That’s not what this is about. Omegle wasn’t following the regulations we already have, and therefore didn’t get the benefits of protection the other sites do:
In the US, social platforms are often protected by Section 230, a broad act that shields them from liability for the content their users post. But the judge in A.M.’s case found last July that Omegle’s design was at fault and it was not protected by Section 230: It could have worked to prevent matches between minors and adults before sexual content was even sent, the judge said.
That seems like a bullshit judgment given the current state of ID verification in the US. The government needs to either pull the trigger and implement a national ID system that sites can poll for age verification or stop playing this fucked up game of liability whack a mole. Section 230 is clearly too vague and useless to be actually helpful.
That’s not what this is about. Omegle wasn’t following the regulations we already have, and therefore didn’t get the benefits of protection the other sites do:
Well, the hard part is determining if declared age was authentic.
What was the declared age?
That seems like a bullshit judgment given the current state of ID verification in the US. The government needs to either pull the trigger and implement a national ID system that sites can poll for age verification or stop playing this fucked up game of liability whack a mole. Section 230 is clearly too vague and useless to be actually helpful.
OK that makes sense.