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

201–210 of 1001 posts

Re: Omegle 2009-2023

#201

Post by lettergram »

The author was right on point, the government and the people moralizing want exactly what they described —- an internet fed to users, with minimal interaction.

This gives more power and stability to government and those moralizing (who are currently in power). Notice the constant censorship, it comes directly from the politicians who argue “we have to remove encryption - for the children!” Arguments. Those same individuals in government, censor opposition where they can and promote imo very authoritarian views.

I also agree, everyone has a breaking point. It’s been amazing to watch the increasing attacks since 2016, it’s been unrelenting.

> Virtually every online communication service has been subject to the same kinds of attack as Omegle; and while some of them are much larger companies with much greater resources, they all have their breaking point somewhere. I worry that, unless the tide turns soon, the Internet I fell in love with may cease to exist, and in its place, we will have something closer to a souped-up version of TV – focused largely on passive consumption, with much less opportunity for active participation and genuine human connection.

Re: Omegle 2009-2023

#202

Post by lettergram »

cortesoft wrote: post #61
SamPatt wrote: post #18

I don't know the whole story, but this seems very genuine. It echoes a sentiment I imagine many people my age feel, where the magic of the early internet we witnessed during our coming of age feels threatened. I feel for him, and hope he's able to move onto other projects which aren't as stressful.

I find it interesting that the "magical period" seems to be determined by your age. For me, the internet has already lost its magic by the time the mid 2000s came around, well before Omegle came out in 2009. For me, the magical period was the early 90s, when I was growing up. In 15 years, are people going to be talking about the current internet as the time when the magic was there? It seems more about the magic of c…

Tbf on a downward decline, 2009 might still be the highlight, just because someone didn’t experience 1995.

For what it’s worth, I always point out that my parents fondest pre-30s memories we’re drinking, smoking and blasting music while riding in the back of a pickup when they were 16-20. All of which is illegal now and will get you years in prison…

Re: Omegle 2009-2023

#204

Post by Manuel_D »

meepmorp wrote: post #186
Manuel_D wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So car manufacturers need to stop making cars because someone might drive drunk? Kitchen knife manufacturers need to somehow prevent their products being used as weapons? This line of thinking is appropriate to a degree, but not really all that useful. Many products can be abused, and there's no feasible way to prevent that abuse.

> So car manufacturers need to stop making cars because someone might drive drunk? In the US, at least, bars can be found liable for patrons drunk driving. That's probably a closer analogy to Omegle than a car manufacturer, since its patrons hang out at the "establishment," engaging in potentially risky behavior. That's not a comment on the validity of the lawsuit, but the situation isn't as simple as you make out.

https://www.washingtoninjurylaw.com/can-bartenders-be-liable...

> The drunk driver can sue the bar or bartender for allowing them to become intoxicated to a dangerous level. Individuals may file a lawsuit, but this does not always mean it will hold up in court. Dram shop laws in most states make clear definitions to avoid false liability. Washington is one of those states.

It looks like it's more the case that the drunk driver tries to sue the bar, not that the government is pursuing the bar. Furthermore, some States specifically forbid attempts to hold the bar liable for drunk drivers.

And even if it were, it's vastly easier for a bar to monitor the conduct of patrons than a web service. The scale of the latter is too great to make non-automated moderation feasible.

Re: Omegle 2009-2023

#205

Post by alephnerd »

bitcurious wrote: post #125
Obergruppen wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The ACLU is not the same organization that it used to be. That neo nazi march they defended was almost 50 years ago. It is doubtful they would take a similar stance today.

The ACLU of Virginia did defend the rights of white supremacists to organize in Charlottesville in 2017. I believe the resulting violence triggered some aclu soul searching and I’m not sure where the organization landed on defending the free speech of nazis and the like. Speaking for myself, I hope they keep to their principles.

> I hope they keep to their principles.

Not anymore. The Charlottesville incident was the straw that broke the camel's back [0][1][2].

There was a revolt from donors and plenty of lawyers against their stance during Charlottesville.

[0] - https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/06/us/aclu-free-speech.html

[1] - https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/17/opinion/aclu-first-amendm...

[2] - https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/04/opinion/sunday/free-speec...

Re: Omegle 2009-2023

#206

Post by hypeatei »

lazide wrote: post #146
melvinmelih wrote: post #69

> But it became popular almost instantly after launch, and grew organically from there, reaching millions of daily users. The law of big numbers dictate that if there’s even a tiny chance of a catastrophic event it has close to 100% probability of happening if n is just large enough (in the case of millions of daily users, probably multiple catastrophic events per day). This kind of asymmetrical risk is very hard to…

Just because someone got struck by lightning while playing golf, doesn’t make golf dangerous to play.

Golf also requires a membership and equipment to play, as well as physically being there. Omegle is (was?) a free online service with no signup required.

Re: Omegle 2009-2023

#207

Post by injeolmi_love »

SoftTalker wrote: post #137
marssaxman wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

By that standard I cannot see how any reasonable person could justify building anything at all; most of us, not being evil bastards, have imaginations which will simply fail to suggest such uses.

He's not saying don't build anything. He's saying think about the potential for misuse (and implying, take reasonable steps to prevent it). This seems completely sensible to me.

He is saying don’t build anything.

I am aware I cannot think of every bad way a service could be misused . I also am aware that there is always a way to misuse a service. Therefore, in order to prevent a service I use from being misused, I must not build anything.

Obviously that conclusion is wrong, so one of the premises must be wrong. Specifically, liability should be on the abuser not on the service.

Re: Omegle 2009-2023

#208

Post by dragonwriter »

blastersyndrome wrote: post #148

So let me get this straight: The site is being shut down because the owner didn't want to deal with the constant spam of CSAM? Is there a list of websites that have been shut down due to this type of attrition? I'm aware of at least one other site[0] that has met the same fate. It would be interesting to see an exhaustive list. [0] freeimage.us

> So let me get this straight: The site is being shut down because the owner didn't want to deal with the constant spam of CSAM?

No, not spam of CSAM (in the sense of distribution of material where the abuse occurred elsewhere), but actual grooming and abuse happening through the site.

e.g., https://www.wusa9.com/article/news/local/virginia/virginia-m...

the more specific proximate cause, I believe, is one of the current suits that has gotten past S230 immunity, possibly the ongoing product liability lawsuit:

https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-64618791

Re: Omegle 2009-2023

#209

Post by Manuel_D »

yawpitch wrote: post #180
Manuel_D wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So car manufacturers need to stop making cars because someone might drive drunk? Kitchen knife manufacturers need to somehow prevent their products being used as weapons? This line of thinking is appropriate to a degree, but not really all that useful. Many products can be abused, and there's no feasible way to prevent that abuse.

Seems to me there is an obvious qualitative difference between a company that manufacturers cars or kitchen knives and a company that creates a service that uses random matchmaking to repeatedly introduce a serial pedophile to unsuspecting underage victims. Sure, people _can_ abuse any service, this seems like a service that wasn’t just ripe for abuse, it was essentially perfectly designed to enable it. Moreover in t…

Ford might manufacture a car driven by a serial drunk driver. Perhaps they need to install breathalyzers in all their cars, by default.

I'm not really sure how much more ripe for abuse Omegle was compared to, say, Discord. Pretty much any video chat service can be abused to send or receive illegal content, and to abuse and manipulate other people. These are risks inherent to anything enabling communication. Short of a panopticon where all communications are manually approved by a human moderator, there's no sure way to prevent abuse (and even then human moderators are fallible).

There ought to be some reasonable attempts to mitigate abuse, like a reporting functionality. But beyond that I don't see much more Omegle could have reasonably done.

Re: Omegle 2009-2023

#210

Post by empathy_m »

Wonder how Chris Poole is doing. I loved using his site in the 2000s and have been amazed to see the creativity it has unleashed, some for good and some not so much.
Post reply on HN