FishFace @ FishFace @lemmy.world

Posts

0

Comments

345

Joined

2 yr. ago

Contemplating existence

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.

If you want to challenge me on that then go for it.

I'll respond after you reply to my question.

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.

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.

I remember looking into the situation with non-destructive editing about... 20 years ago. I wonder how long it's been a desired feature!

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!

If you're hosting it, prepare to get sued out of existence!

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.

Statement by Leif K-Brooks:

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.

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:

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?

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.

No, I am aware that they’re sadly the majority. Hence why I specifically said “anyone who cares enough to know better”

I see, I thought you meant by that "anyone who knows about what Google is doing with personal data".

“terminally online” (which is a slur invented by the wilfully ignorant to denigrate people with different interests and priorities than them, no matter how much you try to reclaim it)

I use it self-deprecatingly. Calling it a "slur" is overblowing it, and even though it's used as an insult - I don't care. To be insulted by someone I have to value the person's opinion.

If not for near-monopoly market share and therefore everything being integrated with and “optimised” for both, nobody who cares enough to know would use that crap willingly.

Chrome built its market share on desktop up over many many years.

I also think you're underestimating the number of people who couldn't care less if a company harvests their data for ad personalisation - by this point the majority of people understand Facebook's business strategy, but they still have over a billion users. The preferences of us terminally online folks are not the preferences of the population at large.

Notable exception which must be mentioned is Facebook/Meta: their AR/VR plan is one gigantic moonshot. Whether it will pay off remains to be seen, and if it doesn't then obviously the thousands of people employed in that division won't be able to find a home in WhatsApp or whatever.

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?

It doesn't really make sense to have inheritance tax on the crown estate, thought it could have done on the Duchy of Lancaster.

It's been a long time since I watched it so you'll have to enlighten me.

You can consider me a Firefox fanboy if you like - I certainly prefer it to the alternatives. Firefox made a bad decision to follow Chrome, and then Chrome made it event worse, so I don't think the fanboys will be moved from their support when the alternatives are worse.

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.

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.