5 ms·

> a bit like losing access to a public space It's more like losing access to a bar that allowed random people to meet in private rooms, and didn't check they w

• joenot443 3y ago
  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.
  • op00to 3y ago
    If it’s trivial for a bar to validate, why not the same for a web site?
    • o_nate 3y ago
      Seems like a good opening for a service that could validate your age for a low cost and provide a token good for logging on to adults-only sites.
    • wizzwizz4 3y ago
      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.
      • op00to 3y ago
        If you can’t validate the age of the people using Omegle, perhaps the service is not appropriate to exist.
        • malfist 3y ago
          I think my right to privacy out weighs a "think of the children" argument.
          • wizzwizz4 3y ago
            The anything goes / mass surveillance dichotomy is false. It is possible to have small-scale, individually-moderated websites, if the software to host them is available and easy to run, without sacrificing privacy (or even accountability). Pseudonymity is usually good enough, especially for things like Omegle. Unfortunately, that requires a return to the days when most people's primary computing device was capable of acting as a web server, and computer literacy implied empowerment: that might be tricky, but if we work hard enough I'm sure we can get there.
            • malfist 3y ago
              How do you propose verifying a users age without sacrificing privacy? Even knowing their age at all is giving up some privacy. If it can be done at small scale, it will get sold to data brokers and exploited at large a scale
              • wizzwizz4 3y ago
                > How do you propose verifying a users age without sacrificing privacy? It's usually obvious if you can have a short conversation with the person in question. Throughout my childhood escapades, I'm certain that most, if not all, the responsible adults I interacted with knew pretty much exactly how old I was. (I'd managed to navigate a legal loophole that, I believe, still exists in GDPR today, so they weren't required to kick me off – but while I was treated as an equal, I wasn't treated the same way I'm treated now.) > If it can be done at small scale, it will get sold to data brokers and exploited at large a scale That's quite illegal, and quite easy to detect (just give slightly different data to everyone and see what leaks). Most people don't commit crimes: individuals just don't have the kinds of incentive to buy and sell people's personal data that organisations like Facebook, Taboola and Oracle have. (And what would they get for betraying these people's trust? $30? Sure… I'd totally go for that.)
    • Blahah 3y ago
      Because you can't police who is using the device at the other end. You're authenticating a client device, not a person, and that doesn't keep children any safer from abuse - if anything it means they have an incentive to keep their use of a thing secret for fear of punishment, which makes them more vulnerable.
  • kevindamm 3y ago
    This bar had a complex tunnel system leading up to it that was completely unlit. In the beginning you could run right through, but eventually they made you yell "I'm over 18" and took your word on it. This bar also had special partitions in each room that were practically indestructible, allowing sound and light through but protecting from physical harm. [EDIT: I don't mean to imply that the check is easy! The reality of Omegle's difficulties is understood. I'm just riffing on the metaphor]
• ferfumarma 3y ago
  Why? Anything on Omegle could happen in a park. Or a library. Omegle can't keep kids off their platform: their parents need to.
  • op00to 3y ago
    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.
    • ouEight12 3y ago
      > 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.
      • op00to 3y ago
        How many sex crimes are reported in your local park? Hundreds of thousands were reported to Omegle.
        • savingsPossible 3y ago
          Hundreds of thousands? Do you have a link?
        • 2devnull 3y ago
          Depends on the park. Some are known for it. Parents know to keep their kids away from those parks. For that reason, it’s better to have one really cruisy park that everyone knows about and can easily avoid but which also acts to contain the pervs. Maybe Omegle closing will just make the predators harder to spot and keep away from?
        • cultureswitch 3y ago
          You've got an axe to grind don't you? Does it really not seem obvious to you that the damage of a single sexual harassment in a park outweighs any number of online interactions?
• uconnectlol 3y ago
  the worst thing that could happen on omegle is that a child shows herself naked. this in fact, is not the end of the world, and certainly doesn't justify some bullshit where we have to ask for permission before making a website or internet service plus photo ID for this and that party or whatever the hell you consider part of your solution.