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

871–880 of 1001 posts

Re: Omegle 2009-2023

#871

Post by [deleted] »

eru wrote: post #247
ijustlovemath wrote: post #198

This is devastating. I have so many fond memories of meeting fellow weirdos over text. The days where StumbleUpon always took you somewhere exciting, cool, beautiful, interesting, funny, or novel. Where you looked at what people did with The Web 2.0 and only marveled at the possibilities of what could come. Truly feels like the death of one of the old guard, a Usenet-of-the-2010s. I even used it during pandemic times…

> Where you looked at what people did with The Web 2.0 and only marveled at the possibilities of what could come. Truly feels like the death of one of the old guard, a Usenet-of-the-2010s. This is funny to me, because I am old enough to remember when web 2.0 was new, and people were nostalgic for 'web 1.0'. (And, of course, it's turtles all the way down with nostalgia.)

[deleted]

Re: Omegle 2009-2023

#872

Post by master-lincoln »

nicky0 wrote: post #602
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.

Materially, we've never had it better. Spiritually, we are in a deep crisis.

Depends on your definition of "we" There are regions where the opposite happened. E.g. native tribes who were expelled for resources

Re: Omegle 2009-2023

#873

Post by [deleted] »

dcow wrote: post #869

Is there a specific political action group or organization behind the pressure Omegle received that isn’t being called out? Or is it just that the general social context has enabled people across the board to attack more freedoms more successfully. If anything I think the pendulum is slowly starting to swing back but maybe not on the “for the children” front.

[deleted]

Re: Omegle 2009-2023

#875

Post by balls187 »

huseyinkeles wrote: post #623
justsid wrote: post #286

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I didn’t use Omegle much, but I actually met my now wife on there. We used the text only thing where a third person suggests a topic. Must’ve talked for a good 2 hours on there before exchanging informations, I shudder thinking that even the smallest glitch could have changed my life so drastically. We met 11 years ago on the platform, a completely random fluke. And while I haven’t really used Omegle in a long time,…

Think about all the infinite numbers of glitches that happened in the past and prevented you to meet other possible wives :)

I tell my wife that she and I always end up together in every multiverse, including the one where our relationship somehow causes that universe to collapse on itself (also that’s the same one where Hacker News is implemented as ASP.Net app)

Re: Omegle 2009-2023

#876

Post by dragonwriter »

s1artibartfast wrote: post #533
dragonwriter wrote: post #490

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 whic…

I think you are missing the point intentionally. I have seen you make many cogent points over the years, but this is just low effort failure to engage. Regular drivers aren't collectively paying for the damages of drunk drivers. Neither is the state because they built the roads.

> Regular drivers aren't collectively paying for the damages of drunk drivers.

Not, primarily, via payment to the state for using the road, true.

They do, however, pay for liability of general road rules violations, instead, through mandatory insurance, also a general legal requirement for using public roads, though you can opt out from the risk pooling nature of insurance in most (all?) states by assuring (via a personal liability bond) that you will pay for the damages you cause up to the threshold amount of required coverage.

Public road use simply isn't something that is cost free with the idea that “well, a bunch of people will be damaged, but there is no need to assure that those damages are reasonably covered because other people will benefit”, it has lots of costs associated with use, and a number of them (both the licensing regime and the insurance regime) are about limiting harms even at the expense of potential beneficial use and assuring compensation is available for those that are harmed. Yes, its an elaborate and different regime than paying to the supplier who pays for damages, but a regime exists, so its hardly an example of how no such regime is necessary for a service that has benefits for most users and acute harms for some.

Re: Omegle 2009-2023

#877

Post by concordDance »

fkyoureadthedoc wrote: post #739
concordDance wrote: post #718

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A large portion of commentators here greatly dislike the idea of unmonitored interactions between humans. Their ideal is that every person's cellphone continuously records nearby conversations and sends them to the police where they can run large language models to provide a shortlist of dangerous communications that a policeman can then look at and charge for.

We all know this is not true, not even close. Read through the comments here, there's a clear overwhelming majority opinion blaming the family rather than the company. Even beyond this post, I've never seen this called for on this site. You are in a clear majority position but still pretend to be persecuted and victimized by an imagined boogeyman.

I agree I'm in the majority here on hackernews, but I'm also in the minority in my country (the UK) given the monitoring provisions now required by social media companies and where private communication of ideas between individuals is punishable[1].

[1] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-67331657

Re: Omegle 2009-2023

#878

Post by DoingSomeThings »

_eric wrote: post #733
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)

His Omegle 100[0] video is one of the best one yet, Harry is a legend. [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ijVGIcVRIbk

There's an interesting progression watching him over time. While his technical ability has dramatically improved, so too has the engagement. Now you start to get more clips of people saying "Wait. I've seen you on Youtube/TikTok". Love his journey.

Re: Omegle 2009-2023

#880

Post by sfn42 »

bobsmooth wrote: post #123
ajsnigrutin wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The nazis, or free speech and freedom of assmbly?

A Nazi's right to free speech and assembly, yes.

Nazis are people, and being a nazi is not a crime. Until they commit some sort of crime they should be afforded all the same basic human rights and freedoms as everyone else. That's just basic common sense.
Post reply on HN