Morons at the Daily Mail discover ChatRoulette, hilarity ensues...

[mattx]

Chatroulette: Is new teenage website the most disturbing internet craze yet? | Mail Online

[tech_guy]

Gah, the DM needs jet-washing off the face of the earth. More rubbish in there than my local tip.

[Pete10141748]

1) If you don't want your child being seen online, why give them access to a webcam in the first place

 

2) If your child is under the legal age for the site, why are they on it / why are you letting them on it?

 

3) If you are not supervising your child's online activities and/or exercising the parental controls available then you have no right to complain

 

4) If you have not educated your child about the dangers online and how to avoid them then you have no right to complain

 

5) Everyone with any amount of sense knows the internet is not a safe place; if you let your child wander freely around it, sooner or later they will see something you don't like

 

 

The writer's daughter seems to be the one with some sense in her family when she says "if you dont like something, you just click 'next' and move on'.

 

This is the world we live in now, and for me, the only shocking thing about that article is how shocked that mother/writer appears to be.

 

Do these people live in their own bubble of denial, plainly ignoring the world around them as it changes and then becoming increasingly horrified at how un-horrified our newer generations are by things that overly-horrify the older generations?

 

I mean, is it really such a shocker that younger people these days are much more de-sensitized than even 2 generations ago??? We have to be, to deal with all the increasing amounts of cr@p shoved on us in this world!

[mattx]

1) If you don't want your child being seen online, why give them access to a webcam in the first place

 

2) If your child is under the legal age for the site, why are they on it / why are you letting them on it?

 

3) If you are not supervising your child's online activities and/or exercising the parental controls available then you have no right to complain

 

4) If you have not educated your child about the dangers online and how to avoid them then you have no right to complain

 

5) Everyone with any amount of sense knows the internet is not a safe place; if you let your child wander freely around it, sooner or later they will see something you don't like

 

 

The writer's daughter seems to be the one with some sense in her family when she says "if you dont like something, you just click 'next' and move on'.

 

This is the world we live in now, and for me, the only shocking thing about that article is how shocked that mother/writer appears to be.

 

Do these people live in their own bubble of denial, plainly ignoring the world around them as it changes and then becoming increasingly horrified at how un-horrified our newer generations are by things that overly-horrify the older generations?

 

I mean, is it really such a shocker that younger people these days are much more de-sensitized than even 2 generations ago??? We have to be, to deal with all the increasing amounts of cr@p shoved on us in this world!

 

Just to add my bit:

 

1. You are SLOW [ Daily Fail ] to catch on to this site.

2. teenage website? Who said it's for teenagers?

3. You state yourself that it is not for under-16s, and that there is a report button...So shut the hell up.

4. Any child or teenager is quickly going to get bored of this site, much like most users.

5. OMG! Most of the people you encountered were FOREIGN!

6. Your daugher and her friends weren't shocked? Maybe that's because they know that there are bad eggs on there, so they click past them and move on without writing an 'article' on the issue.

7. The article goes on to talk about completely unrelated issues.

8. What the hell has Ashley Cole got to do with this story?

9. Quote from Fred Wilson (dotcom company guy): 'The internet is this huge network with over a billion people worldwide on it. Chatroulette feels like a cool way to take a quick trip around that network, meeting people and talking to them.' That's not a negative statement, so why even include it. If your going to write biased articles, at least write biased articles that make sense.

10. Chatroulette is rubbish. But shove the Daily Mail where the sun don't shine. I'm surprised they didnt manage to reel videogames into this article too.

[somabc]

After my daughter first told me about it a few weeks ago, I decided to investigate the site for myself - and, even for a technophobe like me, the ease with which I was able to access it was terrifying.

 

I hope she does not have this reaction to all websites.

[Guest Guest]

1) If you don't want your child being seen online, why give them access to a webcam in the first place

 

2) If your child is under the legal age for the site, why are they on it / why are you letting them on it?

 

3) If you are not supervising your child's online activities and/or exercising the parental controls available then you have no right to complain

 

4) If you have not educated your child about the dangers online and how to avoid them then you have no right to complain

 

5) Everyone with any amount of sense knows the internet is not a safe place; if you let your child wander freely around it, sooner or later they will see something you don't like

!

 

1) Because most computers have webcams built into them now, besides, there are valid reasons to have a webcam other than to show your titties on the interwebz

 

2) I was under the legal age when i started drinking, but that doesnt mean my mum let me do it.

 

3) My mum didnt watch me every second of everyday, believe it or not i used to go outside and play football or go for adventures down the woods. Would my mum have not had the right to complain if a paedo had taken me no?

 

4) Most teachers and parents dont know the dangers themselves...

 

5) Yes they will, but in real life kids generally cant walk into a place and be presented with an endless supply of paedos penis's. Parents are still catching up

 

 

Personally i couldnt give a rats ass what i see on the web, infact i dont even see the endless onslaught of "want a bigger penis" & "want to meet girls" etc, but i dont really see what you are all complaining about. All newspapers exagerate, but this article is no worse than anyother, and infact makes a very valid point.

Edited April 26, 2010 by Guest

[LosOjos]

Instead of writing these long, monotnous, useless articles about the perils of the web, why don't papers start helping parents out with actual solutions, such as K9 Web Protection - Free Internet Filtering and Parental Controls Software?

 

It's really a rhetorical question, as papers like the Daily Mail wouldn't have anything to write about if they didn't write rubbish.

[Arcath]

2) If your child is under the legal age for the site, why are they on it / why are you letting them on it?

 

this is my main problem with people whineing about violence in games, "my 11 year old sne was playing MW2, its really violent so no one should play it", its an 18... the censor people have done thier job and given it the highest classification.

 

I mean, is it really such a shocker that younger people these days are much more de-sensitized than even 2 generations ago??? We have to be, to deal with all the increasing amounts of cr@p shoved on us in this world!

 

very true, its also that parents see something like this on the internet get shocked and think that what they just saw was the only nasty thing on the internet

[Fatmas]

"There are too many unacceptable cultural and moral boundaries that are crossed - like random and unpredictable exposure to nakedness - for it to persist in its present state. This brings up interesting questions of governance"

 

I've got an answer, you can't govern the internet. DON'T TRY.

[tmcd35]

Okay so this thread peeked my interest and I logged on to ChatRoullette last night to see for myself what all the fuss is about. Sure enough, this time, the DM has something of a point - with this site that is. I can't say I ever wanted to see so meny 30+ year old men pleasuring themselved in my life, I think I've been scared and mentally damaged by it. Certainly saw enough to realise that this sort of thing doesn't interest me and I won't be going near the site again. Still each to their own - as with anything on the .net - if you like this sort of stuff it's out there for you!

 

But of course the DM made that point within the first paragraph. The rest of the poorly written 5000word essay with nothing more than the usual tripe the DM spout about the evil internet. Poorly made links to other infamous internet grooming stories that bare little or no relevance followed by a call for tighter internet controls. Yawn.

 

I'm sure nothing would please them more a great internet firewall or blighty and a keylogger in every computer making sure you don't stray too far from the realms of what is deemed safe.

[localzuk]

Its hilarious how they focus on the bad aspects of that site, when there are some good aspects too - such as people improvising songs based on what they see etc...

 

The simple fact is, the DailyMail write articles to pander to their market - the technophobe, 'omg immigrants', 'it didn't used to be this bad' brigade. Writing it properly, outlining the dangers and then outlining the advantages and also including details how how a responsible parent can block the site is just not within their market.

 

They like whipping people into a frenzy.

[Rydra]

So, child is tricked, coersed or just plain had a lala-brain-fart moment and does something stupid on the internet, and parents are shocked that their children fell pray to it.

 

On the reverse, child is sensible enough to ignore the stupidity, and parents are shocked that the child is desensitized to the world!

 

So basically children should be not too smart, not too dumb, just the way parents want them.

 

The only way any of us learn, is to experience things and decide and make decisions accordingly. When a negative experience happens, people need to be supported in learning from it, Not wrapped up in warm blankets and cuddled till the "Badness" goes away.

 

And the less said by, and about the daily mail the better. They all too often go by the rules of "Any publicity is good publicity."

[Pete10141748]

Sure enough, this time, the DM has something of a point - with this site that is. I can't say I ever wanted to see so meny 30+ year old men pleasuring themselved in my life, I think I've been scared and mentally damaged by it

 

You knew what the site was, had been forewarned about the content, and you chose to click "next" enough times to see multiple cam's of content. As I said before, from my POV people have no right to complain if they know what they are getting into and choose to proceed anyway

 

 

the DailyMail write articles to pander to their market - the technophobe, 'omg immigrants', 'it didn't used to be this bad' brigade. Writing it properly, outlining the dangers and then outlining the advantages and also including details how how a responsible parent can block the site is just not within their market.

 

Best sum-up of the DM's attitude I've ever read!

[tmcd35]

You knew what the site was, had been forewarned about the content, and you chose to click "next" enough times to see multiple cam's of content. As I said before, from my POV people have no right to complain if they know what they are getting into and choose to proceed anyway

Not complaining and would openly admit stupidity on my part. I was confirming, for myself, that this was the site has to offer, unfotunately it is - I moved on and won't be heading back anytime soon.

[timzim]

For those who can't/don't want to visit the actual site i just found this site which gives a few amusing screenshots of ChatRoulette. Made me laugh anyway.

[tech_guy]

For those who can't/don't want to visit the actual site i just found this site which gives a few amusing screenshots of ChatRoulette. Made me laugh anyway.

 

Lol, hilarious. Thanks for the link. Especially this one:

 

http://s-ak.buzzfed.com/static/enhanced/terminal01/2010/2/2/12/enhanced-buzz-14156-1265131149-7.jpg

[timzim]

That's not GrumbleDook is it?

[LeMarchand]

I mean, is it really such a shocker that younger people these days are much more de-sensitized than even 2 generations ago??? We have to be, to deal with all the increasing amounts of cr@p shoved on us in this world!

 

Like what, exactly?

 

I found the tone of the article typically hysterical (it was the Mail, after all), but they raised at least one valid concern: it is not a good thing that a young girl's reaction to a bunch of men exposing their genitalia is "Oh well, I'll click on until I eventually get someone who isn't a pervert."

Edited April 27, 2010 by LeMarchand
Typo

[mattx]

Lol, hilarious. Thanks for the link. Especially this one:

 

http://s-ak.buzzfed.com/static/enhanced/terminal01/2010/2/2/12/enhanced-buzz-14156-1265131149-7.jpg

 

My god, after a really crappy morning that has cheered me up no end.....Thanks.

[bossman]

@mattx:

 

Where did ya get your catsuit from Matt I want one hehe!!

[Pete10141748]

I mean, is it really such a shocker that younger people these days are much more de-sensitized than even 2 generations ago??? We have to be, to deal with all the increasing amounts of cr@p shoved on us in this world!

 

Like what, exactly?

 

I meant that previous generations (our parents, grandparents etc) never experienced the "online world" that we use, and all the rubbish that comes with it (spam email, unwanted exposure to 'adult' images, constant advertisment for gambling, phising scams, identity theft.....) in addition to all the other stuff that did happen to those older generations when they were young too (war, terror, famine, povety, debt, and so on).

 

All these things are perils of the Internet that most of us here just 'cope' with as part of our life because we are able to just "click next until we find something we like". But these things are foriegn concepts to a large proportion of those older users; it's not suprising that so many people *are* scared of computers/the internet when you see what CAN happen if you arn't careful.

 

 

but they raised at least one valid concern: it is not a good thing that a young girl's reaction to a bunch of new exposing their genitalia is "Oh well, I'll click on until I eventually get someone who isn't a pervert.

 

Would the parents of these children prefer that their child have a nervous breakdown and run crying to Mummy about the "bad man on the internet" every time they see something they don't like? These so-called "young girls" are 16+ in age, by definition they are at least young adults, and are prefectly capable of deciding what and what not to view when online.

 

Personally, if it were my daughter, I'd rather she was able to just say "I don't like that, I'm moving on to another site". I certainly wouldn't be up in arms campaigning for the Internet to be governed because 'oh no my daughter saw a penis her life is ruined'.

 

 

What this whole argument boils down to is whiny nagging moany Mums like the writer of that article wanting to keep their precious 'innocent' child as 'innocent' and protected from the world for as long as possible, a completely idiotic concept if you ask me, wrapping kids in cotton wool and all that.

 

It's not like being able to see people doing adulterated things is not already abundant on the Internet, and yet this article makes this site sound like a brand-new form of perversion so evil it will make your eyes bleed. Google "Cam Chat", I'd wager you get hundreds of thousands of results.

 

These DM-reading/writing types of people only ever think new things are evil.

If it were up to them, we'd all be keylogged, the Internet would only contain their paper's website and sites which they themselves have deemed suitable, we'd only be allowed to browse during set hours, computer gaming would be banned (as everyone at the DM knows, it causes children to become violent offenders), and every precious innocent person under the age of 18 would be kept seperate from the rest of us living in this cruel, cruel world for fear of corrupting their delicate minds.

 

It's all BS. Fact is, any of the 16 year olds who are *legally* viewing the site can also *legally* go and get first hand experience of anything they might catch on the camera. If they are under 16, they shouldn't be on the site anyway.

 

 

Maybe I'm the oddball for not being up-in-arms about it, but I just don't see what the big deal is.

 

And I will always stand by my argument that if you do not apply the parental controls, and/or do not supervise your child online, you have no right to complain about *anything* they do or see online.

Edited April 27, 2010 by Pete10141748

[mattx]

@mattx:

 

Where did ya get your catsuit from Matt I want one hehe!!

 

I got it from the same place you got your gimp outfit from.

[tech_guy]

I've got a few ideas for jokes on ChatRoulette but it's finding the time to do it.

[tmcd35]

I've got a few ideas for jokes on ChatRoulette but it's finding the time to do it.

 

Just remember - if you can get arrested for it, it's not a 'joke'

[tmcd35]

but they raised at least one valid concern: it is not a good thing that a young girl's reaction to a bunch of new exposing their genitalia is "Oh well, I'll click on until I eventually get someone who isn't a pervert.

 

Sounds like a life/relationships lesson right there - keep moving on until you find someone who isn't derranged, a pervert, thinking of murdering you in your sleep, likes wearing bunny slippers, etc, etc, etc....