Going after the abuser... of course.<p>Going after a video chat application because it is unable to provide personalized human monitoring for every conversation, is insane.<p>Meanwhile no doubt a dozen competitors just got a boost in traffic.
It never ceases to disturb me when an individual expresses pride in censoring something legal out of existence. This isn't an isolated case either, there are numerous individuals, deserving of even less sympathy, engaged in the gleeful destruction of the web and net neutrality.
In case anyone is interested, Leif Brooks made a statement after the verdict, directly on the homepage:<p><a href="https://www.omegle.com/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://www.omegle.com/</a>
Interesting, product liability suits will cause app operators to actually respond differently, instead of ignoring the suit hoping it goes away under section 230.<p>I think this more likely gets Congress to expand section 230 to improve the shield, before working on the exceptions again
Never realised that Omegle had become a platform for the creeps. She sued for $22 million. I don't see anything heroic in that, despite her tragic circumstances. But I really wonder what the authorities where doing - if paedophiles were using the platform, sounds like it would have been easy to identify and trap them.
Why are her parents not being mentioned for letting their 11 year daughter on the internet unsupervised? Especially on Webcam.<p>Three parties should be involved here and the parents are one.
Well done lady. Shooting the messenger is always the easiest. Good luck doing the same for plethora of alternatives as they won't give a damn about your sob story.