4 ms·

This comment seems to imply Omegle had no moderation, and that is false. https://www.omegle.com/ https://www.omegle.com/ > I believe in a responsibility to be

This comment seems to imply Omegle had no moderation, and that is false. https://www.omegle.com/ https://www.omegle.com/ > I believe in a responsibility to be a “good Samaritan”, and to implement reasonable measures to fight crime and other misuse. That is exactly what Omegle did. In addition to the basic safety feature of anonymity, there was a great deal of moderation behind the scenes, including state-of-the-art AI operating in concert with a wonderful team of human moderators. Omegle punched above its weight in content moderation, and I’m proud of what we accomplished. > Omegle’s moderation even had a positive impact beyond the site. Omegle worked with law enforcement agencies, and the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, to help put evildoers in prison where they belong. There are “people” rotting behind bars right now thanks in part to evidence that Omegle proactively collected against them, and tipped the authorities off to. -- The real reason, of course, is that Facebook can afford an army of lawyers, but Omegle can't.

alephnerd 3y ago
Not at the bare minimum needed as a number of Omegle users have mentioned on HN.
- mattigames 3y ago
  But at least you agree that is because big companies have enough money to buy enough moderation correct? So in the best case scenario is jut another part of society that small companies are not allowed to participate if they are not rich enough.
  - dragonwriter 3y ago
    > So in the best case scenario is jut another part of society that small companies are not allowed to participate if they are not rich enough. Small companies can participate, as long as their moderation resources are proportionate to their scale. Yes, if they aren't, you are going to have more liability problems, just like if you operate a theme park with inadequate maintenance staff to prevent the rides from flying apart and killing guests.
    - mikeyouse 3y ago
      That feels like a good analogy -- we do have different standards for small carnivals than we do for large amusement parks, and accidents do happen at both, but you'd never be allowed to operate a small carnival with dangerous rides and absolutely no maintenance by claiming it was too expensive.
      - mindslight 3y ago
        It's a terrible analogy, as carnivals put themselves out there as places that parents can bring kids to enjoy themselves. In general websites are not representing themselves as places to drop off your kids. A better analogy involves things that are generally intended for adult purposes, as the Internet is. You certainly can operate a business selling construction tools, and generally not be sued when someone lets their kid use one and the kid gets injured. Even if you have knowledge that some customers will buy tools for use by their under age kids, or that they will leave tools accessible to kids, while you're merely assuming that they're supplying appropriate supervision and control. The fundamental problem with this liability argument that has been put forth is it's based on responsibility laundering. Kids can't judge or consent, yet the argument quietly asserts it's reasonable for their caretakers to be absent in supplying appropriate judgement and supervision as they're interacting with the larger world. The resulting conclusion is that it is everyone else's responsibility to only ever act in ways that will protect those unrestrained kids. The direct implication is that everything accessible on the Internet must be made safe for kids, which is directly opposed to having free and open communications for adults.
  - hakdbha 3y ago
    [dead]
  - alephnerd 3y ago
    If I post CSAM on HN I am 100% going to be reported and sent to jail. HN has only 2-3 mods, yet I don't see a plethora of old men's schlongs on here. Yet Omegle made more money and had more users than HN ever would, but consistently failed at moderation. > small companies are not allowed to participate if they are not rich enough It's been open knowledge to anyone who's been in middle and high school since 2010 (like yours truly) that Omegle is filled with creepy old guys. There are plenty of small social media startups from that era that never had as much of a pedo presence as Omegle.
    - dragonwriter 3y ago
      > HN has only 2-3 mods, yet I don't see a plethora of old men's schlongs on here. HN doesn't even allow text formatting changes beyond monospace and italics, much less posting pictures or video. Even without moderation, you'd only be at risk of ASCII art schlongs.
      - alephnerd 3y ago
        HN allows links, yet I haven't seen any X-rated or X-rating adjacent links on here. It's a nontrivial moderation problem.
        klyrs 3y ago
        Do you browse "new," do you have showdead on? Hah, rewind. There's literally a porn site on the front page right now. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38213707 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38213707
        dragonwriter 3y ago
        Like the Omegle one, its a post-shutdown explanation, not porn media, at the link.
        klyrs 3y ago
        Aleph said "or adjacent," and if one follows the link at the end of the article, they get... porn.

alephnerd 3y ago

Not at the bare minimum needed as a number of Omegle users have mentioned on HN.

mattigames 3y ago
But at least you agree that is because big companies have enough money to buy enough moderation correct? So in the best case scenario is jut another part of society that small companies are not allowed to participate if they are not rich enough.
- dragonwriter 3y ago
  > So in the best case scenario is jut another part of society that small companies are not allowed to participate if they are not rich enough. Small companies can participate, as long as their moderation resources are proportionate to their scale. Yes, if they aren't, you are going to have more liability problems, just like if you operate a theme park with inadequate maintenance staff to prevent the rides from flying apart and killing guests.
  - mikeyouse 3y ago
    That feels like a good analogy -- we do have different standards for small carnivals than we do for large amusement parks, and accidents do happen at both, but you'd never be allowed to operate a small carnival with dangerous rides and absolutely no maintenance by claiming it was too expensive.
    - mindslight 3y ago
      It's a terrible analogy, as carnivals put themselves out there as places that parents can bring kids to enjoy themselves. In general websites are not representing themselves as places to drop off your kids. A better analogy involves things that are generally intended for adult purposes, as the Internet is. You certainly can operate a business selling construction tools, and generally not be sued when someone lets their kid use one and the kid gets injured. Even if you have knowledge that some customers will buy tools for use by their under age kids, or that they will leave tools accessible to kids, while you're merely assuming that they're supplying appropriate supervision and control. The fundamental problem with this liability argument that has been put forth is it's based on responsibility laundering. Kids can't judge or consent, yet the argument quietly asserts it's reasonable for their caretakers to be absent in supplying appropriate judgement and supervision as they're interacting with the larger world. The resulting conclusion is that it is everyone else's responsibility to only ever act in ways that will protect those unrestrained kids. The direct implication is that everything accessible on the Internet must be made safe for kids, which is directly opposed to having free and open communications for adults.
- hakdbha 3y ago
  [dead]
- alephnerd 3y ago
  If I post CSAM on HN I am 100% going to be reported and sent to jail. HN has only 2-3 mods, yet I don't see a plethora of old men's schlongs on here. Yet Omegle made more money and had more users than HN ever would, but consistently failed at moderation. > small companies are not allowed to participate if they are not rich enough It's been open knowledge to anyone who's been in middle and high school since 2010 (like yours truly) that Omegle is filled with creepy old guys. There are plenty of small social media startups from that era that never had as much of a pedo presence as Omegle.
  - dragonwriter 3y ago
    > HN has only 2-3 mods, yet I don't see a plethora of old men's schlongs on here. HN doesn't even allow text formatting changes beyond monospace and italics, much less posting pictures or video. Even without moderation, you'd only be at risk of ASCII art schlongs.
    - alephnerd 3y ago
      HN allows links, yet I haven't seen any X-rated or X-rating adjacent links on here. It's a nontrivial moderation problem.
      - klyrs 3y ago
        Do you browse "new," do you have showdead on? Hah, rewind. There's literally a porn site on the front page right now. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38213707 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38213707
        dragonwriter 3y ago
        Like the Omegle one, its a post-shutdown explanation, not porn media, at the link.
        klyrs 3y ago
        Aleph said "or adjacent," and if one follows the link at the end of the article, they get... porn.