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.
IANAL, but having a certain reputation is not enough. If you run a site where the mean time before penis is 30 seconds, you probably have to be upfront about that and promote it as a sex chat place, not "Talk to strangers! The Internet is full of cool people; Omegle lets you meet them. When you use Omegle, we pick someone else at random so you can have a one-on-one chat." (cut&pasted from Omegle).
But it wasn’t a “sex chat place.” It was a place to talk to random people on the internet. It’s common sense that encounters with dangerous people are possible when engaging with random internet strangers. It bothers me that we live in a world that is forced to cater to the lowest possible denominator. In this case we’re talking about a single instance in 14 years of service. If we live in a world that forces every service to provably cause no harm to every single human being on the planet, then we’re going to end up with the most meaningless drivel conceivable. And for the most part, we’re already well on our way towards realizing this dystopian cultural nightmare.
This is a wild argument. Going to a coffee shop is voluntary too. You good with it if someone slaps their junk down on your table?
There are standards of behaviour that apply to people regardless of context. Non-consensual sexual behaviour is one of those pretty standard basic ones.
You are responding to a stance no one has. Certainly not in this comment thread.
You left out the part where I provided examples of private spaces that implicitly act as public spaces and set expectations either directly or through social norms.
You have a very reasonable expectation of not having someone slap their junk on the table at a coffee shop. That is a physical, public space that was designed and advertised as serving coffee and literally nothing else. It is not social norms or customs to have such an act thrust upon you, and most people would reasonably find it offensive for many different reasons including health hazards.
If you went to a strip club, order a steak, are you going to complain when something similar happens? I hope not, because that would not be a reasonable expectation to have.
Omegle set the expectation upfront that largely, anything goes when you interact with strangers. That was always the case. That was the expectation. That was the point of the site.
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.
>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.
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.
I find it hard to believe that Omegle has no standards and simultaneously has a list of standards in the Omegle Community Guidelines[1]. One of these things is false.
Can you exposit on social norms, their validity, and your methods of social reasoning? There seems to be a difference in underlying assumptions between us that is influencing how we think about this.
> I cannot believe I have to "fuzzy peaches" this topic
Sorry for the tangent, but I have never seen this idiom. Can you elaborate on what you mean, and maybe say where you're from if this is a regional thing?
The "fuzzy peaches" or "freeze peaches" idiom translates to "free speech" and became a fairly popular term and discussion point over the last decade in U.S. politics. Especially during the Clinton vs Trump campaigns.
When someone says "fuzzy peaches" or "freeze peaches" it's meant to sarcastically refer to the idea or right of "free speech" being used as a shield against criticism levied at an individual, or that individual/group attempting to absolve themselves of societal effects or consequences of said speech.
It is largely a term used by left-ish folks (of which I am) as a way to say "freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences" and/or "if the only thing you can say about what you're saying is that you can say it, maybe you shouldn't say it at all"
The idea being that speech in public spaces needs to be constructive and purposeful.
Topically, if you use Google to search for these terms, you get absolutely nothing :^). Though reddit searches do yield plenty of results (among other sites).
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.
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.