BBC: The woman who successfully sued the website that matched her with a paedophile explains how she forced the site to close down. ‘Alice’, or A.M. as she was known in court says she feels "vindic…::“Alice” speaks exclusively to the BBC after her successful lawsuit against Omegle forced it offline.
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?
I pasted the content of the article, which is the exact opposite of your claim. So… Care to back up your claim, or are you pulling it out of thin air?
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:
Oh, I see. You’re simping for the owner of the website. Despite the fact that, in the article you posted, it was the police who did all the work and the website owner who did not.
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.
Then why don’t you quote the police, rather than the website owner that you simp for?
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.
You attributed things to two articles that were not in the articles. Good faith? Where?
If you want to challenge me on that then go for it.
I’ll respond after you reply to my question.