This data is scraped automatically and may be incorrect.
Authors
Amanda Hoover, Angela Watercutter, Caitlin Harrington, Morgan Meaker, Jason Parham, Lauren Smiley, K.G. Orphanides, Andy Greenberg, Matt Burgess, Dell Cameron
Omegle had a lot of legitimate uses. It's unfortunate that it was infiltrated by sex predators, scammers and kids who were too young to be there. Unfortunately, I don't think a site like that...
Omegle had a lot of legitimate uses. It's unfortunate that it was infiltrated by sex predators, scammers and kids who were too young to be there. Unfortunately, I don't think a site like that would be able to monitise it to the point of covering the costs of verification and moderation. And so we all lose one on one more potential way to meet interesting people.
The alternative being suggested by most YouTubers I watch who relied on Omegle for content is OmeTV. And part of the reason why is because it's 18+, and requires a Facebook or VK (Russian Facebook...
The alternative being suggested by most YouTubers I watch who relied on Omegle for content is OmeTV. And part of the reason why is because it's 18+, and requires a Facebook or VK (Russian Facebook equivalent) account to use it, which means user age can actually be verified, and bans actually have some weight to them. It also has much stricter rules than Omegle did, and supposedly more consistent enforcement of those rules by moderators too. So I think a safer and more heavily moderated alternative to Omegle can be done, it's just that Omegle was run by a bit of a Libertarian nutjob who didn't really care about any of that (despite the lip service he gave it in his rant when he was forced to shut it down).
I'm not too knowledgeable about the law, so does not having a jury verdict mean no precedent set here? Seems like the victim in the case was under the minimum age to sign up for Omegle. I wonder...
I'm not too knowledgeable about the law, so does not having a jury verdict mean no precedent set here?
Seems like the victim in the case was under the minimum age to sign up for Omegle. I wonder if this will lead to some innovations in age checking for some sites. It's obviously not very effective to have a popup that asks whether you're over the age of 13, then just trust you to answer truthfully. I wonder what the large websites will come up with if there is a significant financial risk to not having good controls to exclude minors.
IANAL but whether a jury is involved doesn't have much to do with whether a case sets precedent or not. In my (limited) understanding, when there is a jury they're there to decide on matters of...
IANAL but whether a jury is involved doesn't have much to do with whether a case sets precedent or not. In my (limited) understanding, when there is a jury they're there to decide on matters of fact, not matters of law, so even in trials with a jury they don't really contribute to the precedent-setting portion -- after all, pretty much no one on a jury is ever going to have the legal background necessary to interpret the law itself! They're there to evaluate the evidence instead.
The real reason this set precedent isn't the lack of a jury trial, but the fact that they settled at all. Settling is essentially the parties involved coming to a private agreement on the matter and doesn't amount to a court decision -- it's called "settling out of court" for a reason -- and if there isn't any decision it can't set any precedent.
I'm honestly surprised Omegle lasted this long without something like this getting it shut down. It was known for this kind of stuff when I was a young teen like 15 years ago.
I mean legal precedent, as in something that a court could use to decide a future case. As far as I can tell, the fact that Omegle settled out of court sets some kind of precedent in a more...
I mean legal precedent, as in something that a court could use to decide a future case.
As far as I can tell, the fact that Omegle settled out of court sets some kind of precedent in a more general sense, as in it may cause some other companies to be wary of getting into similar circumstances, but that doesn't necessarily mean that a judge could use the result of this case to make future decisions.
Sorry, I don't understand your comment then. Could you please explain a little further for me? So are you saying there is legal precedent or no precedent?
Sorry, I don't understand your comment then. Could you please explain a little further for me?
The real reason this set precedent isn't the lack of a jury trial, but the fact that they settled at all ... if there isn't any decision it can't set any precedent.
So are you saying there is legal precedent or no precedent?
Well, that's just confusing then. Could have just said "yes, no verdict, no precedent." Since there was so much explanation, I assumed there was some nuance I wasn't getting. Also, I asked a...
Well, that's just confusing then. Could have just said "yes, no verdict, no precedent." Since there was so much explanation, I assumed there was some nuance I wasn't getting. Also, I asked a yes/no question, and it gets really confusing if there is a typo in the answer that changes it from yes to no. I feel that the intent of the post is only clear if you know the answer. I only said "jury" because that's the kind of trial the article said it would be.
Also, the result of this trial is not the only part, right? Unfortunately, the link in the article doesn't work, but it says that a judge found that Omegle is not protected by section 230 in this situation. Does that constitute some kind of precedent? Or does that not count because this case was ultimately settled out of court?
I'm saying that there is no legal precedent because they settled, but that whether they had a jury trial specifically isn't what's important for setting legal precedent (since the...
I'm saying that there is no legal precedent because they settled, but that whether they had a jury trial specifically isn't what's important for setting legal precedent (since the precedent-setting parts are the things decided by a judge, not the things decided by the jury). In retrospect, kinda unclear, I think I wrote the first paragraph before I'd read the whole article.
I loved omegle when it was purely text base. You would meet so many interesting people.
Omegle had a lot of legitimate uses. It's unfortunate that it was infiltrated by sex predators, scammers and kids who were too young to be there. Unfortunately, I don't think a site like that would be able to monitise it to the point of covering the costs of verification and moderation. And so we all lose one on one more potential way to meet interesting people.
The alternative being suggested by most YouTubers I watch who relied on Omegle for content is OmeTV. And part of the reason why is because it's 18+, and requires a Facebook or VK (Russian Facebook equivalent) account to use it, which means user age can actually be verified, and bans actually have some weight to them. It also has much stricter rules than Omegle did, and supposedly more consistent enforcement of those rules by moderators too. So I think a safer and more heavily moderated alternative to Omegle can be done, it's just that Omegle was run by a bit of a Libertarian nutjob who didn't really care about any of that (despite the lip service he gave it in his rant when he was forced to shut it down).
You weren’t kidding about strict rules, wow.
I'm not too knowledgeable about the law, so does not having a jury verdict mean no precedent set here?
Seems like the victim in the case was under the minimum age to sign up for Omegle. I wonder if this will lead to some innovations in age checking for some sites. It's obviously not very effective to have a popup that asks whether you're over the age of 13, then just trust you to answer truthfully. I wonder what the large websites will come up with if there is a significant financial risk to not having good controls to exclude minors.
IANAL but whether a jury is involved doesn't have much to do with whether a case sets precedent or not. In my (limited) understanding, when there is a jury they're there to decide on matters of fact, not matters of law, so even in trials with a jury they don't really contribute to the precedent-setting portion -- after all, pretty much no one on a jury is ever going to have the legal background necessary to interpret the law itself! They're there to evaluate the evidence instead.
The real reason this set precedent isn't the lack of a jury trial, but the fact that they settled at all. Settling is essentially the parties involved coming to a private agreement on the matter and doesn't amount to a court decision -- it's called "settling out of court" for a reason -- and if there isn't any decision it can't set any precedent.
I'm honestly surprised Omegle lasted this long without something like this getting it shut down. It was known for this kind of stuff when I was a young teen like 15 years ago.
I mean legal precedent, as in something that a court could use to decide a future case.
As far as I can tell, the fact that Omegle settled out of court sets some kind of precedent in a more general sense, as in it may cause some other companies to be wary of getting into similar circumstances, but that doesn't necessarily mean that a judge could use the result of this case to make future decisions.
I also was referring to legal precedent throughout my comment.
Sorry, I don't understand your comment then. Could you please explain a little further for me?
So are you saying there is legal precedent or no precedent?
I'm pretty sure sparksbet just typo'd and forgot a "didn't" in front of "set". The intent is fairly clear from the rest of the post.
Well, that's just confusing then. Could have just said "yes, no verdict, no precedent." Since there was so much explanation, I assumed there was some nuance I wasn't getting. Also, I asked a yes/no question, and it gets really confusing if there is a typo in the answer that changes it from yes to no. I feel that the intent of the post is only clear if you know the answer. I only said "jury" because that's the kind of trial the article said it would be.
Also, the result of this trial is not the only part, right? Unfortunately, the link in the article doesn't work, but it says that a judge found that Omegle is not protected by section 230 in this situation. Does that constitute some kind of precedent? Or does that not count because this case was ultimately settled out of court?
I'm saying that there is no legal precedent because they settled, but that whether they had a jury trial specifically isn't what's important for setting legal precedent (since the precedent-setting parts are the things decided by a judge, not the things decided by the jury). In retrospect, kinda unclear, I think I wrote the first paragraph before I'd read the whole article.
If you had asked someone in 2011 to predict how Omegle would end, this would have been the number one guess.
My question is: how on earth did I never hear about this until now?