this post was submitted on 22 Nov 2023
86 points (91.3% liked)
Technology
60056 readers
3562 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Next year the city park will be forced to close down after the council was sued for by a woman who was allowed to meet a paedophile in it as a child.
Children need to be taught how to not get abused by strangers offline and online. If they aren't, it's not the fault of the place that allowed them to meet. When I was a child I was using the internet to talk to adults and had a great time. (The adults who had to deal with my crappy attitude before I learnt some netiquette probably had a less great time...)
Taught not to get abused? I think you mean “stranger danger” shit, which is taught but the way you phrased that is disturbing. It’s not a child’s job to “not get abused by ‘anyone’”. And all places in general should probably keep an eye on who comes in and out, except for niche/specialized services like vpns, warez, etc. That’s just called being responsible.
Parks and other ‘loose’ non-stores though shouldn’t be held responsible, I agree.
I just wanted a phrase which encompassed "don't go home with strangers" and "don't send strangers photos of yourself" and all other things which either are, or lead to, abuse.
A very large percentage of child abuse, kidnapping and pedo issues involve the child’s own family. “Stranger Danger” isn’t the solution.
In the very specific set of examples in the above posts, it's basically only "Stranger Danger". It's literally about Omegle.
But I do very much agree with your point when talking in a wider context
deleted
That doesn't have any bearing on a comparison between two different types of "stranger danger".
You kinda sound like the bad guy in monsters inc
It's been a long time since I watched it so you'll have to enlighten me.
deleted
You forget that children can be easily manipulated as their brains are literally not capable of proper judgement in most situations
Mm, I guess that's why the park needs to be shut/we can never let children go there unattended.
deleted
You haven't said why it matters it was privately run.
It matters that it had private rooms, but there tend to be private areas in public spaces like parks too. The analogy actually works much better if the kid's computer is in a public place and they don't have unrestricted access to the internet through a phone - obviously in either case it's harder to abuse someone in secret if you have to take the initial risk of meeting somewhere you could be spotted, and only then move it private.
deleted
He did take action to stop it - he aided in multiple prosecutions. What he didn't do was turn the site into something completely different, with mandatory registration.
deleted
How does that contradict what I said, or else what point are you trying to make?
Even though you're quite sure the site owner needed to do more to stop paedophiles, you haven't said what. Is what you think he should have done to have sacrificed anonymity?
deleted
Statement by Leif K-Brooks:
Example article: https://www.guelphmercury.com/news/crime/guelph-man-can-no-longer-be-teacher-after-child-porn-conviction/article_7b1fca76-cef1-56e5-a9e7-cb9091ac43bb.html
The NCMEC received information from Omegle about the activities of a paedophile and it led to their conviction.
But your quote is not the opposite of my claim. It says that "the site has been mentioned in more than 50 cases against paedophiles." How many of those cases included evidence collected and submitted by Omegle?
Do please answer my question:
deleted
You haven't answered my question. If you dislike anonymity that much, why are you hiding it? It's important because a lot of people, especially on places like this, are fans of anonymity.
If you shout loudly about how awful something is but neglect to mention that your proposed solution is harmful in some other way, then you're being dishonest. Using pointlessly charged language like "simping" just contributes to that.
And in the article, the police would not have been able to do any work if they hadn't been informed with the help of the owner. Your dismissal is backpedaling: you asserted that K-Brooks didn't do anything to stop abuse on the site, but he did, by encouraging prosecutions against people who used the site to commit abuse. You never demanded that he get out there and citizens' arrest the guys himself, because you knew that would be a stupid thing to demand.
deleted
If you want to ask questions you have to at least pretend to argue in good faith: I'll answer as soon as you produce something resembling an answer to mine.
deleted
If you want to challenge me on that then go for it.
I'll respond after you reply to my question.
deleted
I joined Lemmy recently so you have the privilege of being the first person I block. I hope you learn how to have a discussion without insulting people and having a tantrum when you don't like the answers you get. I would've been perfectly happy to discuss how the articles I mentioned led me to doubt the claim you made, but not if you consider yourself above doing your share of the discussion.
deleted
deleted
That's a deeply creepy take
Don't blame the pedophiles, blame the children!
You can still blame the pedophiles while also teaching kids safe internet etiquette so that they don't fall prey to one.
Teaching somebody how to avoid being a victim in addition to punishing offenders is a good take
Uh, since when is it the children's fault if they aren't taught something? I'm blaming the parents!
deleted
FWIW, LWD's ability to click "reply" outran his ability fill those replies with meaningful words, and instead of admitting they can't back up their opinion they're resorting to insults and insinuation.
There are days like these where I’m glad it’s not morons like you who run things because the world would genuinely be an even shittier place with takes like these. Mental gymnastics to blaming children for being abused.
That does not place the blame on the children.
deleted
Why does Omegle being privately owned matter? Does a city council have less responsibility than a private business to prevent harm? Do your parks have security patrolling them? I've never seen that. Was Omegle "full" of perverts, or were there are a handful in comparison to the many ordinary users, but our attention naturally focuses on the aberrant cases?
"club" implies membership, which Omegle didn't have, which is the whole issue, and why I went with a park which anyone can enter without registering, not a club.
deleted
Hmm yes, making sure that parents (or someone else) knows what children are doing online is a good idea...
deleted
You drew a distinction between a park and children doing stuff online (on certain websites) by saying that in a park, everyone can see everyone else (which is not true - there are usually secluded spots in parks). This is no distinction at all if a child's parents knows what they are doing online.
deleted
deleted
You're still replying, mate.
That, in spite of the fact that you seem to have run out of arguments? So replying without contributing... and you're calling me obsessed. k!