Live data from Hacker News

Omegle: "How I got the dangerous chat site closed down"

bbc.co.uk

41–50 of 58 posts

Re: Omegle: "How I got the dangerous chat site closed down"

#41
post #13

It never ceases to disturb me when an individual expresses pride in censoring something legal out of existence. This isn't an isolated case either, there are numerous individuals, deserving of even less sympathy, engaged in the gleeful destruction of the web and net neutrality.

[flagged]

No, that's not fair. They're almost never in it for the money.

The people who orchestrate this stuff are exploiters who look for people who've been hurt by some experience, and use them to further their political causes and perhaps their careers. Usually, by looking for people who've been hurt, these exploiters of course end up finding the people who are, at least at some particular time and place, most susceptible to being hurt by such an experience. So they end up with extreme cases.

I guess you could say the people they recruit are "weak willed", but that's both unproductive and mostly wrong. It makes it sound like they're profoundly different from everybody else, and they're not. People's reactions to experiences are conditional on all kinds of things. You can be "weak willed" one day and not on another. And if you think you're unconditionally "strong willed", you're probably deluding yourself.

Anyway, the exploiters groom the victims they find into feeling more hurt, into self-perpetuating obsessions over it, and into usually-not-very-productive ways of trying to deal with those. They increase both their sense of victimization and their actual victimhood, and they work to amplify the whole thing until it's life-consuming. They encourage the victims to believe they can get vindication and "closure" by filing lawsuits, or by putting on a show for the media or in front of legislators, or whatever else is convenient.

Maybe the worst part is that the exploiters mostly don't even realize they're exploiters. And many of them started out as victims themselves.

Re: Omegle: "How I got the dangerous chat site closed down"

#43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

She should be you is what you're saying?

Well, she should probably have avoided letting insane political campaigners "counsel" her about how to feel about it or serve as her "support network". They are systematic exploiters who are in the business of turning non-traumatic experiences traumatic, turning traumatic experiences ultra-traumatic, and using people as political and media pawns. If you've already been manipulated, they're ready and willing to manipu…

Who gets to determine which experiences are traumatic and which aren't?

Re: Omegle: "How I got the dangerous chat site closed down"

#44
post #28
post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I rather ban children of the internet and have the parents be liable for what ever happens to their children if they still go online. Children didn’t have access to the internet for thousands of years and they survived.

What happens if a child uses a computer at a friend's house to go online and something bad happens? Is it still the child's parents who are liable, or would it be the parents of the friend who are liable? What about a public computer like at a library? Banning children from the internet would probably require any computer that a child might obtain access to to be locked down and verify that an adult is using it befor…

My children visit their friend's houses where I am sure there is beer in the fridge, guns (hopefully) in the gun safe, dangerous cleaning solvents in the garage, and perhaps other things I'm not even aware of. It is not insane to expect adults to manage the things in their houses and secure them appropriately when kids are present. And while there is certainly a possibility that some people may screw some of these things up from time to time even to deleterious result I'd still rather leave this responsibility in the hands of local adults than have to present ID to open my fridge.

Re: Omegle: "How I got the dangerous chat site closed down"

#45
post #37
post #3

Interesting, product liability suits will cause app operators to actually respond differently, instead of ignoring the suit hoping it goes away under section 230. I think this more likely gets Congress to expand section 230 to improve the shield, before working on the exceptions again

I admire your optimism. The only times section 230 has been brought up on the hill in the last decade as been in, admittedly performative and doomed to fail, calls to get rid of it entirely.

SOSTA and FESTA passed with ease in 2018 or so

I expect using it as political futbol needs it to be impervious as is, I think they patch it and continue using it as political futbol

Re: Omegle: "How I got the dangerous chat site closed down"

#46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, she should probably have avoided letting insane political campaigners "counsel" her about how to feel about it or serve as her "support network". They are systematic exploiters who are in the business of turning non-traumatic experiences traumatic, turning traumatic experiences ultra-traumatic, and using people as political and media pawns. If you've already been manipulated, they're ready and willing to manipu…

Who gets to determine which experiences are traumatic and which aren't?

"Traumatic" is a hard concept to nail down, but if it's useful at all, the victim has to decide what's traumatic in the end.

The thing is that the victim doesn't live in a vacuum. Anybody can be manipulated.

These people latch onto people who've had certain experiences... experiences that are often confusing... and also sometimes traumatic... and most often involve having been treated like crap in a major way by at least one hardcore asshole.

They usually go for those who've had the most extreme experiences, and already feel traumatized... and who have the least idea of how to approach that on their own. Then they manipulate those people. The word "groom" is not necessarily inapt.

If you don't have a strong social support network, or one that will help you with this taboo issue, then they'll give you a network. It'll be one where everybody sees things their way. They'll seem surprised, and maybe just a little disappointed, if you don't naturally buy in to most of their ideas. You'll get a ready-made set of supportive friends... at least as long as you follow the party line.

If you need a way to relate to the experience, or to part of the experience, they'll offer you an already built up, self-reinforcing framework of ideas and even feelings. They mostly truly believe that framework themselves. And of course it fits their agenda.

For the ways that you already feel damaged, they'll encourage you to nurse your sense of harm. No adjective is too extreme.

If you don't feel very damaged by some aspect they think "should" feel damaging, then they won't easily take you at your word. They'll believe, and probably tell you, and definitely silently telegraph, that you're in denial. If it's not on your mind, you're repressing it and "everybody's worried about you" (or some similar angle). Sure, you get to pick the things you feel most hurt by, but you'll won't find it easy to get away with completely shrugging off anything at all.

In every part of how you think about your experience, they'll encourage attitudes that maximize your perception of the damage. The mind being what it is, that increases the actual damage. If the victim decides what trauma is, then in at least in some part the perception of trauma is trauma. They amplify trauma.

Then we get to how you're meant to deal with that trauma.

They'll say, as a rote recitation, that everybody deals with these things differently, and they're unlikely to give you a bunch of commands. But the ways they'll assume and expect are normal or praiseworthy will be ways that match their agenda.

... and the one thing you don't ever get to do is to decide you're over it. You're persona non grata if you do that. To be truly healed is to be shunned.

They'll encourage you to make the whole thing a major part of your identity... and more so if you want to stay in the core of the club. That often comes in the form of a strange contradictory view, where you define yourself as somebody who refuses to be defined as a victim. Which still defines you as a victim, but in a way you won't have to notice.

If you've truly been hurt (heck, even if you hadn't been hurt), there are usually plenty of people you can legitimately blame. They'll try to concentrate your blame on the people they want to use it against. And they won't easily let any blame go to waste; transgressors must be punished! Or at least ritually vilified. You can always come up with a reason why somebody is even worse than you thought.

They'll "love bomb" you and bury you in praise if you get behind their public agenda. If you don't, you'll get a sort of "Oh, well, I guess it's OK. Not everybody's strong enough to fight the forces of evil and be an inspiring, luminous survivor advocate like Mary over here".

... and they'll encourage you to do all that to the next person who comes along.

You can watch them do this just by reading the news, and once you look for it, you can see it in the things they say in blogs, social media, and random comments.

Re: Omegle: "How I got the dangerous chat site closed down"

#47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who gets to determine which experiences are traumatic and which aren't?

"Traumatic" is a hard concept to nail down, but if it's useful at all, the victim has to decide what's traumatic in the end. The thing is that the victim doesn't live in a vacuum. Anybody can be manipulated. These people latch onto people who've had certain experiences... experiences that are often confusing... and also sometimes traumatic... and most often involve having been treated like crap in a major way by at l…

That's a thorough explanation as an outside, but what do you suppose it feels like as an insider?

Re: Omegle: "How I got the dangerous chat site closed down"

#48
post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Omegle had the obligation to protect their users, specially if they are minors. It lacked the tools and the moderation. I'm glad it is gone.

No it shouldn't have any such obligation, because it explicitly stated minors were not to enter on its front page. Do you expect car manufacturers to make driving safe for children too?

Yes, they should. The moment they don't allow minors in their site they have to implement the measures to enforce it.

Omegle became a safe haven for pedophiles and sex predators, and they are responsable for enabling them and not protecting their users.

There are other chat and video-chat sites that not only enforce their rules, they protect their users and ban those who don't follow the rules.

No, don't expect that from car manufacturers, they make cars not rules. Omegle, instead, made 'the car' and the rule not allowing minors in the site to avoid their responsibilities by law. They didn't enforce that rule and endangered them.

Re: Omegle: "How I got the dangerous chat site closed down"

#49
post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Omegle had the obligation to protect their users, specially if they are minors. It lacked the tools and the moderation. I'm glad it is gone.

What kind of tools and moderation would have been effective? Genuinely curious to hear perspectives.

The same ones that Discord or Zoom have.

Re: Omegle: "How I got the dangerous chat site closed down"

#50
post #23
post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Omegle had the obligation to protect their users, specially if they are minors. It lacked the tools and the moderation. I'm glad it is gone.

The only people who are at blame are the pedophile and the terrible parents of the girl.

And Omegle for enabling and creating a safe haven for pedophiles.
Post reply on HN