3 ms·

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.
whoknowsidont 3y ago
I'm sorry these statements are simply not congruent. A private website that had quite a ubiquitous reputation (factual or not, consistent or not) for sexual web-cam encounters is not "most places." And you're being disingenuous by pretending it counts as such. Going to Omegle is voluntary. Watching people's web cams is voluntary. Interacting with strangers from your own personal device on a site is voluntary. There is not a reasonable expectation of having any kind of pristine interaction on such mediums. This is in juxtaposition to private websites that effectively serve as social spaces such as Twitter, Facebook, etc because they are advertised and designed as such, they are distributed as such by major companies (Apple, etc) so it would be REASONABLE to assume you won't get some weirdo pervert on cam or some racist parading around in a KKK outfit. Omegle was never that. Not from the start. Not during its prime time. And not obviously not towards the end. I cannot believe I have to "fuzzy peaches" this topic since it's normally an absolutely bonkers claim designed to absolve people of responsibility and consequences. Ironically, in this case, the opposite is true. You are responsible for going to a private site, with a known reputation, with no guarantees about what kind of interaction you have with complete total strangers from all over the world from various different backgrounds and social climates. If you have concerns about you or your loved ones visiting that site: every single ISP on the planet will now help you setup filters over the phone or via chat. And so will vendors like Apple support. People's choices and actions are _not your concern_ when they don't actively affect you and when you have to go out of your way to have them even be remotely relevant to your day to day life. And if you chose to fumble your way into such a medium, the "X" button is one click away. But it was still your choice and so you are ultimately responsible for being there in the first place.
- kelseyfrog 3y ago
  Going to anywhere is voluntary and we still have public indecency laws. Doing it on the internet doesn't have an essential difference. Besides, the expectation is that members will follow the rules and the Omegle Community Guidelines clearly state > Nudity, pornography and sexually explicit conduct and content are prohibited This is opposed to a strip club where there is an expectation of nudity. It's like going to a grocery store. "Well that's the grocery store where everyone jacks off," really isn't a convincing argument.
  - whoknowsidont 3y ago
    >Doing it on the internet doesn't have an essential difference. It's more nuanced than that. Omegle was designed with the explicit purpose of not having any standards around the interaction between strangers. That was THE point. When you're done with the interaction for any reason, you click next or you exit the website. It's a private website, it's not a physical space you're trapped in, and its primary purpose was to have many varied interactions with people, distasteful or not. Any expectation around a pristine interaction is your fault, not the site operators'. The opposite is true when you, as another commenter alluded to, going to a coffee shop. Applying puritanical customs is completely contrary to what the internet was built for and how it should function. This is one single corner of the internet, not a public space advertised as a standard, pristine social environment. The former should absolutely be allowed to exist.
    - mistrial9 3y ago
      real, actual predators like places like that right?
    - constantly 3y ago
      Absent some really abnormal situation, no one is physically trapped in a coffee shop either. Respectfully it seems like you have a conclusion or opinion and are looking to ignore some pretty basic facts to advocate for it rather than looking at the facts and forming a conclusion.
    - 3y ago

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.

whoknowsidont 3y ago

I'm sorry these statements are simply not congruent. A private website that had quite a ubiquitous reputation (factual or not, consistent or not) for sexual web-cam encounters is not "most places." And you're being disingenuous by pretending it counts as such. Going to Omegle is voluntary. Watching people's web cams is voluntary. Interacting with strangers from your own personal device on a site is voluntary. There is not a reasonable expectation of having any kind of pristine interaction on such mediums. This is in juxtaposition to private websites that effectively serve as social spaces such as Twitter, Facebook, etc because they are advertised and designed as such, they are distributed as such by major companies (Apple, etc) so it would be REASONABLE to assume you won't get some weirdo pervert on cam or some racist parading around in a KKK outfit. Omegle was never that. Not from the start. Not during its prime time. And not obviously not towards the end. I cannot believe I have to "fuzzy peaches" this topic since it's normally an absolutely bonkers claim designed to absolve people of responsibility and consequences. Ironically, in this case, the opposite is true. You are responsible for going to a private site, with a known reputation, with no guarantees about what kind of interaction you have with complete total strangers from all over the world from various different backgrounds and social climates. If you have concerns about you or your loved ones visiting that site: every single ISP on the planet will now help you setup filters over the phone or via chat. And so will vendors like Apple support. People's choices and actions are _not your concern_ when they don't actively affect you and when you have to go out of your way to have them even be remotely relevant to your day to day life. And if you chose to fumble your way into such a medium, the "X" button is one click away. But it was still your choice and so you are ultimately responsible for being there in the first place.

kelseyfrog 3y ago
Going to anywhere is voluntary and we still have public indecency laws. Doing it on the internet doesn't have an essential difference. Besides, the expectation is that members will follow the rules and the Omegle Community Guidelines clearly state > Nudity, pornography and sexually explicit conduct and content are prohibited This is opposed to a strip club where there is an expectation of nudity. It's like going to a grocery store. "Well that's the grocery store where everyone jacks off," really isn't a convincing argument.
- whoknowsidont 3y ago
  >Doing it on the internet doesn't have an essential difference. It's more nuanced than that. Omegle was designed with the explicit purpose of not having any standards around the interaction between strangers. That was THE point. When you're done with the interaction for any reason, you click next or you exit the website. It's a private website, it's not a physical space you're trapped in, and its primary purpose was to have many varied interactions with people, distasteful or not. Any expectation around a pristine interaction is your fault, not the site operators'. The opposite is true when you, as another commenter alluded to, going to a coffee shop. Applying puritanical customs is completely contrary to what the internet was built for and how it should function. This is one single corner of the internet, not a public space advertised as a standard, pristine social environment. The former should absolutely be allowed to exist.
  - mistrial9 3y ago
    real, actual predators like places like that right?
  - constantly 3y ago
    Absent some really abnormal situation, no one is physically trapped in a coffee shop either. Respectfully it seems like you have a conclusion or opinion and are looking to ignore some pretty basic facts to advocate for it rather than looking at the facts and forming a conclusion.
  - 3y ago