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

481–490 of 1001 posts

Re: Omegle 2009-2023

#481

Post by mikeyouse »

notimetorelax wrote: post #468
mikeyouse wrote: post #449

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You'll notice that all of those sites have registrations where you have to create an account and affirm that you're over the age of 13 rather than just putting "Don't use this if you're under 13" in tiny print at the bottom of a page. Even Chatroulette has a big popup where you have to affirm you're over 18 and that you agree to their terms and conditions before using the site..

What does this accomplish?

A minimal level of protection against lawsuits like the one that just killed Omegle.

Re: Omegle 2009-2023

#482

Post by zo1 »

ThrowawayTestr wrote: post #59
TaylorAlexander wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Regardless of any arguments about legitimacy, the optics of the EFF and ACLU defending Omegle against a child sex abuse victim are horrible. They need to raise funds from donors and having to explain that they fought against an individual abuse victim seems like the kind of position they would want to avoid. What I imagine they would do is fight against any overzealous legislation some politician tries to throw toget…

Didn't the ALCU defend Nazis in the past?

Everyone here keeps using that word, and I'm sitting here confused.

Can we sit down and define it, or are we to forever just throw it around as a convenient "bad people"?

Re: Omegle 2009-2023

#483

Post by mikeyouse »

taurath wrote: post #470
mikeyouse wrote: post #449

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You'll notice that all of those sites have registrations where you have to create an account and affirm that you're over the age of 13 rather than just putting "Don't use this if you're under 13" in tiny print at the bottom of a page. Even Chatroulette has a big popup where you have to affirm you're over 18 and that you agree to their terms and conditions before using the site..

When has that ever effectively stopped anything? Is it that it seems more careful?

It's like having a "no trespassing" sign and a fence around your pool. You still might be in legal trouble if a kid hops your fence and drowns, but you're vastly better off from a legal perspective than the alternative of not having any barrier whatsoever.

Re: Omegle 2009-2023

#484

Post by zo1 »

freddie_mercury wrote: post #95
poglet wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

WeChat has a shake feature, also a people near me feature. I think telegram also has a location based feature.

At least in the country where I live the "people near me" features have been removed/blocked from WeChat/Zalo/Telegram because they are overwhelmingly (like 99% of the time) used for prostitution.

Prostitution happens over WA, SMS, plain old phone calls and everything under the sun.

They don't seem to go after the communication channels, they go after the discovery mechanisms.

Re: Omegle 2009-2023

#485

Post by Lacerda69 »

wavemode wrote: post #356
dragonwriter wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It seems the real reason this lawsuit found traction while similar ones against much larger platforms is precisely because Omegle sounds like a fairly shoestring operation. Platforms with an army of lawyers can surely fend lawsuits like this off without batting an eye. Platforms with an army of lawyers would never greenlight Omegle's basic behavior, to start with.

What "basic behavior" is that? Anonymously video chatting strangers on the internet? Can't you already do that in many Discord servers? Or on dozens of other apps and websites (e.g. Chatroulette)? There clearly isn't anything fundamentally illegal about the practice, or these would all be shut down.

Discord is not anonymous and chatroulette is next on the choppingblock

Re: Omegle 2009-2023

#486

Post by jbk »

> In recent years, it seems like the whole world has become more ornery. Maybe that has something to do with the pandemic, or with political disagreements. Whatever the reason, people have become faster to attack, and slower to recognize each other’s shared humanity.

I feel a bit the same, but why?

Re: Omegle 2009-2023

#487

Post by WesolyKubeczek »

yawpitch wrote: post #397
silenced_trope wrote: post #235

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When judges do their job, you the accused have due process and legal representation. I specified my issue (aspergers) for a reason. I would need legal and competent representation if I were accused of something. We know from people that have actually consented to be in the public sphere (politicians, performers, etc) that even denying an accusation against you still leaves you a pariah with the scarlet letter, to be…

He wasn’t being accused of a criminal act, ergo he didn’t need legal representation on hand. He was being asked by a professional journalist for a world-renowned publishing source why he wasn’t doing more as the responsible officer to keep his company’s product from putting children into harms way in exactly the way his product was designed to perform… he had neither any right to avoid being questioned nor any real i…

Answer me honestly, have you stopped beating your spouse yet? Yes or no answers only accepted.

Re: Omegle 2009-2023

#489

Post by buffalobuffalo »

JellyYelly wrote: post #475
buffalobuffalo wrote: post #462

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It used webRTC, at least in the early days. Same as Chat Roulette. That was why it was able to scale the way it did.

How? WebRTC came out in 2011 and wasn't even widely supported in web browsers until years later. Omegle came out in 2009, and launched video in 2010.

Ah, you're right. The video chat was definitely p2p though, I remember reading about it when it came out. I just tried to check what p2p video chat implementations were available back then, but no luck. Maybe a java plugin?

Re: Omegle 2009-2023

#490

Post by dragonwriter »

mrighele wrote: post #459
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…

In the US, about 40'000 people die every year in a traffic accident, yet using public roads for free is still a thing, and only the people that actually caused the accident are to blame. If you think that victims of a "catastrophic event" need compensation, why not propose to institute a mandatory insurance for people using the Internet, like many countries do for cars ? (I am assuming here that the website is not ac…

> In the US, about 40'000 people die every year in a traffic accident, yet using public roads for free is still a thing

Its really not; user fees in the form of driver's license fees, vehicle license fees (both of which tend to be legally required for operation on public roads in most US jurisdictions), federal and state gasoline taxes, etc., are used to pay for use of public roads, as well as general fund taxes which are directed to roads (making even the indirect use of roads by ordering goods, etc., not really free.)

Post reply on HN