening demographic collapse.
Also living in a global world is not just about your trinkets being made in China. Internet is a global network and it connects us globally. This "parents have most influence on a child" thing was I'd say valid maybe a century ago. But now parents are much more busy working, and children are engaging much more with society and the world at large, at much earlier age. This is not a choice a family makes. It's imposed top-down from society and its rulers, because the alternative is to not survive. And therefore it's society's responsibility as a whole to get things as straight as possible, before we can attack parents.
Again. Those parents are just products of their own parents and so on. And humans in general have absolutely no clue how this works. We go by vibes and superstition and events like the World Wars, depressions, recessions, cultural revolutions have completely disrupted and wiped out centuries of knowledge on what it means to raise a child, and everyone has to keep rediscovering this for themselves, which means they look out and copy what society gives them. We have no other way to operate. We copy, transform and emit.
But our ability as individuals to transform is limited. This is why you yourself are speaking the languages you speak, have the beliefs you do, you're just an amalgamation of things you saw and heard, and adopted them as your own. Including the belief we should blame the parents. That came from the society you live in. The irony.
Piling on responsibility on parents for the world they grew up in and are raising their children is one step away from saying "if you can't be a good parent, don't have children" which is one step away from "just don't have children" and that's why "developed" societies are in a deepening demographic collapse.
Also living in a global world is not just about your trinkets being made in China. Internet is a global network and it connects us globally. This "parents have most influence on a child" thing was I'd say valid maybe a century ago. But now parents are much more busy working, and children are engaging much more with society and the world at large, at much earlier age. This is not a choice a family makes. It's imposed top-down from society and its rulers, because the alternative is to not survive. And therefore it's society's responsibility as a whole to get things as straight as possible, before we can attack parents.
Again. Those parents are just products of their own parents and so on. And humans in general have absolutely no clue how this works. We go by vibes and superstition and events like the World Wars, depressions, recessions, cultural revolutions have completely disrupted and wiped out centuries of knowledge on what it means to raise a child, and everyone has to keep rediscovering this for themselves, which means they look out and copy what society gives them. We have no other way to operate. We copy, transform and emit.
But our ability as individuals to transform is limited. This is why you yourself are speaking the languages you speak, have the beliefs you do, you're just an amalgamation of things you saw and heard, and adopted them as your own. Including the belief we should blame the parents. That came from the society you live in. The irony.
>Adults are former children, raised by parents who are also former children. Basically there's no reason for you to focus your sight like a laser pointer on the parents, because it's all a big system in a closed loop,
Society and norms change. My "former children" were whipped by their parents, they didn't pass that down to me (but I was also raised partially by grandparents, who did the same thing). "we" decided spankings weren't acceptable anymore in a relatively recent time frame. But "we" still can't seem to teach future adults about their bodies and that bad people will take advantage of it.
It's a societal issue and I will critique society as they continue to brush the real issue under the rug. Perverts aren't some ancient monster wiped out by war, unfortunately.
>This is why you yourself are speaking the languages you speak, have the beliefs you do, you're just an amalgamation of things you saw and heard, and adopted them as your own.
Indeed. And my society taught me to think critique every practice, and to unshackle from tradition. "because that's how things were done" is the worst justification in my mind. Which you seem to be using to excuse this behavior.
I don't accept it. If only because of this simple norm: if we were thst influenced by our upbringing and this happens, that means we have an entire societal line that thinks it's okay to prey upon children. I hope we aren't taught that by friends or family or education.
>Including the belief we should blame the parents.
If society believed that, this story blaming a website for facilitating the abuse of a child instead of the parents who should have been aware of the child's browsing activity wouldn't be here, no?
I don't really subscribe much to the "you criticize society but you live in one" retort. Societal participation isn't very consentual in and of itself but that's a whole other rabbit hole.
Society and norms change. My "former children" were whipped by their parents, they didn't pass that down to me (but I was also raised partially by grandparents, who did the same thing). "we" decided spankings weren't acceptable anymore in a relatively recent time frame. But "we" still can't seem to teach future adults about their bodies and that bad people will take advantage of it.
It's a societal issue and I will critique society as they continue to brush the real issue under the rug. Perverts aren't some ancient monster wiped out by war, unfortunately.
>This is why you yourself are speaking the languages you speak, have the beliefs you do, you're just an amalgamation of things you saw and heard, and adopted them as your own.
Indeed. And my society taught me to think critique every practice, and to unshackle from tradition. "because that's how things were done" is the worst justification in my mind. Which you seem to be using to excuse this behavior.
I don't accept it. If only because of this simple norm: if we were thst influenced by our upbringing and this happens, that means we have an entire societal line that thinks it's okay to prey upon children. I hope we aren't taught that by friends or family or education.
>Including the belief we should blame the parents.
If society believed that, this story blaming a website for facilitating the abuse of a child instead of the parents who should have been aware of the child's browsing activity wouldn't be here, no?
I don't really subscribe much to the "you criticize society but you live in one" retort. Societal participation isn't very consentual in and of itself but that's a whole other rabbit hole.
My general idea is that systems should be analyzed holistically and picking out simple categories of parts within the system to assign blame to is refreshingly basic, but also not helpful.
You can watch documentaries on big scale disasters, and while in isolated cases you can blame few specific parties for failing on their responsibilities and therefore it's "their fault", the truth is that disasters occur when many many layers of a system fail, and eventually the whole construction collapses at some point, causing an unmitigated disaster.
In another comment I discussed how we could make a safe Omegle with identity confirmation and AI monitoring and so on. That would help. Not fix all problems, but help significantly. Parenting also helps, and so on. It's not either or, but "and". We can try to sort things by priority, but this is often crude and based on our limited understanding of what is most important.
Also saying "it's the parents" is particularly fruitless, because "parents" is not a specific entity, like government regulatory institutions or large businesses are, which are controlled centrally and therefore they can be designed, engineered, and monitored for specific outcomes.
When we say "the parents" everyone nods along and says "oh yes, absolutely" and nothing follows from that. Everyone believes themselves a good parent who's doing the right things, and to whom bad things won't happen. And when they happen, they see the problem outside themselves. It's also particularly cruel to pin blame on parents who have one or two children, and purely randomly their child may be taken out by freak circumstances. And then what? Make more children?
While a corporation may be involved in hundreds, thousands, millions of incidents, and they can and SHOULD learn from them and strive to minimize them. They have the scale to monitor outcomes, adapt for better outcomes and then monitor that change.
We could say "but OMEGLE was not a large organization with large staff able to engineer their outcomes". Well, then maybe they should've not taken on this project. Going viral by doing the minimum is easy especially when luck is on your side. But doing things RIGHT takes effort, money, time and people.
You can watch documentaries on big scale disasters, and while in isolated cases you can blame few specific parties for failing on their responsibilities and therefore it's "their fault", the truth is that disasters occur when many many layers of a system fail, and eventually the whole construction collapses at some point, causing an unmitigated disaster.
In another comment I discussed how we could make a safe Omegle with identity confirmation and AI monitoring and so on. That would help. Not fix all problems, but help significantly. Parenting also helps, and so on. It's not either or, but "and". We can try to sort things by priority, but this is often crude and based on our limited understanding of what is most important.
Also saying "it's the parents" is particularly fruitless, because "parents" is not a specific entity, like government regulatory institutions or large businesses are, which are controlled centrally and therefore they can be designed, engineered, and monitored for specific outcomes.
When we say "the parents" everyone nods along and says "oh yes, absolutely" and nothing follows from that. Everyone believes themselves a good parent who's doing the right things, and to whom bad things won't happen. And when they happen, they see the problem outside themselves. It's also particularly cruel to pin blame on parents who have one or two children, and purely randomly their child may be taken out by freak circumstances. And then what? Make more children?
While a corporation may be involved in hundreds, thousands, millions of incidents, and they can and SHOULD learn from them and strive to minimize them. They have the scale to monitor outcomes, adapt for better outcomes and then monitor that change.
We could say "but OMEGLE was not a large organization with large staff able to engineer their outcomes". Well, then maybe they should've not taken on this project. Going viral by doing the minimum is easy especially when luck is on your side. But doing things RIGHT takes effort, money, time and people.
So what you're coming down to is that we can't target literally all parents but we can intimidate one person/corporation in tech.
Personally my goal isn't to solve the entire problem. Because humans have a great talent of breaking even the most secure solutions. And on the internet that simply means "don't go to secure website, lure children to seedy website". So the problem occurs again and it's harder or impossible to target the seedy website (you know, unless parents properly parent. You know, the unproductive solution I keep bringing up). It may be more holistically safe but on a micro level that parent still has to suffer and that child is still traumatized. But you exhausted your easy target to sue.
In some views, Omeagle may be that seedy website as it. It wasn't this hyper popular trillion dollar company that entrenched itself in the recesses of the internet, Alexa ranking last month was in the top 700. gen alpha may not even know what people are talking about when hearing the name. But it was too honest and good hearted in intentions of and no good deed goes unpunished. So here we are.
>When we say "the parents" everyone nods along and says "oh yes, absolutely" and nothing follows from that.
Sure because "everyone" is in fact not "everyone" ajd certainly not any important lawmakers. On a micro level that solution is some sort of therapy to heal and maybe counseling to figure out how to parent for this stuff online if it wasn't taught in school (and for reference, my mid 00's middle school was already teaching about social media safety. This isn't that unheard of for millennial/Gen Z folks to learn). I can't make that decision for a single parent. Large initiatives include awareness, tools, and general tips for parents.
Personally my goal isn't to solve the entire problem. Because humans have a great talent of breaking even the most secure solutions. And on the internet that simply means "don't go to secure website, lure children to seedy website". So the problem occurs again and it's harder or impossible to target the seedy website (you know, unless parents properly parent. You know, the unproductive solution I keep bringing up). It may be more holistically safe but on a micro level that parent still has to suffer and that child is still traumatized. But you exhausted your easy target to sue.
In some views, Omeagle may be that seedy website as it. It wasn't this hyper popular trillion dollar company that entrenched itself in the recesses of the internet, Alexa ranking last month was in the top 700. gen alpha may not even know what people are talking about when hearing the name. But it was too honest and good hearted in intentions of and no good deed goes unpunished. So here we are.
>When we say "the parents" everyone nods along and says "oh yes, absolutely" and nothing follows from that.
Sure because "everyone" is in fact not "everyone" ajd certainly not any important lawmakers. On a micro level that solution is some sort of therapy to heal and maybe counseling to figure out how to parent for this stuff online if it wasn't taught in school (and for reference, my mid 00's middle school was already teaching about social media safety. This isn't that unheard of for millennial/Gen Z folks to learn). I can't make that decision for a single parent. Large initiatives include awareness, tools, and general tips for parents.
I think we can expect parents to watch their 11yo when it comes to broadcasting themselves on video
This is an absentee parent problem using the internet as a nanny.
Just because it is ubiquitous does not mean it is the correct way.
This is an absentee parent problem using the internet as a nanny.
Just because it is ubiquitous does not mean it is the correct way.
Some incredibly solid advice up until the very end where you think AI is new and also suggest that it can detect very hard to detect things.
AI is no substitute for HI in this case
Maybe... but is all the effort worth the reward for the risk?
[deleted]
What is this "better parenting" and where can I buy it? Is there an app for it?
But in all seriousness, "parenting" is not a quantifiable resource. "Just be a better parent bro" isn't valid advice.
But in all seriousness, "parenting" is not a quantifiable resource. "Just be a better parent bro" isn't valid advice.
You can borrow books on good parenting at your local library and/or family planning clinic
[deleted]
i used omegle. it was ok but you did get a few perverts here and there. same thing with chat roulette
> “Virtually every tool can be used for good or for evil, and that is especially true of communication tools, due to their innate flexibility,” Leif K-Brooks, Omegle’s founder, wrote in a note announcing the site’s end. “The telephone can be used to wish your grandmother ‘happy birthday’, but it can also be used to call in a bomb threat. There can be no honest accounting of Omegle without acknowledging that some people misused it, including to commit unspeakably heinous crimes.” K-Brooks’ note did not mention the settlement in his statement, but blamed the closure of Omegle on unspecified “attacks” against communication services.
> There’s a flaw in K-Brooks’ argument: The telephone doesn’t connect children and teens directly to sexual predators with the click of a button. Omegle’s model allowed sexual predators to sign on and click through a roulette of people, continuously jumping from one to another until they were face-to-face with who they were looking for.
Yesterday's discussion about K-Brooks' statement: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38199355
> There’s a flaw in K-Brooks’ argument: The telephone doesn’t connect children and teens directly to sexual predators with the click of a button. Omegle’s model allowed sexual predators to sign on and click through a roulette of people, continuously jumping from one to another until they were face-to-face with who they were looking for.
Yesterday's discussion about K-Brooks' statement: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38199355
> There’s a flaw in K-Brooks’ argument: The telephone doesn’t connect children and teens directly to sexual predators with the click of a button. Omegle’s model allowed sexual predators to sign on and click through a roulette of people, continuously jumping from one to another until they were face-to-face with who they were looking for.
I used to answer the phone as a child and talk to complete strangers.
I used to answer the phone as a child and talk to complete strangers.
Yes, but did they pull their dicks out or ask you to undress?
Telephone just isn’t a valid metaphor here.
Telephone just isn’t a valid metaphor here.
Actually a sexual predator did call me when I was primary school. Back then when the phone rang as the principal was also a teacher, a student would run out to answer the phone. One day it was my turn. I answerd and asked politey how I could help. The person on the other end, claimed he was a doctor, and proceeded to ask increasingly personal and sexual questions to 10 year old me, and I didn't know what to do, I wasnt savvy enough to hang up, so went along with it, and eventually said if get the pricipal. So yes the phone can be used to abuse. Sick fucks will find a way.
Yes, in fact, the telephone has been used to ask people to undress.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strip_search_phone_call_scam
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strip_search_phone_call_scam
I'm wondering how long it's going to be before someone sues a city for public indecency committed at a street intersection. After all, public spaces connect you instantly with strangers who only have to show up.
I mean that's not a totally unrealistic situation, if there was a city that was plagued such behavior and the police/justice system as a whole weren't able to tamp it down to the point where it was commonplace when going out I bet someone would sue the city to do something about it.
The piece I quoted placed emphasis on sexual predators being able to communicate over the medium, not public displays of nudity, so I think the comparison to the telephone is relevant.
But that's besides the point. If you don't want your kids to see peoples dicks on the internet than exhibit better control over your kids access to the internet.
It's not up to me and the rest of society to police your kids.
I don't want to lose an internet that has charming sites like Omegle because people can't be bothered to take care of their kids.
But that's besides the point. If you don't want your kids to see peoples dicks on the internet than exhibit better control over your kids access to the internet.
It's not up to me and the rest of society to police your kids.
I don't want to lose an internet that has charming sites like Omegle because people can't be bothered to take care of their kids.
Yeah, especially since the vast majority (90%) of sexual abuse is done by people well known to the family of the abused (most likely the family itself). It's really hard to do forced physical sexual abuse over the internet when all that has to happen to end the interaction is a click.
Consent isn't a defense to statutory rape, and it doesn't work here for the same reason.
They can. Do people not remember phone sex? Very understandable if you don't want to recall that, but if you are going to compare abuse in another medium you better know the history.
[deleted]
Very bad precedent. esp for gun companies (thankfully they are protected via a direct law (for now at least)).
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38199355 (950+ comments)