7 ms·

More specific information about why its closing down are lawsuits of groomed minors. press coverage of 1 case: https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-64618791 htt

More specific information about why its closing down are lawsuits of groomed minors. press coverage of 1 case: https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-64618791 https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-64618791

buf 3y ago
Couldn't this have been any website with a messaging system on it? Twitter, facebook, even email. I don't get how they can sue Omegle for this. Edit: was it because of the video component of Omegle?
- throwaway290 3y ago
  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 messaging is going to become illegal...
  - buf 3y ago
    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?
    - Tijdreiziger 3y ago
      In some countries: yes. https://www.wired.co.uk/article/gaming-china-crackdown https://www.wired.co.uk/article/gaming-china-crackdown
    - master-lincoln 3y ago
      That would be a reasonable solution if there would be any government who could provide a digital attestation scheme that allows to prove attributes without giving out the identity. Afaik it's possible technically. Just not wanted apparently Like proving I am at least 18 years old without giving out my birth date or name.
  - joenot443 3y ago
    Orders of magnitude more grooming and misconduct is done over SMS than was ever done over Omegle. Is it up to telecom engineers to “wake up” and own that they’re facilitating this abuse? It seems like one of those finger pointing cases which falls apart when any level of scrutiny is applied.
    - nottorp 3y ago
      They probably couldn't afford to sue a mobile phone provider :) But some ambulance chasing lawyer told them they have a chance to win in this case.
    - concordDance 3y ago
      A large portion of commentators here greatly dislike the idea of unmonitored interactions between humans. Their ideal is that every person's cellphone continuously records nearby conversations and sends them to the police where they can run large language models to provide a shortlist of dangerous communications that a policeman can then look at and charge for.
      - fkyoureadthedoc 3y ago
        We all know this is not true, not even close. Read through the comments here, there's a clear overwhelming majority opinion blaming the family rather than the company. Even beyond this post, I've never seen this called for on this site. You are in a clear majority position but still pretend to be persecuted and victimized by an imagined boogeyman.
        Bud 3y ago
        [dead]
        2devnull 3y ago
        This thread is about what exactly?
        3y ago
miki123211 3y ago
Maybe this needs to start over somewhere in a civil law country (most of Europe) where suing you for something like this is almost impossible.
- fullarr 3y ago
  No one in Europe made an Omegle like website since 2009?
master-lincoln 3y ago
An 11 year old alone on the internet...their parents should be prosecuted, not the messaging platform
- Bud 3y ago
  [dead]
sergioisidoro 3y ago
In that article she was 11 when using Omegle. She was using internet without appropriate supervision. That's almost like allowing a kid to drive a car, leading to an accident, and then trying to ban cars because they are dangerous to kids. The internet is a great place, but it's an adult place. You can find absolutely horrible (adult) things on wikipedia that a kid should not be learning about at the age of 11. And I don't think we want to close wikipedia. The responsibility of internet platforms is needed, but it's not an excuse for parental neglect.
- loxdalen 3y ago
  Realistically, kids are on the Internet. I don't know when you were born, but my relationship to the Internet started probably around the time I was 7 or 8. My school had computers with Internet, there were two computers at home. My parents could have limited my Internet use but they couldn't have stopped me. There is not a guard standing by every computer stopping me from being Online if I am under 18 years of age. I still don't think Omegle is at fault, but we have to assume kids are on the Internet.
  - DeusExMachina 3y ago
    They sure are, but we can argue they shouldn't, or that they should be supervised. Not that it's going to happen. Too many people slap a device in front of their kids with an unlimited data plan and no supervision. It's a hard problem to solve, probably as unsolvable as any other wide-scale problem.
  - donkeyd 3y ago
    I've been on the internet since I was about 10 years old (I estimate). My parents knew (and understood) maybe 10% of what I did on there. As a minor, I did multiple criminal things online, some of them successful, others not so much. If I was a kid in 2023, I probably would've been arrested at some point in time. Because of what I know about the internet and because I know what kids will do with unlimited access, I think much of this burden should be with the parents. For every successful Omegle taken down, 3 more unknown ones will pop up. But major platforms like TikTok are also massive sources of grooming and parents happily give their 10 year olds a smart phone. As long as parents are never held accountable for their kids online behavior and the blame is put on service providers, this will only get worse. I know many examples of parents who track their kids' phones because they're scared something will happen to them in the real world. Meanwhile, these same parents pay no attention at all to where their kids venture in the online world, let alone with who. Parents need to be educated on this, fast.
Fatnino 3y ago
How is this possibly omegles fault or problem? She met him once on omegle and gave him her contact info. She could have met him on the train or in the street and it would have ended the same way. Parents are supposed to teach kids about stranger danger. She should be suing her folks.
subjectsigma 3y ago
That video would be hilarious if it wasn’t so sad. The reporters literally camped outside this guys house, ran across his lawn shouting at him, chased him to his door, and immediately accused him of harming children. Then the scene cuts to the reporter describing that as a “civil conversation”.
cryptoegorophy 3y ago
Ah, “for the children”. The best argument there is to deprive you of all the rights possible.
- JoeAltmaier 3y ago
  Really? We want to protect the rights of pedophiles? Where could this argument be going.
  - ouEight12 3y ago
    Right, because everyone on the internet, and who ever possibly enjoyed Omegle is either a sex abused child, or the pedophile who preyed upon them. I had forgot, this is 2023 where there's never a middle ground in any discourse, regardless of topic. Thanks for the reminder.
  - cy_hauser 3y ago
    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.
    - s1artibartfast 3y ago
      [flagged]
  - Cthulhu_ 3y ago
    Slippery slope fallacy. How many people are pedophiles? How many people who aren't will need to give up their rights so that that minority... actually just keeps on doing what they do, because there's always alternatives?
    - 3y ago
fyokdrigd 3y ago
so when are they going after google for providing free email and such? internet watch foundation is about censorship. they only "protect the children" so you can't contradict them without looking like a criminal. they actually give criminals a legal defense as their content hash system is easy to prove a false positive. also they are going after the only service which contributed to arrests. lol. you think criminals don't use facebook/Instagram/telegram/tiktok/email/googlemeet/msteams/etc just because you haven't heard about arests?!
sp0ck 3y ago
Read the article. I don't understand the logic of this. It's like leaving loaded gun on the desk and its gun fault (tool) when your kid shoot someone with it. IMO this is bad parenting. Any tool that provide anonimity and privacy can be abused. It is not like anyone was forced to use it. You have to go there explicitly. Adding random video chat to i.e Signal app makes it another Omegle "problem" ?
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

buf 3y ago

Couldn't this have been any website with a messaging system on it? Twitter, facebook, even email. I don't get how they can sue Omegle for this. Edit: was it because of the video component of Omegle?

throwaway290 3y ago
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 messaging is going to become illegal...
- buf 3y ago
  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?
  - Tijdreiziger 3y ago
    In some countries: yes. https://www.wired.co.uk/article/gaming-china-crackdown https://www.wired.co.uk/article/gaming-china-crackdown
  - master-lincoln 3y ago
    That would be a reasonable solution if there would be any government who could provide a digital attestation scheme that allows to prove attributes without giving out the identity. Afaik it's possible technically. Just not wanted apparently Like proving I am at least 18 years old without giving out my birth date or name.
- joenot443 3y ago
  Orders of magnitude more grooming and misconduct is done over SMS than was ever done over Omegle. Is it up to telecom engineers to “wake up” and own that they’re facilitating this abuse? It seems like one of those finger pointing cases which falls apart when any level of scrutiny is applied.
  - nottorp 3y ago
    They probably couldn't afford to sue a mobile phone provider :) But some ambulance chasing lawyer told them they have a chance to win in this case.
  - concordDance 3y ago
    A large portion of commentators here greatly dislike the idea of unmonitored interactions between humans. Their ideal is that every person's cellphone continuously records nearby conversations and sends them to the police where they can run large language models to provide a shortlist of dangerous communications that a policeman can then look at and charge for.
    - fkyoureadthedoc 3y ago
      We all know this is not true, not even close. Read through the comments here, there's a clear overwhelming majority opinion blaming the family rather than the company. Even beyond this post, I've never seen this called for on this site. You are in a clear majority position but still pretend to be persecuted and victimized by an imagined boogeyman.
      - Bud 3y ago
        [dead]
      - 2devnull 3y ago
        This thread is about what exactly?
        3y ago

miki123211 3y ago

Maybe this needs to start over somewhere in a civil law country (most of Europe) where suing you for something like this is almost impossible.

fullarr 3y ago
No one in Europe made an Omegle like website since 2009?

master-lincoln 3y ago

An 11 year old alone on the internet...their parents should be prosecuted, not the messaging platform

Bud 3y ago
[dead]

sergioisidoro 3y ago

In that article she was 11 when using Omegle. She was using internet without appropriate supervision. That's almost like allowing a kid to drive a car, leading to an accident, and then trying to ban cars because they are dangerous to kids. The internet is a great place, but it's an adult place. You can find absolutely horrible (adult) things on wikipedia that a kid should not be learning about at the age of 11. And I don't think we want to close wikipedia. The responsibility of internet platforms is needed, but it's not an excuse for parental neglect.

loxdalen 3y ago
Realistically, kids are on the Internet. I don't know when you were born, but my relationship to the Internet started probably around the time I was 7 or 8. My school had computers with Internet, there were two computers at home. My parents could have limited my Internet use but they couldn't have stopped me. There is not a guard standing by every computer stopping me from being Online if I am under 18 years of age. I still don't think Omegle is at fault, but we have to assume kids are on the Internet.
- DeusExMachina 3y ago
  They sure are, but we can argue they shouldn't, or that they should be supervised. Not that it's going to happen. Too many people slap a device in front of their kids with an unlimited data plan and no supervision. It's a hard problem to solve, probably as unsolvable as any other wide-scale problem.
- donkeyd 3y ago
  I've been on the internet since I was about 10 years old (I estimate). My parents knew (and understood) maybe 10% of what I did on there. As a minor, I did multiple criminal things online, some of them successful, others not so much. If I was a kid in 2023, I probably would've been arrested at some point in time. Because of what I know about the internet and because I know what kids will do with unlimited access, I think much of this burden should be with the parents. For every successful Omegle taken down, 3 more unknown ones will pop up. But major platforms like TikTok are also massive sources of grooming and parents happily give their 10 year olds a smart phone. As long as parents are never held accountable for their kids online behavior and the blame is put on service providers, this will only get worse. I know many examples of parents who track their kids' phones because they're scared something will happen to them in the real world. Meanwhile, these same parents pay no attention at all to where their kids venture in the online world, let alone with who. Parents need to be educated on this, fast.

Fatnino 3y ago

How is this possibly omegles fault or problem? She met him once on omegle and gave him her contact info. She could have met him on the train or in the street and it would have ended the same way. Parents are supposed to teach kids about stranger danger. She should be suing her folks.

subjectsigma 3y ago

That video would be hilarious if it wasn’t so sad. The reporters literally camped outside this guys house, ran across his lawn shouting at him, chased him to his door, and immediately accused him of harming children. Then the scene cuts to the reporter describing that as a “civil conversation”.

cryptoegorophy 3y ago

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

JoeAltmaier 3y ago
Really? We want to protect the rights of pedophiles? Where could this argument be going.
- ouEight12 3y ago
  Right, because everyone on the internet, and who ever possibly enjoyed Omegle is either a sex abused child, or the pedophile who preyed upon them. I had forgot, this is 2023 where there's never a middle ground in any discourse, regardless of topic. Thanks for the reminder.
- cy_hauser 3y ago
  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.
  - s1artibartfast 3y ago
    [flagged]
- Cthulhu_ 3y ago
  Slippery slope fallacy. How many people are pedophiles? How many people who aren't will need to give up their rights so that that minority... actually just keeps on doing what they do, because there's always alternatives?
  - 3y ago

fyokdrigd 3y ago

so when are they going after google for providing free email and such? internet watch foundation is about censorship. they only "protect the children" so you can't contradict them without looking like a criminal. they actually give criminals a legal defense as their content hash system is easy to prove a false positive. also they are going after the only service which contributed to arrests. lol. you think criminals don't use facebook/Instagram/telegram/tiktok/email/googlemeet/msteams/etc just because you haven't heard about arests?!

sp0ck 3y ago

Read the article. I don't understand the logic of this. It's like leaving loaded gun on the desk and its gun fault (tool) when your kid shoot someone with it. IMO this is bad parenting. Any tool that provide anonimity and privacy can be abused. It is not like anyone was forced to use it. You have to go there explicitly. Adding random video chat to i.e Signal app makes it another Omegle "problem" ?

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]