It was a bit, I understand that being suspicious of everyone isn't exactly good, I'm not really putting the thoughts in my head into words very well at the moment. I'm far too suspicious of people, and I do get paranoid even irl, but with just cause really, for reasons both online and irl, which I don't really want to go into, but you probably realise what I mean.Originally Posted by Niall!
It's ok, I should have made that clear really. The other thing which raised questions was that everyone says I look really young in my profile pictures (and irl). Even when I was under 18 I was receiving similar requests... the internet makes it too easy for paedos these days. Especially with the amount of 'pedobear' jokes... making it seem funny to be a padeo... which it REALLY isn't.
View Poll Results: Keep Habbo Open or Shutdown?
- Voters
- 161. You may not vote on this poll
Results 601 to 610 of 2344
-
13-06-2012, 02:45 PM #601
-
Everybody is a bit paranoid online so it's ok. I'm just reaffirming the line needs to be set between normal adults using websites they grew up with and people with impure intentions. Originally Posted by lawrawrrr
Do remember that not everyone is in clue with the law. If for example you were 16-17 at the time you were receiving these requests and therefore above the legal age of consent then it doesn't surprise me. However a lot of people aren't aware of the fact that any nude photos must be of people aged 18 and above. Just remember that, as I said there is a very fine line.
Click the image.
-
13-06-2012, 02:55 PM #603
Snowstorm's chat is also muted
-
13-06-2012, 02:56 PM #604
We're in page 4 of the Daily Mail and Page 8 'i'
-
13-06-2012, 02:57 PM #605
Yeah of course it does. Who's right is it to set that line though? I'm contradicting myself here (I always do) but if Person A says 'I'm 18' and then progesses to cyber with Person B who's actually over 18, is the Person B to blame? They didn't have impure intentions, just wanted to get their jollies. Originally Posted by Niall!
Sex laws - especially pertaining to the internet should be better published IMO, even I wasn't sure what the legal age was for things to be honest.
-
13-06-2012, 03:03 PM #606
Anyone fancy taking a photo of the newspaper articles and post them here? I'd be quite interested in having a look since i can't get a newspaper atm.
Also, is the hotel still muted?
-
13-06-2012, 03:05 PM #607
@Intersocial; had pictures earlier in another thread from the mail and independent! Originally Posted by Mark
yes it is
-
13-06-2012, 03:05 PM #608
-
Heyyy, so apparently like others, I saw all this on the news (originally BBC to be precise).
Can we be honest, this sort of thing was always going to happen eventually. Habbo, and Sulake, have been making the game more provocative (am I right in saying you get bikinis and stuff now?) I mean, obviously I realise that under normal circumstances that does not matter. However, when you have people wearing as little 'pixel clothing' as possible in 'strip clubs' it is a fairly serious issue. It DOES invite paedophiles, but then having said that I honestly cannot see why Habbo is any worse than the likes of Facebook - in fact I would have said that Facebook is far worse on the basis you can see at least two photos of any person you feel like, possibly even more. I still don't understand what the idea was behind the removal of 'bobba' - not only was it a recognised part of the game, but it also provided some foam walls for the younger age groups on Habbo, meaning they didn't see explicit language - yeah, sure you could be mega cool and put a dot in the f word, but in general people didn't. What I REALLY cannot understand is why people are still logging on to it - I mean there is NO point in standing in a room holding a torch, are people really that addicted to find it fun?
Another point, is yes, Channel 4's report is incredibly bias. But that is ALWAYS the case with the media! They need to sell stories, of course it was bias. The fact that some users are saying how sickening that is is absolutely absurd. The only people anyone should be turning at is Sulake themselves. Channel 4 should NEVER have been able to find all these rooms, such as 'strip clubs' and 'gay, bi lez bars' - that is simply not something that should be part of an online world built for (primarily) young teenagers. Sulake have failed massively, and from what I have heard (but not experienced) the moderation has gone downhill dramatically since all the cost-cutting. The place where Sulake went wrong, was actively encouraging flirting - I mean, it doesn't take a genius to work out that it WILL cause uproar sooner or later.
My third paragraph is dedicated to parents. With all due respect, no ones parent should be shocked by this. In fact, a childs parent is - in my opinion - totally inadequate if they fail to notice what their child is doing online, for what are generally extended periods of time. Sulake know as well as anyone people under 13 use the website, but in fairness if someone goes on under that age IT IS NOT THEIR PROBLEM. They clearly state in the ToS that you need to be 13, and they can't really stop everyone under that age getting on. I mean, didn't/isn't facebook (used to be) 13+?
Another point I would like to make, is I am surprised channel four's report stopped where it did. What about the online gambling of what is POTENTIALLY real money? In fairness, I always liked this and made a profit in real cash in the end. But it is simply ludicrous that people under 18 were ever allowed to actively gamble, right under the eyes of the moderators. Gambling is illegal in the UK for U18's, and for a damn good reason. It takes one hell of a lot of responsibility, and can also be hugely addicting - especially for a child who has never experienced the thrill before.
Anyway, off down the gym so stopping there
-
I can't believe this is still going on.. the management are awful!
Posting Permissions
- You may not post new threads
- You may not post replies
- You may not post attachments
- You may not edit your posts