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

551–560 of 1001 posts

Re: Omegle 2009-2023

#551

Post by GaryNumanVevo »

kr0bat wrote: post #274
userbinator wrote: post #88

This brings back some amazing memories. If I remember correctly, the original inspiration for Omegle came from 4chan; or more precisely, a user thought of stretching the limits of "anonymous free speech" to realtime communications, and came up with the idea in late 2007. The PoC server for it was nothing more than "telnet to this IP" and it was sporadically advertised on 4chan for a short while. Astonishingly, Google…

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…

On an anonymous website, that's the only differentiator

Re: Omegle 2009-2023

#552

Post by JW_00000 »

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?

I expect at least some kids to be scared off by this.

The BBC article above states that Omegle is being mentioned in 50 pedophilia cases in the last 2 years. If 20% of kids would be scared to click "I'm older than 13", that would be 10 cases fewer.

Re: Omegle 2009-2023

#553

Post by Emma_Goldman »

eru wrote: post #419
maegul wrote: post #332

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> it's turtles all the way down with nostalgia. And yet golden eras do occur, or so it would seem. I’m sure it’s hard to tell when you’re in or near one, which is an interesting topic in its own right, but it doesn’t mean we should dismiss outright the possibility that a passing era might just be taking something truly valuable with it.

Even a non-golden era can have something truly valuable. Btw, we are living in a golden age. The vast majority of humanity has never had it better.

That's a bit simplistic.

If you haven't noticed, advanced economies are experiencing secularly stagnating growth, a crisis of democratic representation and its populist backlash, the return of oligarchic inequality to levels not seen since the gilded age, and extreme social atomisation and mental health breakdown.

We are also all hurtling towards catastrophic climate change, an AI revolution that could lead to generalised technological unemployment, and some indeterminate level of conflict between the US and China.

Unsurprisingly, therefore, most people in advanced economies look back on the post-war decades as a golden age - obviously there were problems, but there was high growth, full employment, good public services, strong unions, and comparatively cheap housing. Others look back to the 1990s as a time of untroubled horizons.

Also, the global 'we' is unhelpful. Have native Americans, Syrians or Greeks never had it so good?

Re: Omegle 2009-2023

#554

Post by sgift »

mikeyouse wrote: post #483
taurath wrote: post #470

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That comparison hinges on having to click "yes, I'm over 13" being more of a fence+sign than a "tiny" text saying you should only use the website if you are 13 or older. I'm sure some lawyer will argue that's the case - since I'm not one: Sounds rather flimsy.

Re: Omegle 2009-2023

#555

Post by Blahah »

rnk wrote: post #425
Blahah wrote: post #103

Gives me chills, that was so heartfelt and raw. Hurt on all sides, but this is a bit like losing access to a public space because someone committed crimes there. One of the greatest things Omegle enabled is this... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HhzHV9QD0Is (Harry Mack freestyling for random Omegle matches, it was a series of 90+ episodes and brought me and others so much joy during COVID)

Thanks so much for posting that. I hadn't ever come across Harry Mack. That guy is fantastic. And he gave so much happiness to those people he was rapping for! Just seeing all the delight on their faces gave me a tear in my eye. There's a lot of lonely people in the world, and for a moment, he improved their lives. We need better ways to connect; today I can VC with anyone in the world in a second, but we don't know…

So happy you've discovered it! In every single video in the series he lifts up a bunch of people who are struggling in a really personal, memorable, inspiring way. I reckon he's saved a few lives (at least).

Re: Omegle 2009-2023

#556

Post by IshKebab »

4star3star wrote: post #389
unethical_ban wrote: post #354

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I find it hard to be polite to people who try to blame the world around them for their poor luck and poor parenting.

What happened to the plaintiff was really messed up, but I don't see how it's the site's problem. Suppose you answer a newspaper personal ad, meet up with the person and get all your limbs chopped off. Yeah, that fucking sucks, but we're not about to shut down the newspaper.

Maybe... But if this is a real problem with Omegle (the article mentions that it is a common grooming platform) then it's not like there's nothing they could do. Did it even have age verification?

On balance I still think Omegle should win the case, but I don't think it's entirely without merit.

Re: Omegle 2009-2023

#557

Post by johnnyanmac »

4star3star wrote: post #389
unethical_ban wrote: post #354

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I find it hard to be polite to people who try to blame the world around them for their poor luck and poor parenting.

What happened to the plaintiff was really messed up, but I don't see how it's the site's problem. Suppose you answer a newspaper personal ad, meet up with the person and get all your limbs chopped off. Yeah, that fucking sucks, but we're not about to shut down the newspaper.

my thoughts exactly. I don't understand why people are so hasty to blame any and all tangentially related to societal issues. But it happens all the time for websites who exist and let people post content.

Re: Omegle 2009-2023

#558

Post by dheera »

andrepd wrote: post #525
dheera wrote: post #516

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe we should create a DeFi version of this that doesn't have an owner and can't be sued. Things like Omegle should be likened to an empty grass field in the middle of town, with nobody responsible for what actually happens on it except the people who choose to be there.

This is a bad take on several levels. First the de-fi angle. You want a distributed application, no need to shoehorn crypto into there. But second and most important: the ultralibertarian angle of "you chose to be there so you take respinsabolity for whatever happens to you" is also not good. For one, there's children. For another, moderation and law enforcement is a good thing. Whatever replaces omegle will almost c…

> You want a distributed application

What would incentivize a huge number of people to run a decentralized and distributed application so that it actually continues to run? (Hint: the hope of a coin mooning)

Re: Omegle 2009-2023

#559

Post by vintermann »

mikeyouse wrote: post #481
notimetorelax wrote: post #468

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What does this accomplish?

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

Yes, obviously, but what does it prevent in terms of the outcome we care about, i.e child abuse?

We shouldn't just take zealous well-paid lawyers as a fact of nature. If those "defense against lawsuits"-actions actually don't make a difference in terms of reducing child abuse, then we should not let them make a difference in the legal system either.

Re: Omegle 2009-2023

#560

Post by Emma_Goldman »

peyton wrote: post #512
eru wrote: post #419

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even a non-golden era can have something truly valuable. Btw, we are living in a golden age. The vast majority of humanity has never had it better.

Maybe you’re thinking of a “gilded age” in the sense of Twain. The Golden Age of Hesiod and Ovid was defined by peace and justice amongst a golden race. It’s about ideals and peace rather than material prosperity. The metals debase from gold to silver to bronze to iron as conflict increases and the social contract breaks.

'Golden age' is typically used to mean a historic age of comparative greatness from which society has since fallen.

See the idiomatic vs. the mythological meaning on Wiktionary:

https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/golden_age

Post reply on HN