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

371–380 of 1001 posts

Re: Omegle 2009-2023

#371

Post by phendrenad2 »

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…

"He was definitely home, all the blinds were drawn" 5 minutes later, Leif is seen going from his car to his house

You can't make this stuff up.

Every time I see a BBC clip it's something ridiculous. There's probably a good business opportunity doing a mystery science theater 3000 version of BBC news at this point.

Re: Omegle 2009-2023

#372

Post by yawpitch »

hgs3 wrote: post #230
yawpitch wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

That’s not actually a loaded question… they had a source with clear and convincing proof of the criminal victimization of numerous children by one of Mr. Brooks’s users who had weaponized the service he provided, as well as both law enforcement and child protection organizations indicating that Omegle’s service was being actively weaponized against children; as a matter of both rhetoric and law it was a foregone conclusion that Mr. Brooks was not protecting children, and there’s obvious public interest in his answer to that question. Arguably it’s something you could criticize as gotcha journalism, but that’s often a weak critique because you saying they’ve got an agenda is predicated on you having your own. Also there is a LONG history of very credible journalists tracking down and confronting those who don’t want light shone on their activities and therefore aren’t exactly inclined to schedule formal appointments… sure, it can be seen as showboating, especially for a television journalist, but it’s still just one of the tools of investigative journalism and you’d call it legit if it was exposing some form of public corruption or criminal activity that was beyond your personal pale.

Re: Omegle 2009-2023

#373

Post by Dylan16807 »

dragonwriter wrote: post #317
adamomada wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The question in my mind is, 74 million monthly users have a good time (or not bad enough to not come back, whatever) vs the inevitable catastrophic event as you say, isn’t it well worth it to accept the risk and continue? The world couldn’t possibly function any other way

> The question in my mind is, 74 million monthly users have a good time (or not bad enough to not come back, whatever) vs the inevitable catastrophic event as you say, isn’t it well worth it to accept the risk and continue? Assuming the 74 million are really getting lots of value from it, compensating the victims of the catastrophic event is more than worth it. Holding the host liable for the harms, and trusting the…

If it's actually very rare, that doesn't seem like an appropriate way to handle a free service.

Imagine a store owner downtown adding a flowerbed and a couple benches at the front of their property. If someone gets hurt via rare catastrophic event, it seems bad to make the owner pay, and even worse to suggest they're supposed to be charging bench users 20 cents each to fund payouts like this.

Re: Omegle 2009-2023

#374

Post by shadowgovt »

marcus_holmes wrote: post #260
shadowgovt wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They will. ... and Roblox has a financial vested interest in finding them, outing them to authorities, and keeping them off the site, so it'll be worth it to them to do so and to keep the site humming. Omegle's owner decided to shut it down because it wasn't worth it to them to do that work. That's all. Price not worth paying.

No, they were finding them, outing them and reporting them. As he says in the post. There were doing that work. They're being sued by a victim for not preventing the victim from being manipulated by an abuser. The fact that the abuser was caught and convicted with Omegle's help is apparently irrelevant. It's hard to see how Omegle could have done this differently; no crime occurred until the victim was abused, and on…

Fending off legal challenges is also part of the work.

If it's not worth it to him it's not worth it. I too remember the feeling of "this startup is going to kill me and I'm only 30."

Re: Omegle 2009-2023

#375

Post by serf »

didibus wrote: post #365

Somewhere along the way I feel it became normal to just let your children do whatever they want online with no supervision and no parental controls. And at the same time I do think computer providers, Windows, Mac OS and all that don't offer good enough parental control. Age verification is a problem as well, but it's foolish to think every website and app will implement proper safeguards. I mean, Omegle could simply…

> Somewhere along the way I feel it became normal to just let your children do whatever they want online with no supervision and no parental controls.

for those of us who were kids when the internet was basically a social unknown, it's not something that 'became normal', the internet didn't come about censored from the get-go -- these moderation/censorship tools were added in after-the-fact to cope with parental and (more importantly) government worries that children were being victimized via exposure.

and, for the most part, we grew up OK even without the heavy-handed censorship.

>Instead there should be opt in. When a child user is logged in to Windows et all, an allow list should always be in place. And only apps and websites that claim to be child safe should be included.

i'm not necessarily anti-censorship, and i'm never having kids -- my opinion on this is worthless for all practical sake -- but i'll say this : If I didn't have the freedom to tinker and explore with the systems that took up my free-time as a child there is no way I would have grown up to have such expertise now.

Take that however you will. I know nothing of child care but I do recognize the opportunities in my own life that made me grow as an individual; having 'cyber-space' as my 'home' from an early age offered a lot of opportunities that were unique and self-improving.

Re: Omegle 2009-2023

#376

Post by [deleted] »

phendrenad2 wrote: post #320

This makes me so mad, and it should make you mad too. Omegle isn't substantively different from Reddit or Discord or an MMORPG chat channel, but it's currently being dragged through the legal system while presumably the others are not. The truth is, Omegle's real sin is being midsized. There's a real risk in being a certain-sized company. Large enough that suing you is likely to result in a payout, but small enough t…

[deleted]

Re: Omegle 2009-2023

#377

Post by [deleted] »

fwungy wrote: post #359

Part of a larger move to kill off the free corners of the internet. The UN and G7 governments freely talk and plan their means to reestablish the narrative dominance they had before the internet. Just about anyone or anything can be taken down with the pairing of q woman willing to publicly claim abuse, with no proof required beyond her word, and a lawyer willing to take the case.

[deleted]

Re: Omegle 2009-2023

#378

Post by dragonwriter »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #373
dragonwriter wrote: post #317

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The question in my mind is, 74 million monthly users have a good time (or not bad enough to not come back, whatever) vs the inevitable catastrophic event as you say, isn’t it well worth it to accept the risk and continue? Assuming the 74 million are really getting lots of value from it, compensating the victims of the catastrophic event is more than worth it. Holding the host liable for the harms, and trusting the…

If it's actually very rare, that doesn't seem like an appropriate way to handle a free service. Imagine a store owner downtown adding a flowerbed and a couple benches at the front of their property. If someone gets hurt via rare catastrophic event, it seems bad to make the owner pay, and even worse to suggest they're supposed to be charging bench users 20 cents each to fund payouts like this.

> If it's actually very rare, that doesn't seem like an appropriate way to handle a free service.

A service you pay for via the presence of ads isn’t free in a way that makes that really true, and even if the service was free, if the benefits to the people that aren't being victimized aren't worth charging a sufficient amount to cover the harms to those who are, I would argue the service is almost certainly a net social loss, anyway.

Re: Omegle 2009-2023

#379

Post by [deleted] »

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…

[deleted]

Re: Omegle 2009-2023

#380

Post by huytersd »

mardifoufs wrote: post #287
kr0bat wrote: post #274

Earlier quoted context omitted.

God, they're complaining about newposters all the way back in 2007. Is the problem really Eternal September or is it just "kids these days"? Also Leif K-Brooks is a thoughtful person, and it bleeds into his posts I don't know why exactly I think a one on one chat system would be different from an imageboard. When one makes a post on an image or discussion board, I think one does take into account that his words are g…

Complaining about newposters is just something you do. It would be weird otherwise.

Calling it newposters is already weird
Post reply on HN