3 ms·
That comparison hinges on having to click "yes, I'm over 13" being more of a fence+sign than a "tiny" text saying you should only use the website if you are 13
by sgift 3y ago
That comparison hinges on having to click "yes, I'm over 13" being more of a fence+sign than a "tiny" text saying you should only use the website if you are 13 or older. I'm sure some lawyer will argue that's the case - since I'm not one: Sounds rather flimsy.
- mikeyouse 3y agoIt's certainly the case, especially legally. Here's Chatroulette's login screen: https://imgur.com/a/PV3sT0r https://imgur.com/a/PV3sT0r And from Archive.org, here's how Omegle's looked when the girl who is now suing them joined the site. "Tiny text" isn't an exaggeration. The call to action to start a text chat is a 200x50 button -- the 'don't use if you're under 13' text is 0.75em font: https://imgur.com/a/QpFBJ15 https://imgur.com/a/QpFBJ15 It should be obvious to everyone, not just 'some lawyer' that the former is more of a barrier than the latter. There's also the concept of overt acts in many statutes - lying to a website by clicking a button that says "I'm over 18" when you're not demonstrates that you read the disclaimer and disregarded it, where you can plausibly claim you never saw the copy when it's just legalese on the bottom of the page.