It was only a matter of time before they were in the news tbh.
Sulake are useless.

It was only a matter of time before they were in the news tbh.
Sulake are useless.
Anyone else having slightly cynical thoughts that they’re waiting for this to die down so that the spotlight is not still on them when they announce mediocre measures that will cost them very little?? I think the mute will continue for a while longer.
@GoldenMerc;Currently, I am unable to confirm a timescale for reopening the conversation function on the site. What I can say is that my employees and the senior management are working closely to ensure that best-in-class moderation and detection systems are in place to create a safer and improved experience for our many responsible users.
mr scutt, doesn't mean it won't un-mute today!
Defiantly. I am sure there's money in their budget to hire some moderators that can be CRB checked and are able to provide actual support for users.
Most likely won't happen though ;P
Yet again putting their profits above the safety of their users.
Im SURE you have better qualifications to handle their budget then they guy doing it now, right? I mean, all companies should start taking advice from random people on the internet, and everything would be fine!
Well, hiring people in the UK on minimum wage with a CRB to work full time would cost a hell of a lot less that what it's cost them in lost revenue from having to mute the hotels globally. It's their own fault.
And not really answering anything. I got bored in the first paragraph "First – on behalf of myself and all my staff in Sulake – I would like to thank the many thousands of users who have remained loyal to the site over the last few days." That's the least of their concerns, get answering questions and sorting yourselves out - and sack Paul LaFontaine, he's am imbesile!
Also, people are still not getting the point.
1. Why is Facebook not getting any bad press?
a) It's had its time and actually has security settings in place. Not forgetting that Facebook covers a mixture of different age ranges, from Teens to Dead.
b) It's a completely different type of service and site to Habbo. Comparing the two is incredibly daft.
2. This article is so bias. I hate Channel 4
Good for you, you've realised what the media does and what shock reports are about. They highlight an issue in the hopes a service will rectify the problems and do what they are meant to do and protect their users.
3. Why should I be denied access because of a select few too stupid to use the service?
a) You're clearly naive and do not know what sort of service Habbo is offering. Yes, the majority of users are innocent, but Habbo is a site for under aged users who shouldn't be accessible to smut. This includes, but is not limited to:
- Features which actively promotes sexual content e.g. Kissing booths, sexy clothing.
- Discussions of an adult nature and being allowed to discuss these things openly with anyone.
b) Look up corporate duty of care. By law, a company must provide a duty of care for all of its customers. It's not a health and safety gone mad principle - it's an ancient, unsophisticated and easy to understand piece of legal literature. When you go to a restaurant, you expect the food to be properly cooked. If it's uncooked, do you simply say to yourself "Oh, I should of been more careful?" No. So why should Habbo users be constantly saying to themselves "Oh, I should be more careful?" Yes, common sense is there for many users who are aware of the dangers of paedophilia and exposure to cyber-sex between two consenting but under aged users, but the duty of care protects users where they cannot protect themselves. It's a secondary measure when the primary measure - common sense - fails.
I would write more but like Google, it will only be ignored by people clueless as to the situation.
Last edited by GommeInc; 14-06-2012 at 02:01 PM.
LEFT
FOM & FOW
If you need me, feel free to PM me here for contact details.
Want to hide these adverts? Register an account for free!