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

751–760 of 1001 posts

Re: Omegle 2009-2023

#751

Post by cy_hauser »

JoeAltmaier wrote: post #727
cryptoegorophy wrote: post #725

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ah, “for the children”. The best argument there is to deprive you of all the rights possible.

Really? We want to protect the rights of pedophiles? Where could this argument be going.

Nobody but you is suggesting we protect the rights of pedophiles. This argument is going where it always goes ... as the author pointed out. There are bad people in the world. They make up a small percentage of the population. You don't change society as a whole based on the behavior of these bad people. You do what is reasonable and within your ability. Did you even read article? By your logic would you allow the Catholic church to exist? They were literally protecting pedophiles for years.

Re: Omegle 2009-2023

#752

Post by Tijdreiziger »

buf wrote: post #664
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…

I'm not sure exactly the tech community needs to own up to. Allowing an 11 year old who has irresponsible parents to use the internet? Do tech companies need to verify government issued IDs to register new users?

In some countries: yes.

https://www.wired.co.uk/article/gaming-china-crackdown

Re: Omegle 2009-2023

#753

Post by wizzwizz4 »

op00to wrote: post #702
joenot443 wrote: post #675

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

With websites, you can have one person serving ten million people, and support that on a single income. With bars, you can only fit about a hundred people in, and enough of them have to be paying customers that you can afford to keep the bar running – but that also means you can physically look at everyone's identification papers.

Re: Omegle 2009-2023

#754

Post by pwython »

lukeholder wrote: post #258
wycy wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The loss of Harry Mack’s Omegle Bars was the first thing that came to mind for me.

He was retiring the series at 100 episodes anyway, but yeah a sad day.

Wow, he finished that just in time (ep 100 was released just last week).

Re: Omegle 2009-2023

#755

Post by simian1983 »

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…

Ahh the first days of Web 2.0. Reminds me of http://ytmnd.com You’re the man now, dog!

Re: Omegle 2009-2023

#756

Post by bastawhiz »

RagnarD wrote: post #166
bastawhiz wrote: post #57

Omegle has fewer than 30 employees, according to some sites online. I can't help but wonder whether having a more robust ops and legal team would have prevented this outcome. Founders shouldn't feel like they're going to have a heart attack at 30 if they've hired the right size of team. One (probably frivolous) lawsuit for a nearly 15-year-old company shouldn't be existential.

One is fewer than 30. Did he have any? How was he making money at all?

Job review sites suggest he's had many employees over the years. Potentially over 200.

Re: Omegle 2009-2023

#757

Post by op00to »

wizzwizz4 wrote: post #753
op00to wrote: post #702

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

With websites, you can have one person serving ten million people, and support that on a single income. With bars, you can only fit about a hundred people in, and enough of them have to be paying customers that you can afford to keep the bar running – but that also means you can physically look at everyone's identification papers.

If you can’t validate the age of the people using Omegle, perhaps the service is not appropriate to exist.

Re: Omegle 2009-2023

#758

Post by op00to »

ouEight12 wrote: post #745
op00to wrote: post #705

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> A park is in public view. > A library is in public view. And yet heinous acts of abuse/violence/etc have occurred in both. By your logic, we should pave all the parks and burn down the libraries.

How many sex crimes are reported in your local park? Hundreds of thousands were reported to Omegle.

Re: Omegle 2009-2023

#759

Post by usrbinbash »

sublimefire wrote: post #634
low_tech_love wrote: post #568

Maybe I’m wrong, but my impression is that it has been a living-dead service for many years already. I’m old enough to remember when it was actually exciting to use Omegle and chat roulette, but I’ve tried on and off for many years now and my impression is that, even at the slight chance that you got someone other than a naked horny weirdo, nobody was really paying attention to the conversation or interested in anyth…

Multiple years ago it was something to us - something new. There are too many people who do not care about it (similar services) these days, people are born with the internet and just take it for granted. Another analogy could be the gas car industry. We just look at it differently nowadays, we prioritize pollution and do not think much of the fact that you could easily travel around the world in any of these gas guz…

> yet many want to just kill it off.

That's not because we take what cars can do for granted, it's because individual traffic is a major contributor to the mechanism that is actively killing our habitat. That isn't an opinion, it's a proven, peer reviewed, often-challenged-never-falsified fact.

And no, EVs will not make that better. They are just a different instance of the same problem.

So yes, we do want to "kill off" cars. Not because we take them for granted, but because they suck as an idea, have always sucked as an idea, and will always suck as an idea, no matter how they are powered.

Re: Omegle 2009-2023

#760

Post by virtualritz »

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.

The issue is the definition of 'better'. If you think access to food, medication, education, higher life expectancy, then yes.

IMHO though, a more fitting defition of 'better' for the human condition is the amount of happiness you experience while being alife (i.e. decoupled from life expectancy).

I would then conclude (and I am really happy to be proved wrong) that the developed world being/becoming better is considerably more difficult to argue for.

Depression and sucidides in first world countries, the ones that tick all the intial boxes, are a highs not experienced since WWII. [1] is just from a quick googling and US-only. You won't have trouble finding much more evidence to support this though, for many other 1st world countries.

I would bet there is a direct link to this; between making GPD the driving factor for a country's governance vs. e.g. happiness of its citizens. Look no further than Scandinavian countries (Norway is the exeption, not declining but at least also not increasing)[2].

[1] https://time.com/5609124/us-suicide-rate-increase/

[2] https://tidsskriftet.no/en/2019/08/kronikk/why-suicide-rate-...

Post reply on HN