Chatroulette is a new thing, and already building up a fearsome reputation. The main fear seems to be inappropriate sexuality.
For instance, CNN reports in tremulous tones:
The site has been called many things: the new Wild West of the Internet; a speed-dating replacement; a cesspool of porn; a voyeuristic follow-up to Alfred Hitchcock's film "Rear Window"; a way to get people from different social groups to interact.
There's an interesting opposition in cesspool vs... interaction? It's a form of balanced journalism. Note, too, the distancing of sources: "the site has been called."
CBS is more direct. "A pedophile's paradise?"
[I]t's also raising fears that it could be fertile ground for pedophiles, sex offenders and child molesters...
More hedging there, with "it could be."
And:
it seems the site is gaining popularity among teens for its potentially sexually explicit sessions.
Still more hedging, with "seems". And again the old slide between children and teens.
The New York Times at first adopted a curious, worldly tone, then allowed itself one twitch of the disgust nerve:
“Right now it’s kind of like an online ‘Lord of the Flies,’ ”
(thanks to Jesse Walker and Ed Webb; screenshot from Buzzfeed)
Comments