6 ms·

If you used Omegle for more than 30 seconds, you'd know it was filled with sexual predators exposing themselves to children. I'm surprised it lasted this long.

If you used Omegle for more than 30 seconds, you'd know it was filled with sexual predators exposing themselves to children. I'm surprised it lasted this long. I'm sympathetic to the creator, I don't think tools should be banned because there are bad users, but Omegle's user base has its reputation for a reason.

kylebenzle 3y ago
Children actually were not allowed to use the site. By that logic you could say the same thing about every single porn site.
- webkike 3y ago
  No, you cant, because porn sites don't let you see the webcam of the person watching your video.
- garciasn 3y ago
  I’m sorry, but as far as I know, for the longest time there wasn’t even a blatant warning about being under 18. According to the BBC, it was only after “Alice” filed the lawsuit that they added a checkbox saying you had to be 18+. S: https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-64618791 https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-64618791
  - KomoD 3y ago
    For a very long time it was 13+ with parental permission, otherwise 18+
- dragonwriter 3y ago
  > Children actually were not allowed to use the site. Children 13+ were formally allowed to use the site with parental permission until after the lawsuit at issue was filed, but even that restriction was just, I think, a pro-forma fine print footer notice to provide CYA against COPPA requirements on sites that were directed at kids under 13.
maplant 3y ago
yeah, I see a lot of people crying out here about the diminished freedom of speech, but did any of ya'll actually use this? It lasted for maybe a month after its launch as the way it was intended. After that - it was used 90% by perverts
- spondylosaurus 3y ago
  Dating myself here, but my friends and I would go on Omegle together in middle/high school (usually at sleepovers after the host's parents had gone to bed) and I was always the one responsible for making sure whoever we connected to wasn't some guy jerking off into his webcam. I think I'd usually have to connect and disconnect two or three times before I found another human face and not a, uh, head. Although sometimes we'd have a seemingly normal conversation for a bit and then whoever we were talking to would pan the camera down and reveal that he was cranking it. Fun stuff!
- whoknowsidont 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - buzzdenver 3y ago
    Exposing yourself without consent is a crime in most places. Omegle was full of that. Watching porn is obviously voluntary.
    - ipaddr 3y ago
      Topless laws and nude beaches disagree. Nudity is not porn.
      - 93po 3y ago
        Exposing yourself in sexually suggestive or provocative ways is not covered by nudity laws
      - klyrs 3y ago
        And yet, getting frisky (with yourself or others) on a nude beach is typically illegal. Topfreedom, in places where that is legal, is also seen quite differently than full nudity. Going to a nude beach is an opt-in experience; consent to view fully nude people is implicit in going there. Where nude beaches are uncommon, they are typically very well marked as such. And, to pick a nit, because I live in a locale where toplessness is equal-opportunity: we enjoy this freedom due to the lack of a law restricting it.
Gigachad 3y ago
HN treats it like the last bastion of intellectual free speech.
- echelon 3y ago
  All sorts of online spaces deserve to exist. Pruning the internet to just Facebook is unhealthy. Parents should be responsible for their own children. They shouldn't keep trying to remove things from the world they deem as unfriendly to their children. If they dislike the Wild West of the Internet, they can create their own digital curfew and rules.
- injeolmi_love 3y ago
  And where exactly is free speech left? Every public platform I’ve used over the last 20 years that had freedom of speech was shut down. Currently if you want to discuss ideas or issues that are outside of the publicly approved consensus, the only choice left is private chats. Even there the options are continually shrinking.
  - krapp 3y ago
    Freedom of speech implies the freedom to choose what speech one associates with and allows. It doesn't mean a platform is forced to allow all possible speech without moderation - that isn't freedom, it's coercion. And it wouldn't even be legal on whatever "public platforms" you're talking about. If you're looking for absolute, unfettered fuck-the-law freedom you're not going to find it on the open web. No administrator is going to be willing to take the bullet for you.
    - injeolmi_love 3y ago
      If that’s the case, then why did these platforms exist in the past and don’t exist now? I’m not just talking about virtual platforms, but also physical public forums and meetups. I agree with what you’re saying about admins, but the “who” that is shooting the bullet seems to be a growing bipartisan antiliberal movement. It’s not just my personal experience; globally there’s been a decrease in freedom of speech metrics with the US experiencing less of a decline than the average but still a significant one.
Ferret7446 3y ago
If it were that easy, why weren't law enforcement having a field day arresting them?

kylebenzle 3y ago

Children actually were not allowed to use the site. By that logic you could say the same thing about every single porn site.

webkike 3y ago
No, you cant, because porn sites don't let you see the webcam of the person watching your video.
garciasn 3y ago
I’m sorry, but as far as I know, for the longest time there wasn’t even a blatant warning about being under 18. According to the BBC, it was only after “Alice” filed the lawsuit that they added a checkbox saying you had to be 18+. S: https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-64618791 https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-64618791
- KomoD 3y ago
  For a very long time it was 13+ with parental permission, otherwise 18+
dragonwriter 3y ago
> Children actually were not allowed to use the site. Children 13+ were formally allowed to use the site with parental permission until after the lawsuit at issue was filed, but even that restriction was just, I think, a pro-forma fine print footer notice to provide CYA against COPPA requirements on sites that were directed at kids under 13.

maplant 3y ago

yeah, I see a lot of people crying out here about the diminished freedom of speech, but did any of ya'll actually use this? It lasted for maybe a month after its launch as the way it was intended. After that - it was used 90% by perverts

spondylosaurus 3y ago
Dating myself here, but my friends and I would go on Omegle together in middle/high school (usually at sleepovers after the host's parents had gone to bed) and I was always the one responsible for making sure whoever we connected to wasn't some guy jerking off into his webcam. I think I'd usually have to connect and disconnect two or three times before I found another human face and not a, uh, head. Although sometimes we'd have a seemingly normal conversation for a bit and then whoever we were talking to would pan the camera down and reveal that he was cranking it. Fun stuff!
whoknowsidont 3y ago
[flagged]
- buzzdenver 3y ago
  Exposing yourself without consent is a crime in most places. Omegle was full of that. Watching porn is obviously voluntary.
  - ipaddr 3y ago
    Topless laws and nude beaches disagree. Nudity is not porn.
    - 93po 3y ago
      Exposing yourself in sexually suggestive or provocative ways is not covered by nudity laws
    - klyrs 3y ago
      And yet, getting frisky (with yourself or others) on a nude beach is typically illegal. Topfreedom, in places where that is legal, is also seen quite differently than full nudity. Going to a nude beach is an opt-in experience; consent to view fully nude people is implicit in going there. Where nude beaches are uncommon, they are typically very well marked as such. And, to pick a nit, because I live in a locale where toplessness is equal-opportunity: we enjoy this freedom due to the lack of a law restricting it.

Gigachad 3y ago

HN treats it like the last bastion of intellectual free speech.

echelon 3y ago
All sorts of online spaces deserve to exist. Pruning the internet to just Facebook is unhealthy. Parents should be responsible for their own children. They shouldn't keep trying to remove things from the world they deem as unfriendly to their children. If they dislike the Wild West of the Internet, they can create their own digital curfew and rules.
injeolmi_love 3y ago
And where exactly is free speech left? Every public platform I’ve used over the last 20 years that had freedom of speech was shut down. Currently if you want to discuss ideas or issues that are outside of the publicly approved consensus, the only choice left is private chats. Even there the options are continually shrinking.
- krapp 3y ago
  Freedom of speech implies the freedom to choose what speech one associates with and allows. It doesn't mean a platform is forced to allow all possible speech without moderation - that isn't freedom, it's coercion. And it wouldn't even be legal on whatever "public platforms" you're talking about. If you're looking for absolute, unfettered fuck-the-law freedom you're not going to find it on the open web. No administrator is going to be willing to take the bullet for you.
  - injeolmi_love 3y ago
    If that’s the case, then why did these platforms exist in the past and don’t exist now? I’m not just talking about virtual platforms, but also physical public forums and meetups. I agree with what you’re saying about admins, but the “who” that is shooting the bullet seems to be a growing bipartisan antiliberal movement. It’s not just my personal experience; globally there’s been a decrease in freedom of speech metrics with the US experiencing less of a decline than the average but still a significant one.

Ferret7446 3y ago

If it were that easy, why weren't law enforcement having a field day arresting them?