Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Social Networks Communications

The Surreal World of Chatroulette 151

Hugh Pickens writes "The New York Times reports that Chatroulette, the social Web site created by a 17-year-old Russian named Andrey Ternovskiy, drops you into an unnerving world where you are connected through webcams to a random, fathomless succession of strangers from across the globe. The site activates your webcam automatically; when you click 'start' you're suddenly staring at another human on your screen and they're staring back at you, at which point you can either choose to chat (via text or voice) or just click 'next,' instantly calling up someone else. Entering Chatroulette is akin to speed-dating tens of thousands of perfect strangers — some clothed, some not. You see them, they see you. You talk to them, they talk to you. 'It's very strange, and not just because you are parachuting into someone else's life (and they yours), a kind of invited crasher,' writes Nick Bilton. 'It is also the eerie thrill of true randomness — who, or what, will show up next?' The Web has long allowed anonymous conversations among strangers. Text-based chat rooms are rife with deceit — people pretending they are someone else. Video makes this harder — even if you're wearing a mask. 'From my experience on the site, echoed by those I've spoken to, it seems as if 90 percent of users are genuinely looking for novel and unexpected conversation,' add Bilton. 'The rest — well, let's just say they have debauchery in mind.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

The Surreal World of Chatroulette

Comments Filter:
  • Hum. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by bbqsrc ( 1441981 ) on Sunday February 21, 2010 @09:15AM (#31217850) Homepage
    While this sounds interesting, I believe that somebody has finally found an even more useless form of social networking. A standing ovation for him indeed.
  • Cue the spam (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Opportunist ( 166417 ) on Sunday February 21, 2010 @09:19AM (#31217860)

    "Hey you! I got cheap Viagra for you! And I don't even have to spell it in funny ways!"

    "Hey sweety, I'm naked. Yes even from my waist down. Can't see it? Come to my website and you can, you can even buy these panties I just took off (swirls panties around finger)"

    And I'm pretty sure the pennystock- and late-president's-ransom spammers might come up with something really cool where you get to see a quick action movie and the last words of someone being shot right in front of you is the stock to buy or someone you PLEASE contact quickly.

  • Absolute Nonsense (Score:4, Insightful)

    by TheRaven64 ( 641858 ) on Sunday February 21, 2010 @09:30AM (#31217924) Journal

    Text-based chat rooms are rife with deceit — people pretending they are someone else. Video makes this harder — even if you're wearing a mask

    You can lie just as effectively in video chat and in text chat about everything except your appearance. All this quote tells us is that the person who wrote it considers physical appearance to be the most important attribute. I think this says a lot more about the writer than the text chats. The person on the end of a video chat can still be lying about their occupation, hobbies, age, even location. If they're wearing a mask, as he suggests, they can be lying about just about anything except their weight (and possibly even that if it's a close-up).

  • Re:WTF! (Score:3, Insightful)

    by bmo ( 77928 ) on Sunday February 21, 2010 @09:48AM (#31218028)

    >My concern is about pedophiles

    Then you're looking in the wrong direction.

    Most child abusers are directly related.

    Pedophiles that are a thousand miles away are not the problem.

    --
    BMO

  • Re:WTF! (Score:4, Insightful)

    by bmo ( 77928 ) on Sunday February 21, 2010 @10:08AM (#31218168)

    I have the sneaking suspicion that you are a troll instead of simply misinformed, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.

    "To Catch A Predator" is not informative. It's not reality. It's a skewed picture of reality, because sensationalism sells.

    Date rape is more prevalent.
    Sexual abuse by those with "power" over kids is more prevalent, c.f., Boston Diocese and Irish Catholic Church sex scandals (and that's just the tip of the iceberg).
    Abuse by a relative is more likely than you think.

    But the last bit never gets much play in the news, because it gets hidden away, because nobody listens to the kids it happens to.

    But hey, what do I know. Go ask a social worker or child advocate. Stop watching so much Teevee. It's bad for your brain.

    --
    BMO

  • Re:Hum. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by bbqsrc ( 1441981 ) on Sunday February 21, 2010 @10:18AM (#31218214) Homepage

    I'm always curious by people talking about "useless forms of social networking". I mean, what's the supposed purpose of social networking sites? Is there a fixed goal? A constitution? Should we measure a social networking site by how many jobs it fills, or how many dates are had through it?

    As I see it, there are people, and they chat. That's social. That's the essence of humanity.

    How can you get any more, or any less, useful than that?

    In summary: what forms of social networking do you consider "useful", and why?

    The types where actual interaction occurs between two or more human beings with a common understanding of some sort. My understanding of social networking involves some kind of game of watching your number of friends increment.

    Basically, I feel social networking destroys the essence of communication: a wall of text, with a photo next to it, passing comment of amusement about a "how long is your dong" survey and seemingly nothing more. I find it hard to believe a real relationship can develop through such a medium.

  • Re:WTF! (Score:3, Insightful)

    by bmo ( 77928 ) on Sunday February 21, 2010 @12:32PM (#31219044)

    >No, the internet is not a baby sitter, but I am the one who showed them slashdot.

    Let me clue you into something:

    If it's in the New York Times and it's Internet related, it's no longer news. Associating the any internet phenomena with sexual assault is not helpful, because even in your own article you just posted, I will bet you that the *vast* majority of those sexual assaults are between people who know each other in real life and would have happened with or without the Internet.

    You cannot "protect" your kids from the Internet. They will see stuff you don't approve of at friends' houses. They will see stuff you don't approve of while at the Library. They will see and do stuff in real life that you don't approve of. The only thing you can do is to teach common sense, and better yet, maybe even enroll them into a self-defense or martial arts course if Alaska is the "rape capital of the US."

    Enrollment in a self defense course is useful. Getting all excited over perceived threats is not.

    If you wrap your kids in a cocoon, you are doing nothing but harming them. The kids who grow up that way do not learn any coping skills whatsoever.

    --
    BMO

  • Re:WTF! (Score:4, Insightful)

    by martas ( 1439879 ) on Sunday February 21, 2010 @12:38PM (#31219080)
    you son of a bitch! i lost some precious tabs because of that. (porn, mostly. but still, i worked very hard to find them...)
  • Re:Hum. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by X0563511 ( 793323 ) on Sunday February 21, 2010 @02:18PM (#31220210) Homepage Journal

    I wouldn't. The /b/-tards over on 4chan have known about chatroulette for a while and frequently abuse it.

  • Re:Hum. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by demonlapin ( 527802 ) on Sunday February 21, 2010 @04:48PM (#31221724) Homepage Journal
    Social networking is a way to keep in touch with all those people you knew in high school or college as you drift through life. It's actually pretty cool, as I get to see what happens in the lives of people that would otherwise have fallen off my mental map. And the Rolodex effect is great - those people update their own addresses and phone numbers as they move.
  • wow, flashback! (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Tumbleweed ( 3706 ) * on Sunday February 21, 2010 @05:03PM (#31221834)

    This reminds me of the beginning of Logan's Run.

All seems condemned in the long run to approximate a state akin to Gaussian noise. -- James Martin

Working...