Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Omegle 2009-2023

omegle.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 1001 posts

Re: Omegle 2009-2023

#21

Post by wolverine876 »

echelon wrote: post #10
veeti wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Omegle: Suing the website that matched me with my abuser" https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-64618791

> As a young girl, Alice (not her real name) logged on to the popular live video chat website, Omegle, and was randomly paired with a paedophile, who coerced her into becoming a digital sex slave. Nearly 10 years later the young American is suing Omegle in a landmark case that could pave the way for a wave of lawsuits against other social platforms. This is fucked. We shouldn't have to put safety padding on everythin…

We do implement many things that protect people, sometimes children in particular. They aren't perfect, but they can prevent a lot of damage.

The question, as usual, isn't all or nothing. It's what can we do that will meet all the criteria as best possible: not infringe on freedoms, reduce harm, be affordable, etc.

Re: Omegle 2009-2023

#22

Post by kylebenzle »

silenced_trope wrote: post #11
veeti wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Omegle: Suing the website that matched me with my abuser" https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-64618791

Let the legal process play out. I'm not a fan of this journalist "ambushing" the founder at his property and staying outside of it until he gets some answers. "He has all the blinds closed" - right. Let a judge determine whether the founder is in the wrong and needs to provide answers. Sorry maybe it's the aspergers in me but I'm generally not a fan of these self-anointed judge, jury, and executioners performing publ…

[flagged]

Re: Omegle 2009-2023

#23

Post by wolverine876 »

sandworm101 wrote: post #14
woleium wrote: post #5

Back to Chatroulette then? Having not used either platform, what’s the difference?

Back to whatsapp and other encrypted services whereby the corporate overlord can plead ignorance of how thier systems are used. Omegle didnt evolve to meet the new standard: dont connect people. Let them do that themselves. Then you cannot be blamed when the wrong two people meet via your system.

Can you meet people randomly on any of those services? That would be an interesting feature.

Re: Omegle 2009-2023

#24

Post by rvcdbn »

echelon wrote: post #17
silenced_trope wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let the legal process play out. I'm not a fan of this journalist "ambushing" the founder at his property and staying outside of it until he gets some answers. "He has all the blinds closed" - right. Let a judge determine whether the founder is in the wrong and needs to provide answers. Sorry maybe it's the aspergers in me but I'm generally not a fan of these self-anointed judge, jury, and executioners performing publ…

> Sorry maybe it's the aspergers in me but I'm generally not a fan of these self-anointed judge, jury, and executioners performing public shaming rituals. I'm starting to feel this is the thing we should have laws against.

How exactly do you imagine those laws would be structured?

Re: Omegle 2009-2023

#25

Post by sandworm101 »

wolverine876 wrote: post #23
sandworm101 wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Back to whatsapp and other encrypted services whereby the corporate overlord can plead ignorance of how thier systems are used. Omegle didnt evolve to meet the new standard: dont connect people. Let them do that themselves. Then you cannot be blamed when the wrong two people meet via your system.

Can you meet people randomly on any of those services? That would be an interesting feature.

No, but you can join massive "private" groups and find rando people yourself.

Re: Omegle 2009-2023

#26

Post by xwdv »

jachee wrote: post #19
xwdv wrote: post #12

To the founder of Omegle, I would say: do not lose heart. The moral arc of the universe is long, but it bends toward justice. In the end, we will prevail over those who destroy the good works of others under the guise of false victimhood and social justice, and build a very special place in hell for them, where we will condemn them for all eternity.

Alas, the universe can stay unjust longer than we can stay conscious.

Still, a society grows great when old men plant trees whose shade they will never sit in.

Re: Omegle 2009-2023

#27

Post by rvcdbn »

willk wrote: post #7
veeti wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Omegle: Suing the website that matched me with my abuser" https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-64618791

What happened to her is tragic. However, I don’t think warnings or age verification would change anything. Kids are going to do things regardless if there is a warning or age verification system. I think the best thing we can do for our children is talk to them, and to start talking to them early.

Basic age verification is pretty easy, no? I’m not sure about the details but this seems like a pretty low bar for a site like this. Not that I’m advocating it be required but just that if it were me I would not make something like this without at least making the best possible attempt at age verification.

Re: Omegle 2009-2023

#28

Post by mindslight »

toomuchtodo wrote: post #9
willk wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What happened to her is tragic. However, I don’t think warnings or age verification would change anything. Kids are going to do things regardless if there is a warning or age verification system. I think the best thing we can do for our children is talk to them, and to start talking to them early.

You can do both. Not everyone will talk to their kids (lots of both useless and under resourced parents out there), and guardrails are possible, so best to not throw up our hands and say "welp, the world is just a terrible place." "There is a cost" or "I don't want to" are not reasonable excuses, depending on use case and regulatory regime you're operating under. It sucks, but there are many terrible people out there…

It's not "the world is just a terrible place", but rather "the world inevitably has things that kids cannot handle". If you want digital entertainment for your kids, then seek out products which explicitly offer this. The unfettered Internet is a less appropriate babysitter than a red light district.

And talking about "age verification" as if it's some straightforward addition is an utterly dishonest framing. The core idea of the distributed Internet is the barest of communication which further complexity/policy can be layered on top of. "Age verification" actually implies the much more draconian and chilling meatspace identity verification.

Nobody has a problem with a DigitalKidsPlayLand which performs identity verification, strictly curates/moderates content, and escrows all activity for later review. It's this push to legally require such things for everyone, based on some idea that everything needs to be made kid-safe, that is horribly authoritarian and needs to be soundly rejected.

Re: Omegle 2009-2023

#29

Post by kylebenzle »

wolverine876 wrote: post #15
silenced_trope wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let the legal process play out. I'm not a fan of this journalist "ambushing" the founder at his property and staying outside of it until he gets some answers. "He has all the blinds closed" - right. Let a judge determine whether the founder is in the wrong and needs to provide answers. Sorry maybe it's the aspergers in me but I'm generally not a fan of these self-anointed judge, jury, and executioners performing publ…

How would that work? The public wouldn't know anything about anything unless a judge convicted someone.

[flagged]

Re: Omegle 2009-2023

#30

Post by whelp_24 »

kylebenzle wrote: post #22
silenced_trope wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let the legal process play out. I'm not a fan of this journalist "ambushing" the founder at his property and staying outside of it until he gets some answers. "He has all the blinds closed" - right. Let a judge determine whether the founder is in the wrong and needs to provide answers. Sorry maybe it's the aspergers in me but I'm generally not a fan of these self-anointed judge, jury, and executioners performing publ…

[flagged]

I don't think that's quite accurate. Aspergers was always a form of Austism, the remove of the separation is more policy than anything. The label is useful for those who want to use it.
Post reply on HN