8 ms·

What "attacks" is he referring to?

by Laaas 3y ago

veeti 3y ago
"Omegle: Suing the website that matched me with my abuser" https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-64618791 https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-64618791
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- willk 3y ago
  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.
  - toomuchtodo 3y ago
    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. Hopefully the EFF and ACLU can work to balance out regulation from government in this space. (what sites access is gated by age is a distinct conversation) https://www.theverge.com/23721306/online-age-verification-privacy-laws-child-safety https://www.theverge.com/23721306/online-age-verification-pr... https://www.theverge.com/2022/12/5/23494175/facebook-dating-ai-face-scanning-age-verification-expansion-yoti https://www.theverge.com/2022/12/5/23494175/facebook-dating-... https://www.yoti.com/wp-content/uploads/Yoti-Age-Estimation-White-Paper-March-2023.pdf https://www.yoti.com/wp-content/uploads/Yoti-Age-Estimation-...
    - mindslight 3y ago
      It's not "the world is just a terrible place", but rather "the world inevitably has things that kids cannot handle". If you want digital entertainment for your kids, then seek out products which explicitly offer this. The unfettered Internet is a less appropriate babysitter than a red light district. And talking about "age verification" as if it's some straightforward addition is an utterly dishonest framing. The core idea of the distributed Internet is the barest of communication which further complexity/policy can be layered on top of. "Age verification" actually implies the much more draconian and chilling meatspace identity verification. Nobody has a problem with a DigitalKidsPlayLand which performs identity verification, strictly curates/moderates content, and escrows all activity for later review. It's this push to legally require such things for everyone, based on some idea that everything needs to be made kid-safe, that is horribly authoritarian and needs to be soundly rejected.
    - x0x0 3y ago
      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...
      - toomuchtodo 3y ago
        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.
        x0x0 3y ago
        That's a facile handwaving of some pretty large ones.
        deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
  - rvcdbn 3y ago
    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.
    - x0x0 3y ago
      How is age verification easy?
      - tyingq 3y ago
        "I’m not sure about the details"
      - adamomada 3y ago
        Why isn’t having an “over 18?” checkbox enough to have lawsuits brought by children (at the time or later) thrown out unceremoniously?
        fl0id 3y ago
        Because that’s not really verification, probably.
        lazide 3y ago
        Because kids can check checkboxes no problem? And it’s not even a real attempt at verification? Is this a real question? If someone showed up at a bar, would a bouncer accept that?
        adamomada 3y ago
        It’s because the cops can show up and demand ID from everyone inside, they have to make sure everyone has one. In this case, they have no obligation to ensure everyone has ID on their person. Can you sue a bar you used fake ID to get into? My real question wasn’t if there are kids on the system or not, but why are they allowed to sue when they themselves and nobody else have lied about the age verification question?
- echelon 3y ago
  > As a young girl, Alice (not her real name) logged on to the popular live video chat website, Omegle, and was randomly paired with a paedophile, who coerced her into becoming a digital sex slave. Nearly 10 years later the young American is suing Omegle in a landmark case that could pave the way for a wave of lawsuits against other social platforms. This is fucked. We shouldn't have to put safety padding on everything as a stand-in for something parents are supposed to do, ie. being responsible for their brood. Should we put inflatable balloons around people because cars and high velocity objects exist that we can collide with? Should we ban kitchen knives because they're sharp? Asphyxiation is the leading method of teen suicide. Should we stop selling plastic, rope, and anything that fits around a neck and/or head?
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - wolverine876 3y ago
    We do implement many things that protect people, sometimes children in particular. They aren't perfect, but they can prevent a lot of damage. The question, as usual, isn't all or nothing. It's what can we do that will meet all the criteria as best possible: not infringe on freedoms, reduce harm, be affordable, etc.
    - bogota 3y ago
      100% agree i think the bigger issue is at least in the US and many other countries we have lost all faith that the people making those choices will do so in a responsible or ethical manner. Essentially we lost faith in the system and I don’t think it will ever come back. So where do we go from here?
      - wolverine876 3y ago
        > Essentially we lost faith in the system and I don’t think it will ever come back. So where do we go from here? A bit extreme? It will come back if you choose it, if you do it. The despair, as I posted, is trendy but it's absurd - the most ridiculous, counterproductive philosophical trend I can imagine. Stop philosophizing and just start doing!
- silenced_trope 3y ago
  Let the legal process play out. I'm not a fan of this journalist "ambushing" the founder at his property and staying outside of it until he gets some answers. "He has all the blinds closed" - right. Let a judge determine whether the founder is in the wrong and needs to provide answers. Sorry maybe it's the aspergers in me but I'm generally not a fan of these self-anointed judge, jury, and executioners performing public shaming rituals.
  - wolverine876 3y ago
    How would that work? The public wouldn't know anything about anything unless a judge convicted someone.
    - kylebenzle 3y ago
      [flagged]
      - pbj1968 3y ago
        Fascinating. Could you link me to the court documents on Pacer?
      - pests 3y ago
        I think you missed the word "called" in there somewhere
      - wolverine876 3y ago
        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?
    - jdietrich 3y ago
      Under German law, anyone involved in a criminal case has the right to privacy. The press are free to report on the case, but they cannot identify the suspect or victim. If you watch or read German news, you'll see everything you expect to see in a report about a crime, except for names and faces. Personally, I think this is an entirely reasonable balance between competing rights. Publicly identifying suspects can cause immense harm to innocent people and prejudice the right to a fair trial based on the presumption of innocence. I cannot see any public interest argument for the general right to publicly identify criminal suspects, beyond mere prurient interest. If there would be substantial investigative benefits to publicly naming a suspect, for example to encourage witnesses or other victims to come forward, that should be a decision for the courts (or at least the police) and that decision should be made based on the individual circumstances of the case.
- Racing0461 3y ago
  [flagged]
- nomel 3y ago
  Is it this one instance, or is it the fact that it can connect children to adults? Or general moderation problems that include that? Or maybe attacks as in lawyers?
- Prezident_Zappa 3y ago
  Absolutely ridiculous in every way.
- Tao3300 3y ago
  Waiting outside someone's house for 7 hours, running after them, and spouting accusations through the door doesn't sound like my idea of "trying to have a civilized conversation". The BBC should be deeply embarrassed.
ryandrake 3y ago
Thank you. Such a huge wall of text posted, yet the only thing that remotely explains "why" is a vague reference to "attacks." What attacks??
m4jor 3y ago
The A.M. vs Omgele case if I had to guess.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

What "attacks" is he referring to?

by Laaas 3y ago

What "attacks" is he referring to?

"Omegle: Suing the website that matched me with my abuser" https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-64618791 https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-64618791

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
willk 3y ago
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.
- toomuchtodo 3y ago
  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. Hopefully the EFF and ACLU can work to balance out regulation from government in this space. (what sites access is gated by age is a distinct conversation) https://www.theverge.com/23721306/online-age-verification-privacy-laws-child-safety https://www.theverge.com/23721306/online-age-verification-pr... https://www.theverge.com/2022/12/5/23494175/facebook-dating-ai-face-scanning-age-verification-expansion-yoti https://www.theverge.com/2022/12/5/23494175/facebook-dating-... https://www.yoti.com/wp-content/uploads/Yoti-Age-Estimation-White-Paper-March-2023.pdf https://www.yoti.com/wp-content/uploads/Yoti-Age-Estimation-...
  - mindslight 3y ago
    It's not "the world is just a terrible place", but rather "the world inevitably has things that kids cannot handle". If you want digital entertainment for your kids, then seek out products which explicitly offer this. The unfettered Internet is a less appropriate babysitter than a red light district. And talking about "age verification" as if it's some straightforward addition is an utterly dishonest framing. The core idea of the distributed Internet is the barest of communication which further complexity/policy can be layered on top of. "Age verification" actually implies the much more draconian and chilling meatspace identity verification. Nobody has a problem with a DigitalKidsPlayLand which performs identity verification, strictly curates/moderates content, and escrows all activity for later review. It's this push to legally require such things for everyone, based on some idea that everything needs to be made kid-safe, that is horribly authoritarian and needs to be soundly rejected.
  - x0x0 3y ago
    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...
    - toomuchtodo 3y ago
      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.
      - x0x0 3y ago
        That's a facile handwaving of some pretty large ones.
        deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
- rvcdbn 3y ago
  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.
  - x0x0 3y ago
    How is age verification easy?
    - tyingq 3y ago
      "I’m not sure about the details"
    - adamomada 3y ago
      Why isn’t having an “over 18?” checkbox enough to have lawsuits brought by children (at the time or later) thrown out unceremoniously?
      - fl0id 3y ago
        Because that’s not really verification, probably.
      - lazide 3y ago
        Because kids can check checkboxes no problem? And it’s not even a real attempt at verification? Is this a real question? If someone showed up at a bar, would a bouncer accept that?
        adamomada 3y ago
        It’s because the cops can show up and demand ID from everyone inside, they have to make sure everyone has one. In this case, they have no obligation to ensure everyone has ID on their person. Can you sue a bar you used fake ID to get into? My real question wasn’t if there are kids on the system or not, but why are they allowed to sue when they themselves and nobody else have lied about the age verification question?
echelon 3y ago
> As a young girl, Alice (not her real name) logged on to the popular live video chat website, Omegle, and was randomly paired with a paedophile, who coerced her into becoming a digital sex slave. Nearly 10 years later the young American is suing Omegle in a landmark case that could pave the way for a wave of lawsuits against other social platforms. This is fucked. We shouldn't have to put safety padding on everything as a stand-in for something parents are supposed to do, ie. being responsible for their brood. Should we put inflatable balloons around people because cars and high velocity objects exist that we can collide with? Should we ban kitchen knives because they're sharp? Asphyxiation is the leading method of teen suicide. Should we stop selling plastic, rope, and anything that fits around a neck and/or head?
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- wolverine876 3y ago
  We do implement many things that protect people, sometimes children in particular. They aren't perfect, but they can prevent a lot of damage. The question, as usual, isn't all or nothing. It's what can we do that will meet all the criteria as best possible: not infringe on freedoms, reduce harm, be affordable, etc.
  - bogota 3y ago
    100% agree i think the bigger issue is at least in the US and many other countries we have lost all faith that the people making those choices will do so in a responsible or ethical manner. Essentially we lost faith in the system and I don’t think it will ever come back. So where do we go from here?
    - wolverine876 3y ago
      > Essentially we lost faith in the system and I don’t think it will ever come back. So where do we go from here? A bit extreme? It will come back if you choose it, if you do it. The despair, as I posted, is trendy but it's absurd - the most ridiculous, counterproductive philosophical trend I can imagine. Stop philosophizing and just start doing!
silenced_trope 3y ago
Let the legal process play out. I'm not a fan of this journalist "ambushing" the founder at his property and staying outside of it until he gets some answers. "He has all the blinds closed" - right. Let a judge determine whether the founder is in the wrong and needs to provide answers. Sorry maybe it's the aspergers in me but I'm generally not a fan of these self-anointed judge, jury, and executioners performing public shaming rituals.
- wolverine876 3y ago
  How would that work? The public wouldn't know anything about anything unless a judge convicted someone.
  - kylebenzle 3y ago
    [flagged]
    - pbj1968 3y ago
      Fascinating. Could you link me to the court documents on Pacer?
    - pests 3y ago
      I think you missed the word "called" in there somewhere
    - wolverine876 3y ago
      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?
  - jdietrich 3y ago
    Under German law, anyone involved in a criminal case has the right to privacy. The press are free to report on the case, but they cannot identify the suspect or victim. If you watch or read German news, you'll see everything you expect to see in a report about a crime, except for names and faces. Personally, I think this is an entirely reasonable balance between competing rights. Publicly identifying suspects can cause immense harm to innocent people and prejudice the right to a fair trial based on the presumption of innocence. I cannot see any public interest argument for the general right to publicly identify criminal suspects, beyond mere prurient interest. If there would be substantial investigative benefits to publicly naming a suspect, for example to encourage witnesses or other victims to come forward, that should be a decision for the courts (or at least the police) and that decision should be made based on the individual circumstances of the case.
Racing0461 3y ago
[flagged]
nomel 3y ago
Is it this one instance, or is it the fact that it can connect children to adults? Or general moderation problems that include that? Or maybe attacks as in lawyers?
Prezident_Zappa 3y ago
Absolutely ridiculous in every way.
Tao3300 3y ago
Waiting outside someone's house for 7 hours, running after them, and spouting accusations through the door doesn't sound like my idea of "trying to have a civilized conversation". The BBC should be deeply embarrassed.

ryandrake 3y ago

Thank you. Such a huge wall of text posted, yet the only thing that remotely explains "why" is a vague reference to "attacks." What attacks??

m4jor 3y ago

The A.M. vs Omgele case if I had to guess.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]