Earlier quoted context omitted.
How would that work? The public wouldn't know anything about anything unless a judge convicted someone.
[flagged]
Fascinating. Could you link me to the court documents on Pacer?
Omegle 2009-2023
41–50 of 1001 posts
Re: Omegle 2009-2023
#42Re: Omegle 2009-2023
#43[deleted]
Re: Omegle 2009-2023
#44Re: Omegle 2009-2023
#45Earlier quoted context omitted.
What happened to her is tragic. However, I don’t think warnings or age verification would change anything. Kids are going to do things regardless if there is a warning or age verification system. I think the best thing we can do for our children is talk to them, and to start talking to them early.
You can do both. Not everyone will talk to their kids (lots of both useless and under resourced parents out there), and guardrails are possible, so best to not throw up our hands and say "welp, the world is just a terrible place." "There is a cost" or "I don't want to" are not reasonable excuses, depending on use case and regulatory regime you're operating under. It sucks, but there are many terrible people out there…
Your own link talks about the many downsides, not least of which entrenching the idea that website owners regularly demand government id from their users. No possible downsides to that...
Re: Omegle 2009-2023
#46Earlier quoted context omitted.
How would that work? The public wouldn't know anything about anything unless a judge convicted someone.
[flagged]
That really sucks; I would have guessed the standard of evidence would be lower than 'conviction of a crime'. Why a default judgment? And where do you live?
Re: Omegle 2009-2023
#47Earlier quoted context omitted.
You can do both. Not everyone will talk to their kids (lots of both useless and under resourced parents out there), and guardrails are possible, so best to not throw up our hands and say "welp, the world is just a terrible place." "There is a cost" or "I don't want to" are not reasonable excuses, depending on use case and regulatory regime you're operating under. It sucks, but there are many terrible people out there…
Your own link talks about the many downsides, not least of which entrenching the idea that website owners regularly demand government id from their users. No possible downsides to that...
There are always tradeoffs. There is no law that says website owners cannot demand ID already. We might have different belief systems and perspectives on the topic of safety and privacy as it relates to non adults and Internet accessibility, in which case we won't find middle ground. It happens. Democracy is messy. I encourage engagement regardless of your position on the topic. That is how we find (or at least attempt to) the least worst policy.
Re: Omegle 2009-2023
#48Earlier quoted context omitted.
What happened to her is tragic. However, I don’t think warnings or age verification would change anything. Kids are going to do things regardless if there is a warning or age verification system. I think the best thing we can do for our children is talk to them, and to start talking to them early.
Basic age verification is pretty easy, no? I’m not sure about the details but this seems like a pretty low bar for a site like this. Not that I’m advocating it be required but just that if it were me I would not make something like this without at least making the best possible attempt at age verification.
How is age verification easy?
Re: Omegle 2009-2023
#49Earlier quoted context omitted.
Your own link talks about the many downsides, not least of which entrenching the idea that website owners regularly demand government id from their users. No possible downsides to that...
There are always tradeoffs. There is no law that says website owners cannot demand ID already. We might have different belief systems and perspectives on the topic of safety and privacy as it relates to non adults and Internet accessibility, in which case we won't find middle ground. It happens. Democracy is messy. I encourage engagement regardless of your position on the topic. That is how we find (or at least attem…
That's a facile handwaving of some pretty large ones.
Re: Omegle 2009-2023
#50Earlier quoted context omitted.
This used to be exactly what the EFF and ACLU were for.
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…
Framing this as "what about the children" is an easy way to attack just about anything that's not strictly top-down from some large corporate vendor.
On the other hand, I do wonder if "talk to strangers" is indeed a reasonable model. Our brains form largely on the basis of neurons talking and connecting to strangers. Clearly that model works there. But then again the neurons are simple (relatively) cells with much more cohesive goals and behavior, while humans are complex entities with behavior ranging from the cooperative to the ghastly predatorial.
Ultimately it seems any such service can't be anonymous. Talk to strangers... fine. But you need to register first, with your name, face, age, and meet consequences for what you're doing on the service, if your intent is less than noble. Alas this takes people and money which Omegle apparently didn't have.