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

701–710 of 1001 posts

Re: Omegle 2009-2023

#701

Post by MrGilbert »

terryf wrote: post #532
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

Yes, 100 times yes. This is one of the big issues with the modern world, that no risk at all is acceptable. And that's bullshit. So many things that are enormous amounts of fun can get shut down because maybe someone gets slightly hurt some time or whatever. Should we make things safe? yes, of course. But the trade off should not be "if there is any risk at all, then no". It should be made clear that risk exists and…

I'm honestly surprised that I'm still allowed to put myself on two wheels with an engine in between, and ride down the autobahn at an insane amount of speed.

Re: Omegle 2009-2023

#702

Post by op00to »

joenot443 wrote: post #675
op00to wrote: post #645

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> a bit like losing access to a public space It's more like losing access to a bar that allowed random people to meet in private rooms, and didn't check they weren't giving access to minors, and didn't check inside the private rooms to prevent sexual abuse.

And so now they’ll have to choose one of the other, even seedier bars. The kids aren’t any better off. You’ve made a poor analogy, though, since obviously it’s very trivial for a bar to validate age at the door. If such a thing were easy for Omegle to do, I’m sure they would.

If it’s trivial for a bar to validate, why not the same for a web site?

Re: Omegle 2009-2023

#703

Post by [deleted] »

lettergram wrote: post #201

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 indiv…

[deleted]

Re: Omegle 2009-2023

#704

Post by nottorp »

joenot443 wrote: post #680
throwaway290 wrote: post #624

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Twitter, Facebook, Gmail, Telegram, WhatsApp, Zoom and all those companies with UGC have this, responsible ones report it (Meta does lots, not sure Twitter does anymore, Telegram never did). > I don't get how they can sue Omegle for this. Take it as a sign that if tech community doesn't wake up and own up to this and try to solve the issue somehow then not just individual services but the entire idea of e2ee messagin…

Orders of magnitude more grooming and misconduct is done over SMS than was ever done over Omegle. Is it up to telecom engineers to “wake up” and own that they’re facilitating this abuse? It seems like one of those finger pointing cases which falls apart when any level of scrutiny is applied.

They probably couldn't afford to sue a mobile phone provider :)

But some ambulance chasing lawyer told them they have a chance to win in this case.

Re: Omegle 2009-2023

#705

Post by op00to »

ferfumarma wrote: post #700
op00to wrote: post #645

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> a bit like losing access to a public space It's more like losing access to a bar that allowed random people to meet in private rooms, and didn't check they weren't giving access to minors, and didn't check inside the private rooms to prevent sexual abuse.

Why? Anything on Omegle could happen in a park. Or a library. Omegle can't keep kids off their platform: their parents need to.

A park is in public view.

A library is in public view.

Omegle was in private, away from public view.

No one needs to keep anyone off Omegle now, it is gone.

Re: Omegle 2009-2023

#706

Post by subjectsigma »

thrawn0r wrote: post #594

More specific information about why its closing down are lawsuits of groomed minors. press coverage of 1 case: https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-64618791

That video would be hilarious if it wasn’t so sad.

The reporters literally camped outside this guys house, ran across his lawn shouting at him, chased him to his door, and immediately accused him of harming children. Then the scene cuts to the reporter describing that as a “civil conversation”.

Re: Omegle 2009-2023

#708

Post by Ensorceled »

fineIllregister wrote: post #299
specialp wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They have changed their direction considerably since 2016. The cases they take on now tend not to align with an absolutist stance on freedom of speech and due process. When Trump got elected, donations poured in to them amd they made a pretty clear turn to liberal causes. I think the days that they would defend the speech of deeply unpopular viewpoints on free speech grounds are over. This is their plea for donations…

> When Trump got elected, donations poured in to them amd they made a pretty clear turn to liberal causes. I think the days that they would defend the speech of deeply unpopular viewpoints on free speech grounds are over. Hard to square this assessment with the last news item I caught about the ACLU: fighting a gag order against Donald Trump on free speech grounds.

This is the pretty standard issue of, as the US drifts further and further to the right, anyone who stays relatively stable is now accused of being liberal or leftist.
Post reply on HN