Omegle 2009-2023 • Hacker News Board

Re: Omegle 2009-2023

#221

Post by kmeisthax » Thu, Nov 09, 2023, 2:15 AM UTC

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

The owner is currently being sued by a woman who used the site as a minor and was matched with a pedophile who convinced her to make and send CSAM. This isn't the usual kind of "CSAM intermediary liablility" lawsuit; the plaintiff is actually making an ordinary product liability claim. i.e. Omegle has no safety bars to keep kids from using the service ergo they are liable for me being abused by an adult.

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

Re: Omegle 2009-2023

#222

Post by dragonwriter » Thu, Nov 09, 2023, 2:15 AM UTC

noirbot wrote: post #53

rvcdbn wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

What is the "best possible attempt"? There's was a checkbox added (possibly after this suit was filed) that was a "I'm over 18 and understand I'm meeting random people". That's something every teen already clicks past constantly to see increasingly large swathes of the internet. Any actual "verification" seems quite difficult beyond just relying on self-attestation.

> What is the "best possible attempt"? There's was a checkbox added (possibly after this suit was filed)

It was after the suit was filed (prior to the suit, AIUI, Omegle had an over-18 warning (with no confirmation) on the Unmoderated chat option, and a stated policy that users had to be 18+ or 13+ with parents permission.

Also, it may not have been because of this suit, there is at least one other suit that was found not to be barred by Section 230 (this one avoided S230 immunity because it is a product liability suit, not one contingent on their role as a publisher; the other one I've seen, IIRC, was found to raise a triable question of fact regarding whether Omegle's behavior was within the category of knowing involvement in trafficking that brought it out of S230 protection.)

Re: Omegle 2009-2023

#223

Post by [deleted] » Thu, Nov 09, 2023, 2:15 AM UTC

johntiger1 wrote: post #80

While I totally understand there's the potential for abuse, I don't think Omegle should be penalized for stuff like this. From my understanding, there's no addictive, profit-maximizing matchmaking or anything going on - it's just a service which lets two strangers talk to one another. Of course you will have bad actors target any platform, but for a lowkey site, it seems sad that they would need to shut down because…

[deleted]

Re: Omegle 2009-2023

#224

Post by ajmurmann » Thu, Nov 09, 2023, 2:16 AM UTC

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…

It's the eternal September and regular nostalgia

Re: Omegle 2009-2023

#225

Post by jhallenworld » Thu, Nov 09, 2023, 2:17 AM UTC

ajsnigrutin wrote: post #82

echelon wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

Yep. If the pedo found her at a walmart, would she sue walmart too? Weird people, pedos, criminals are everywhere.... parents somehow teach about "stranger-danger" offline but not online, and then blame platforms their kids use, even though they are too young to use them in the first place.

>If the pedo found her at a walmart, would she sue walmart too?

Well, yes! A different example: with few exceptions (gun manufacturers), when people die everybody even remotely involved gets sued. Examples: Station Nightclub fire, Surfside condominium collapse..

In the case of a pedo at Walmart I could imagine: "Didn't the staff notice the guy dragging the girl out of the store? Why didn't they get involved?" Walmart has much more money than the pedo.

Re: Omegle 2009-2023

#226

Post by plasticchris » Thu, Nov 09, 2023, 2:19 AM UTC

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.

No, but if you operate enough golf courses you better be ready for the eventuality.

Re: Omegle 2009-2023

#227

Post by brailsafe » Thu, Nov 09, 2023, 2:20 AM UTC

sugarpile wrote: post #154

Elsewhere in the thread this article with an embedded video was linked: https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-64618791 The video, showing a BBC “journalist” attempting to ambush Leif, is one of the most… existentially disgusting? videos I’ve seen in a long, long time. It’s so utterly performative. Such a transparent attempt by the “journalist” at painting himself as a certain sort of person. Not a single genuine emotio…

Even more disconcerting is the possibility they believe they're pursuing righteousness genuinely rather than just for the reward.

Re: Omegle 2009-2023

#228

Post by lcnPylGDnU4H9OF » Thu, Nov 09, 2023, 2:21 AM UTC

TerrifiedMouse wrote: post #158

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.

It’s possible to have multiple periods of “magic” as the internet improves in capability over time and people find new ways to use it.

That’s a good point. I remember when Facebook genuinely allowed people to connect with others whom they hadn’t seen for years. MySpace before it is the source of nostalgia for a lot of my peers. Twitter had many genuine interactions between popular celebrities and their fans. Any of these things are likely to be magical to someone.

(Not sure what it means that these examples are all approximately dead to a lot of their previously most active users. That’s actually distinct from Omegle, unfortunately; most of their active users had remained perfectly happy with the platform.)

Re: Omegle 2009-2023

#229

Post by Mtinie » Thu, Nov 09, 2023, 2:21 AM UTC

lazide wrote: post #124

ethanbond wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also would comport with the explanation that the Internet just gets worse and worse. Will be interesting to see if kids who grew up with TikTok et al. will, as adults, view it as affectionately as we view our childhood form of the Internet. I do think there's something to be said of an overall trend toward more consumption, less production.

Anyone who thinks the internet ‘just get’s worse’ never had a full Usenet feed in the 90’s. shudder

/ alt.binaries.* enters the chat

Re: Omegle 2009-2023

#230

Post by hgs3 » Thu, Nov 09, 2023, 2:21 AM UTC

yawpitch wrote: post #112

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…

So you’re a fan of judges doing their jobs, but not a fan of journalists doing theirs? Tracking down and trying to talk to those your sources have accused of wrongdoing to try and get their side of the story and to get them to speak on the record is kind of literally Investigative Reporting 101, and has been for actual centuries now.

Investigative reporters should act professionally. They should setup a formal appointment with the accused and remain neutral. In the bbc report they showed up uninvited and asked "We want to know why you're not protecting children, Mr. Brooks" which is a loaded question [1].

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loaded_question